When I toy with you, the ball is ALWAYS in my court. I can make you blow your top whenever I want, dude.

Slim:

Logical fallacy, huh? Well, I guess it’s easy to be a philosopher king when… Oh wait, you’re neither a philosopher nor a king. Slim, my argument is not a fallacy at all because it gets to the very heart of why Korea should not support the war in Iraq: America’s citizens do not support the war. You have an idiot president, who started a war on trumped up charges and is now floundering around twiddling his thumbs until he can hand over his mess to someone else. The Iraq war is not a situation that more American nor Korean troops need to be in.

Snow:

No. Quotas are not being met, Snow. This is why American soldiers are constantly getting extended deployments and why the bar is always being lowered for who can enlist.

Guys, you don’t like to admit it, but only America is to blame for America’s defeat. Suck it up and move on. Don’t take your anger out on other countries.

I’ve heard the opposite, that they are exceeding quotas, especially in the Marines and special forces.

Or keep up your usual MO of spewing ridiculous bullshit with no regard for facts.

Ball’s in your court, chump.

It does not make sense for Korea to send troops to serve in Iraq given that:

A: The American public itself doesn’t support the war.

B. The war was started against the approval of the U.N. security council.

C. The United States itself will likely pull out soon, which means that all of the so called “benefits” of participation in Iraq will be rendered meaningless.

Looks like two guys forgot to take their Immodium AD this morning.

Ut Videam:

Stop lying. You’ve complained and have supported complaints about Koreans not doing enough for the coalition of the willing in Iraq. Don’t disavow your words, now. Don’t be a quitter and grow some sac.

Hugh:

Yeah, you can criticize Korea for any reason you want, but…don’t you feel the slightest bit embarrassed calling for someone else to do something that you don’t have the balls to do yourself?

As for running for elected office–well, I wouldn’t expect you to run for office, Hugh. That would take ambition, motivation and courage, three things, which, I am sorry to say, you sorely lack.

Yeah, so don’t run for office, Hugh. Just stick to what you know: whining and moaning; you have a lot of practice in that.

Guys, you still haven’t answered my question: Why, given the problems your country has in Iraq, have you not enlisted?

1) “…On April 19, 2004 Zapatero announced the withdrawal of the 1300 Spanish troops in Iraq…John Kerry, then Democratic party candidate for the American Presidency, asked Zapatero not to retire the Spanish soldiers. Some months after retiring the troops, the Zapatero government agreed to increase the number of Spanish soldiers in Afghanistan…to show the Spanish Government’s willingness to spend resources on international missions approved by the UN.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....z_Zapatero

“While in Iraq, Spain lost 11 military personnel: ten killed in insurgent attacks and one in an accident.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ithdrawals

2) “In September 2004, a Spanish battalion (about 800 men) arrived to provide the ISAF Quick Reaction Force [in Afghanistan]…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....e#Timeline

How about a Korean full-strength combat battalion to emulate the Spanish example and serve as a reaction force in Afghanistan? Oh wait, that would presumably go against the promise made to the Taliban recently by the Korean govt representative.

3) Not to mention that the act of deployment itself (and the conduct of routine operations) is inherently dangerous:

“…Of the Spanish deaths [related to operations in Afghanistan], 17 were killed on August 16, 2005 when the Eurocopter Cougar helicopter they were travelling in crashed, two were killed in attacks by insurgents, one died of a heart attack, and one died in a vehicle accident. Another 62 died in a Yak-42 plane crash in Turkey on their way back to Spain from Afghanistan.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....an#Spanish

you’ll cheerfully acknowledge that the US is only doing what it has decided is in its own best interest?

Or is that case somehow “different”?

There’s more than just the “rational” (and cold-blooded) calculation of economic factors that go into a decision to deploy troops into a combat zone (even “non-combat” troops for “reconstruction”, the current preferred choice of the political leadership of most of our “allies”).

Do you honestly suppose that if/when the Korean compound in Iraq comes under attack, a Korean squad leader rallies his men to the fight by shouting “To your places! in order to keep the Americans in Korea, and in defense of the economic interests and future contracts in Kurdistan for the ROK!”

There’s such a thing as “fighting spirit”, and it applies to the soldiers of all nations at all times. Offering up a contingent of soldiers as “hostages” from the ROK for US foreign policy objectives (albeit in the most benign possible sense, it being likely that the “hostages” will only lose at most a year of their lives while being well paid) is hardly calculated to make them feel better about their role as soldiers.

Of course that’s only my humble opinion, in that it’s not based on personal observation of the daily lives of ROK soldiers in Korea. Maybe I’m wrong, and their morale and esprit de corps are of the highest, based on their own personal belief in the importance of what they are doing as explained by their leaders. I wish somebody here would give us a translation of a personal account of their daily lives (if such a thing exists out there somewhere in the media/internet world).

Still, if these soldiers are the precious children of Korea of whom the nation cannot bear to lose even one, it might be “better” (by that I mean “more honest”) to just withdraw them all completely by the end of the year, and announce “mission accomplished” — and for President Roh to tell that fact to President Bush “straight out”, in a “clear” manner.

The U.S. comes to ROK and asks them for troops to join the “Coalition of the Willing.”

ROK, like any nation state, mulls over advantages and disadvantages specific to it’s experience, internal politics, etc.

At the end of the day, ROK agrees to the U.S’s request but sends non-combat rather then combat troops in an area that doesn’t have a history of being all that dangerous.

My excercise in #31 above just illistrates a thougth process at a past moment in time and does not weigh in hindsight on actions already decided upon as Paul in #33 does.

I think you missed my point (or maybe I wasn’t clear enough). The options that I have the the ROK theoretically mulling is before they sent any troops to Iraq. I was merely theorizing, based on a national interest model, the reasoning and rationale for why they would want to send troops and based on the advantages or disadvantages, why they would want to send combat or non-combat troops.