This is all we need S.Korea, N.Korea


Is Korea Looking for troubble or something, Or do they know the wests Millitary is to spread out to assit S.Korea if they did attack?

The U.S. military have been manning the DMZ for over 50 years on assignment (ha) from the United Nations - for which the U.S.A. has never been compensated nor thanked.

They will be of course "expected" to retaliate if there is a war on this piece of property as well. I doubt the U.N. will see fit to bolster their numbers - except the South Koreans have been building their military forces under U.S. training. Perhaps that is all needed I don't know.
Just Curious Curiosity....

What would give you the impression that the United States deserves anyone's thanks for having manned the DMZ?

Nobody but me Mikey - nobody but me.

Being posted on a temporary basis in the 50s was on the directive of the United Nations. They have never rotated them out since. It was another "peacekeeping" mission. The U.S. made their choice and agreed to the assignment as yet another result of their ongoing conflict with the Communist nations.
Last edited by Curiosity; Oct 7th, 2006 at 02:27 PM..
Crazy Kim just wants to preserv his regime. He knows he could never win a war. This will end when he gets an agreement with the US not to invade.
#6 (external - login to view)
Archived article on transfer of patrol to S. Koreans in 2004. They have also invented robots to patrol which should be implemented in the next few months


Leadership of Joint Security Area at DMZ transferred to S. Koreans

By Joseph Giordono (external - login to view), Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Wednesday, November 3, 2004 </B>

YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea — In a low-key end to more than fifty years of history, U.S. troops quietly transferred leadership of the security mission at the Joint Security Area to South Korean forces on Sunday, officials confirmed Monday.
The mission handover, long scheduled to occur on Oct. 31, is one of 10 to be transferred gradually to South Korean forces under a plan to give them a greater role in defending their country, officials said.
The handover was in the works for weeks, officials said, and was completed Sunday. U.S. Forces Korea said no formal ceremony was held to mark the mission transfer.
In practice, the handover means the number of U.S. troops working at the truce village of Panmunjom has been reduced from about 220 to around 40, with most of those remaining in an administrative capacity. The Joint Security Battalion, of which those U.S. troops will remain a part, manages security in the JSA, where the armistice agreement ending the Korean War was signed.
For years, U.S. and South Korean troops were responsible for joint patrols along the Demilitarized Zone, which runs the length of Korea and often is called the world’s most heavily fortified border.
But under agreements reached over the past several years, most of those patrol missions have been handed over to the South Korean military. U.S. forces remained at Outpost Ouellette until this week, handing it over as part of the mission transfer.
Outpost Ouellette is about 75 feet from the Military Demarcation Line, which constitutes the two Koreas’ border; observers can see the North Korean city of Kaesong. Presidents including George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have visited the spot.
The JSA also is the site of the infamous “ax murders” in which two U.S. Army officers were hacked to death by a group of North Korean soldiers. The U.S. officers, Capt. Arthur Bonifas and 1st Lt. Mark Barrett, were killed Aug. 18, 1976, as they led a group that was to trim a tree obscuring areas of the JSA.
At least 89 U.S. soldiers died in the 1960s and 1970s from ambushes, downed aircraft, land mines and other actions near the DMZ, Pentagon records state.
Among other military functions the South Koreans will assume are decontamination missions for chemical, biological or nuclear weapons; the laying of land mines; and counter-artillery, South Korean officials have said.

Korea another intervention gone awry.

“In a proposal opposed by nearly all Koreans, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to temporarily occupy the country as a trusteeship with the zone of control demarcated along the 38th parallel.”

I scooped this line from Wikipediea so of course there’s a great deal more involved in the dynamic of the Korean War that demands reflection and analysis but I don’t understand how anyone, American, Canadian Korean, Vietnamese, Haitian, German….anyone could suggest that this situation, which is exactly a copy of every exercise of military and economic domination that has inevitably resulted in festering sores like South Africa, Israel and Vietnam and by all indications so far, Afghanistan Iraq sitting on the precipice of chaos and civl war….

The grandchildren of many nations alive today must wonder about the years of war and suffering that were supposed to be “solved” by tearing their nations apart!

In the twenties… “Trianon, Treaty of, 1920, agreement following World War I in which the Allies disposed of Hungarian territories” …precipitated… “The internal chaos in Hungary that followed the dissolution (191 of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy delayed the signing of a peace treaty with the Allies of World War I (excluding the United States and Russia, who did not sign it). The treaty, signed on June 4, 1920, at the Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, France, reduced the size and population of Hungary by about two thirds, divesting it of virtually all areas that were not purely Magyar.

Every time the bully on the block whether that’s England, Russia, America, France Spain or anyone else with the military and economic superiority of the time acts, for what may appear at first blush to be with good intentions inevitably end up inviting war both civil and potentially world wide, by marching in and slicing up another nation to satisfy some agenda (usually as part of a “peace-plan” and then returning home where no-one has ever attempted a similar kind of action….

Hindsight is thankfully 20-20….or is it?

How many times has humanity revisited global hostilities that involved some nation with the “good intentions” of interceding to bring peace or stability (highly questionable in the majority of circumstances) that results in massive civil wars, invasion and years of hunger and poverty suffered by the nation’s people who are supposedly the recipients of all this good will and altruism?

