<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A whole division to Iraq?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/09/14/a-whole-division-to-iraq/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/09/14/a-whole-division-to-iraq/</link>
	<description>Korea... in Blog Format</description>
	<pubDate>Fri,  5 Dec 2008 07:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anticipatory Retaliation</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/09/14/a-whole-division-to-iraq/#comment-148</link>
		<dc:creator>Anticipatory Retaliation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=66#comment-148</guid>
		<description>I think the UN might - as I recall the armistice was signed with the UN (although the US retains operational command).   We might *gasp* actually see a situation in which blatant violation of UN agreements actually carries a *gasp* consequence.


PING:
TITLE: Hushoor's Korea Briefing: 2003-09-16
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
KOREA TOPICS 9/16/03:  NK gulags &#38; SK complicity; 2 great Korea blogs; The Beijing talks in depth; Chinese getting impatient; Opinions on how to deal with North Korea; ROK army to Iraq (maybe); Various items on South Korean politics; Suicide in Cancun;...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the UN might - as I recall the armistice was signed with the UN (although the US retains operational command).   We might *gasp* actually see a situation in which blatant violation of UN agreements actually carries a *gasp* consequence.</p>
<p>PING:<br />
TITLE: Hushoor&#8217;s Korea Briefing: 2003-09-16<br />
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET<br />
KOREA TOPICS 9/16/03:  NK gulags &amp; SK complicity; 2 great Korea blogs; The Beijing talks in depth; Chinese getting impatient; Opinions on how to deal with North Korea; ROK army to Iraq (maybe); Various items on South Korean politics; Suicide in Cancun;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/09/14/a-whole-division-to-iraq/#comment-147</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=66#comment-147</guid>
		<description>The heck with getting a resolution from the UN first. The UN is not going to come to SK rescue if NK attacks.  I say give them a deadline, by  Oct 30 a division from Korea will be in Iraq be it SK or the 2nd ID.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The heck with getting a resolution from the UN first. The UN is not going to come to SK rescue if NK attacks.  I say give them a deadline, by  Oct 30 a division from Korea will be in Iraq be it SK or the 2nd ID.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anticipatory Retaliation</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/09/14/a-whole-division-to-iraq/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>Anticipatory Retaliation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=66#comment-146</guid>
		<description>I'm all for pulling the 2nd ID out of Korea for about 4.2 bajillion different reasons.  And I wouldn't mind our presence in Europe reduced simply to prepositioned equipment.

Except.  (You knew that was coming somewheres)

Deploying troops actively in peackeeping is not at all the same thing as basing them somewhere.  If we start moving bases to Iraq it's simply not a change of mailing address (in the long run) it will simply mean that we're gnawing away at more troops for longer periods and reducing our effective total reserve drastically.

But I think we could still do it with the 2ID.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m all for pulling the 2nd ID out of Korea for about 4.2 bajillion different reasons.  And I wouldn&#8217;t mind our presence in Europe reduced simply to prepositioned equipment.</p>
<p>Except.  (You knew that was coming somewheres)</p>
<p>Deploying troops actively in peackeeping is not at all the same thing as basing them somewhere.  If we start moving bases to Iraq it&#8217;s simply not a change of mailing address (in the long run) it will simply mean that we&#8217;re gnawing away at more troops for longer periods and reducing our effective total reserve drastically.</p>
<p>But I think we could still do it with the 2ID.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/09/14/a-whole-division-to-iraq/#comment-145</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=66#comment-145</guid>
		<description>Amen to your final comment pal.

We should be loading up the trucks, raising the back ramps on the APCs, and forming the road march columns for movement to the nearest ports --immediately.  

I understand one issue holding up the finalization of current plans for movement of installations is who's gonna pay for new facilities (etc, etc)?  The heck with that!

Get the supply sergeants together with their South Korean counterparts and sign over the fixed property.  Add the tab to the $87 billion request for Iraq!  I'll cheerfully vote for my share of the appropriate contribution, from my share of taxes!  Money well spent!

The South Koreans are gonna need their own troops (if they can still summon the will to use 'em).  Ours should be moving out -- now.   

Maybe the South Koreans will throw flowers at us as we leave, to make up for the ones we're not getting in Iraq.  Let's get out on our own terms, before they start throwing denser, missile-like  projectiles...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen to your final comment pal.</p>
<p>We should be loading up the trucks, raising the back ramps on the APCs, and forming the road march columns for movement to the nearest ports &#8211;immediately.  </p>
<p>I understand one issue holding up the finalization of current plans for movement of installations is who&#8217;s gonna pay for new facilities (etc, etc)?  The heck with that!</p>
<p>Get the supply sergeants together with their South Korean counterparts and sign over the fixed property.  Add the tab to the $87 billion request for Iraq!  I&#8217;ll cheerfully vote for my share of the appropriate contribution, from my share of taxes!  Money well spent!</p>
<p>The South Koreans are gonna need their own troops (if they can still summon the will to use &#8216;em).  Ours should be moving out &#8212; now.   </p>
<p>Maybe the South Koreans will throw flowers at us as we leave, to make up for the ones we&#8217;re not getting in Iraq.  Let&#8217;s get out on our own terms, before they start throwing denser, missile-like  projectiles&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
