Comments on: Pat Buchanan On US Troops In Korea

By: squatch

squatch — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:10:09 +0000

Richardson:
I see that you’re a respected analyst and I’m just a anonymous layman whose real-life job is in the private sector. One question I want to ask is this: It seems like as long as the Japanese feel secure with the Americans being there, they won’t seriously build up their military. If the Americans fear an arms race, they could just assure Japan protection. If so, Korea can build up their military for all Japan cares. Any reason why America can’t do so, if America is so worried about nuclear proliferation, etc.

Also, China is quickly modernizing and strengthening its military, but it hasn’t really ignited a regional arms race, has it? What’s your take on this?

By: Gerry

Gerry — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:19:43 +0000

In this, I tend to agree with shattered. The US has nothing to gain by staying in South Korea. In fact it may only make things worse when North Korea collapses. The balance of forces in the area will not change dramatically as the US still has Japan, Okinawa and Guam and the 7th Fleet. The adversaries would mainly be China and to a much lessor degree Russia. The same adversaries as Japan. China would not want a nuclear Korea as they would be the second biggest threat to Korea, next to Japan, historically. Korea would have to have to establish its own balance of power in the region by itself. Minus the US. The future of the region would be dependant on the behavior of the poweres in the region and not the US.

By: Richardson

Richardson — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:28:39 +0000

Shattered,
It’s clear we’re at very different levels of understanding when it comes to the Koreas and the big picture of East Asian regional security vis-à-vis U.S. priorities. Perhaps I should leave it at that.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:01:11 +0000

A Listener, Pat can barely get air / print time in the US because: 1. He’s a f’tard. 2. He’s anti-semetic. 3. He’s a racist. 4. He’s a f’tard.

By: shattered

shattered — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:50:52 +0000

“your own analysis as no more than sophmoric at best”

True dat.

“last time I checked neither Pakistan nor Iran are exactly flush with money ”

Yes and North Korea too. But they are not democracies.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:50:30 +0000

Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.

By the way, have we ever had 30,000 troops on the DMZ? Pat “we’re going to return this country back to who it rightfully belongs” Buchanan is a f’tard of the highest order.

By: a listener

a listener — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:00:52 +0000

Can someone here please contact MBC or the Korea Times and ask them to publish Pat Buchanan’s comments and translate them into Korean so Koreans can see that the outside world is looking in to these shenanigans and protests.

By: Gaetano Calabresi

Gaetano Calabresi — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:22:00 +0000

From “shattered”: “The bottom line is that a unified Korea will need to borrow a few billion. They will be broke, and needing money. A nuke race won’t happen.”

That’s funny, last time I checked neither Pakistan nor Iran are exactly flush with money yet the former already has a nuclear arsenal and the latter will likely have them in the short to medium-term future. Furthermore, if according to your reasoning money is the determining factor whether a country will pursue a nuclear arsenal, then please tell how it is that a mendicant and pauper state like North Korea pursued and tested a nuclear weapon?

If you’re going to accuse Richardson of “freshman poly-sci analysis”, then I think it’s more than fair to label your own analysis as no more than sophmoric at best. Bottom line is that your analysis utterly fails to understand the post-colonial mentality of the post-WWII era. Fact is, that postcolonial nations will no longer tolerate an international order that allows a small select group of nations to determine by fiat who does and doesn’t possess the most destructive weapons on the planet.

Add to that the increasing spread of globalized information and transnational institutions and actors, then it becomes clear that money becomes but a mere detail in the grand scheme of things.

By: knickerbocker

knickerbocker — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:05:58 +0000

I dispute the premise of the piece — I think South Korean polls are extremely suspect. I’d put them on a par with human cloning, chaebol tax returns and Ivy League college degrees held by public figured. In other words, HOGWASH.

By: shattered

shattered — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:44:27 +0000

By the way, this is freshman poly-sci analysis.

“Japan must then consider its options in countering an openly nuclear, reunified Korea without USFK. Already building momentum to change its constitution to clarify its military, it’s not inconceivable that Japan would ultimately consider going nuclear to deter Korea. As in South Korea, there is no technological barrier preventing Japan from building nuclear weapons. ”

Korea and Japan go nuke-> then Taiwan, and then China gets angry and WWIII, all because of Dokdo. Weak…freshman poly-sci analysis. Koera doesn’t matter and won’t go nuke. Japan wont go nuke etc etc..

Otherwise a good read.