And powerful nations continue to follow this policy despite a lengthy history of abject failure!

If your solution to hunger poverty and oppression is to kill the bastards and transplant your “democracy” and your way of living as the new standard, please tell me where that’s been done successfully?

Answer: It never has been.

It never has been because the fundamental understanding of what’s taking place is obscured by selfish motivations and dynamics that have nothing whatever to do with the altruism of facilitating someone or some nations independent evolution, it inevitably involves posturing before the wolves at the gate or simply as means to rape and pillage the nation at your leisure.

Go look it up and prove me wrong!

Why don’t we begin with Israel…..

The strategy is all wrong because the execution is flawed because it's an act of dissolution not an act that engenders inclusion. There's few statements as conclusive as "You're not capable of taking care of yourself so we're putting you in a home somewhere where we'll take care of you..."

Ask an elderly person or an ill person; A whole nation of people told their not capable of solving their own problems and instead require the big bad POLICEMAN standing on the porch remain vulnerable and never evolve.

Just thought I'd throw out another idea...

I'd revise my analysis if somone would play a little thought game and answer a question...

Now no one in their right mind would want to join Mexico, that's as preamble of course, nothing against the people of Mexico but the suffering that's about to break on that nation as it runs out of the little water it has is a bleak future indeed...

Nonetheless, if say Texas or New Mexico and Arizona decided for some "good" reason that they'd rather pay a federal authority in Mexico city than the one in Washington, would America sit back and watch as Cuba, or Spain or some other military stationed their troops in those states as a "police action" ostensibly to prevent armed hostilities???
Perhaps people would read your posts more often and debate them,if you would not use the large letters. I,personally,do not bother with people who feel they must shout to get thier point across,in type or in voice. I am sure there are many others that feel the same way.Alas,you probably are just a youth,maybe 17 going on 18.
I've been trying to figure out how to change font size now for a while and can't seem to get this box to cooperate...

I haven't seen twenty for over thirty years...sorry I don't have enough fingers and toes to illustrate for you..
So mike are you saying we arent Protecting the South Koreans? You know thye wanted us to help them IN the Korean war right? what are you getting at?
What I'm getting at is, do you think it's reasonable after 55 years of armed policing in the DMZ that the action taken there resolved anything? Is it enough that a presence of the American military (they're all over the world by the way) may have controlled local violence, I don't know but is there anything you'd like to say with respect to the enthusiasm for building a nuclear deterrent as outgrowth of having been "controlled" though the threat of greater violence for all those years?

Is the only alternative that the best minds (those elected to office...) can come up with is extending and prologing the hostilities until someone buys or builds a weapon of mass destruction to parry that threat of greater violence...

Poor statesmanship, poor foresight, poor planning and although I'd have to research a bit I suspect, that there have been and are "other reasons" for dispatching America's military diplomacy around the world in some fifty or sixty odd countries that have been the source of news revolution and embargo for ever...
Do you think that U.S. presence in Iraq will be over before half a century has passed or do you think it appropriate that the U.S. "police" Iraq and "manage" their oil reserves?
so it's possible that these guys were going fishing? and of course everyone is assuming (because the news people make it that way) that world war 3 is about to start.
Sorry there Herm ya lost me.....
In the article, it was said that the guys who "started" the skirmish had crossed into the demilitarized zone. It also said that they had maybe gone fishing, or might have been trying to start a war. Now consider this DMZ has been there for a long time, people probably pretty used to it, and the soldiers a little lax, maybe they've even gone fishing there before, but NOW the eyes of the world are pointing that way again so when they went on their fishing trip someone decided ok lets make this into a news article and the rest is over-dramaticised news articles. Maybe this happens every week anyway, maybe this is normal life round there.

I guarantee this is more about what the press are trying to tell us than what's actually happening between the koreas

edit: here's the relevant part "It was unclear whether the North Korean advance, which occurred shortly before noon near a stream, was intended as a provocation, an official at South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said on condition of anonymity, citing official policy. No one was hurt and the North Koreans retreated. "It's not clear whether it was intentional or whether it was to catch fish," he said, adding that four of the North Koreans were unarmed and the fifth carried a rifle."
Yes the enthusiasm the media worldwide have been whipped into to deliver "breaking news" of entirely little or no substance of any kind is in my opinion simply a casualty of the times in which we live. The first thing to go is "truth"....
let us all mourn the truth: a minutes silence please


The U.S. military have been manning the DMZ for over 50 years on assignment (ha) from the United Nations - for which the U.S.A. has never been compensated nor thanked.

They will be of course "expected" to retaliate if there is a war on this piece of property as well. I doubt the U.N. will see fit to bolster their numbers - except the South Koreans have been building their military forces under U.S. training. Perhaps that is all needed I don't know.

Boo hoo.
Crazy Kim needs some red BONO glasses to better see what he should aim for...

he could be useful, just feed thepower mad nut case some tid bits...

say a few leaky submarines, and then have him turn the quaint little nukie on the Afgan mountain range...

that's what l call a UN negotiation.

Similar Threads

Talk about N Korea
by I think not | Jul 13th, 2006
N.Korea Agrees......
by Ocean Breeze | Oct 19th, 2005
Korea vs. USA - worldcup
by SumOfAllFears | Jun 10th, 2002
no new posts