| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bush finally says it aloud: long term U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea |
| 2007-05-30 |
| President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday. The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years. "The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. One key difference is that the intra-Korean border is so heavily mined and heavily guarded that the area has perforce turned into a wildlife refuge... although occasionally one of the larger animals discovers a mine with a bang! and a spray of pink mist. The Iraqi security situation will settle down considerably when that border thingy is properly set up. I b'lieve another difference is that the South Koreans were not given the option of rescinding the invitation, at least for the first four or five decades. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #12 Call it "suicide by US troops". Ima thimkin' that this is what Islam has wanted all along. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-30 23:21 |
| #11 Also, the better analogy is Skor exactly because we didn't fight in Germany. We will be fighting in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-05-30 23:13 |
| #10 Anonymoose, you're looking for a meaning that isn't there. This isn't intended to be an accurate analogy. It's intended to remind the Norks that we're still there and that we aint leavin. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-05-30 23:10 |
| #9 Though Germany was against a very powerful threat, the Soviet Union, and Iraq will have a Command level HQ, like EUCOM. Skor implies a limited threat, with our forces acting in a defensive, or even just a trigger role. I just don't believe in inferior analogies from this administration. So I really have a suspicion that they said Skor on purpose, to convey a deeper meaning. But what that meaning is, I'm still guessing. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-30 22:02 |
| #8 Germany (and the Soviet threat)has already passed from Demcrats and their cohorts' collective memory. Korea (and the NorK threat) is still there. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-05-30 21:02 |
| #7 I agree with OP ...all three times |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-05-30 20:42 |
| #6 While there hasn't been an active combat in Korea in quite a number of years, there is a constant threat from the northern half of the nation. The threat to Iraq is from its neighbors - Iran, Syria and even Turkey. Just as US troops in Korea were also a threat to China's Taiwan aspirations, US troops in Iraq would be a threat to Iran's and Syria's aspirations in Lebanon and Israel. The long-term presence of US troops would also be a slap in al-Sadr's ugly puss, and would probably lead to his doing something utterly stupid and life-threatening. Call it "suicide by US troops". Just as US troops provided stability in which Korea became an economic power-house, a US presence in Iraq may prove equally as productive for the West in the long run, and a clandestine threat to the mind-control of radical islam. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-05-30 19:24 |
| #5 While there hasn't been an active combat in Korea in quite a number of years, there is a constant threat from the northern half of the nation. The threat to Iraq is from its neighbors - Iran, Syria and even Turkey. Just as US troops in Korea were also a threat to China's Taiwan aspirations, US troops in Iraq would be a threat to Iran's and Syria's aspirations in Lebanon and Israel. The long-term presence of US troops would also be a slap in al-Sadr's ugly puss, and would probably lead to his doing something utterly stupid and life-threatening. Call it "suicide by US troops". Just as US troops provided stability in which Korea became an economic power-house, a US presence in Iraq may prove equally as productive for the West in the long run, and a clandestine threat to the mind-control of radical islam. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-05-30 19:23 |
| #4 While there hasn't been an active combat in Korea in quite a number of years, there is a constant threat from the northern half of the nation. The threat to Iraq is from its neighbors - Iran, Syria and even Turkey. Just as US troops in Korea were also a threat to China's Taiwan aspirations, US troops in Iraq would be a threat to Iran's and Syria's aspirations in Lebanon and Israel. The long-term presence of US troops would also be a slap in al-Sadr's ugly puss, and would probably lead to his doing something utterly stupid and life-threatening. Call it "suicide by US troops". Just as US troops provided stability in which Korea became an economic power-house, a US presence in Iraq may prove equally as productive for the West in the long run, and a clandestine threat to the mind-control of radical islam. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-05-30 19:21 |
| #3 Let me follow up on that: There is some major, major reason he used Skor instead of Germany as his example. But why? He is sending a big-time message but this is about as enigmatic a way of doing it as possible. I'm going to ask around. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-30 17:12 |
| #2 Except in the case of Iraq, we won't be fighting. A better comparison would be with Germany, and it's very interesting why Bush did not use them for comparison. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-30 17:08 |
| #1 However, we were still fighting in Korea in the 60's. It is a nice political device placing the Donks in the position of justifying why they've kept troops in Korea [Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton] and are not for keeping troops in Iraq. I'll enjoy the convoluted rationales that's going to generate. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-05-30 15:44 |