Ah, I see…

#5 Yankeesfan — that “vigourous” comment was made by the Danish prime Minister; I suppose the Guardian felt some sort of journalistic obligation to try and be “even-handeded”, amazing though that may seem for a British left-wing newspaper.

The current center right government of Denmark is a coalition member in Iraq and (I think) has been since the beginning in 2003, in stark contrast to most of its continental NATO neighbors (ie Belgium, Germany, France). Your comment stirred me to finally take a look at the official coalition website, here’s a link as to all of the current smaller members in their particluar multi-national division operational area (central south), headquartered by the Polish:

http://www.piomndcs.mil.pl/index.php?akcja=states

You’ll note that the flag of the Kingdom of Denmark is prominently displayed there (also the flag of Mongolia, specially noted for our host). And this in spite of the recent worldwide ruckus involving the obscure Danish newspaper’s publication of the Mohammed cartoons and the consequent demand in many Muslim countries for copies of the Danish flag — for burning.

I couldn’t find the ROK flag anywhere on the coalition website; I suspect its absence from there to be a matter of special concern for the Roh administration, though if anyone can find anything on the coalition website about the ROK force in Kurdistan, I’d be delighted to be proved wrong. My dial up modem is just too slow for extensive searching.

God bless the Danes, they have ignored the “radical chic” argument exemplified by the “200 Socialist members of the EU” comment in the Guardian article — and on this blog by such comments as the one of William G above.

The Americans are expected to be an endless repository of blood and treasure for other countries’ defense, but it doesn’t seem to be reciprocal. I for one think it’s long past time for the US to start applying the principle of “reciprocity” when it comes to being an “ally” — I am as utterly contemptous of “fair-weather” friends, and of “triangulation”, as William G is of the United States of America and its “tributary” states (as he is so pleased to pronounce upon the matter).

#23 AJ: yes, but I took a look at the main coalition web page before linking to that “sub-page” and couldn’t find anything obvious. The “northernmost” multi-national division is currently being run by 25th Infantry Division, and when I followed that link it took me to an extremely slow-loading Schofield Barracks Hawaii) web site with what appeared to be a lot of Hawaii -only material for Division troops.

Tried another search, found some other links referring to a discussion of ROK presence but I was looking for something official. Is there something in Korean, or is the ROK troop presence being kept completely off the “official” radar screen? Take a look if you’re interested, I am, having been enlightened to the specifics of the ROK posture in Kurdistan by GI Korea’s old posts on the subject.

If it’s there somewhere let’s note it, lest we contribute to the gyrations of the “twitching and grunting beast”, insensitive to the delicate feelings of our allies.

“There’s nothing like a siege mentality for providing a diversion from failing policies.”

Do you mean amongst Koreans — or Americans? (Never mind, I think I already know your answer).

Legally, the “war” started in August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US decided to respond (to my regret at the time; I would have let the Kuwaitis, who had previously spurned any formal alliance with the US, to call upon their “Arab brothers” to resolve their problem). Everything else since then has just been a continuation.

From the formal “armistice” that Saddam’s generals signed with Schwarzkopf on whatever date it was (sometime in March 1991) until the US ground attack was renewed in March 2003, the “war” continued. How else can one define flying aircraft over the enemy’s territory, to include occasionally blasting ground targets (with some loss of civilian life) and also an embargo.

We (the US) are still at “war” with North Korea too. The problem is that the ROK (which refused in 1953 to be a party to the armistice!) has now essentially signed its own peace treaty with the North, though diplomatically we seem to insist on playing these games with language.

Unlike in Saddam’s Iraq (and the Dear Leader’s North), the “pricks” in the White House (as you are pleased to call them, do you really think all Americans will casually accept such insults) represent the electoral will of their voters, at least until the time of the next election.

Let’s hope these “prick” voters will soon wake up to reality and call upon their “prick” leaders to similarly sign a peace treaty with the North and then get the hell out of the ROK, lest we get into another “mess” there.

By the way, I don’t acknowledge the “legitimacy” of the UN to tell me (as a US voter) what to do. I am happy though to respond to the conscience of the so-called “international community”, which would undoubtedly wring its hands over the prospect of any renewed war on the Korean peninsula, after 50 plus years of “armistice”.

Again, best way to do that is for the US to leave and let Koreans make their own decisions as to how to run their peninsula. May it soon happen.