That's a good one Turk. Some college students I know would say that about us. You're right on point!

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

I think you could make a similar case for many governments regardless of their platform. Korea being a relatively small country can not absorb the various corruptions and schemes as well as a large country. If they asked us to leave under the current circumstances, being somewhat the democracy they are, I believe they would face a great possibility of a breakdown in their democratric reforms.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

Well the Korea situation exists in tandem with a Japanese sentiment for us to leave not only Okinawa but eventually the entire nation. Where would our presence be? Guam? Sure, but that is far away to actually be considered a presence.

So we end up with the ROK beefing up their forces to make up for the absent US forces. Japanes see this as an afront to their own security and use this and the reckless DPRK as a calling to change their Constitution. The US warns Japan less cooperation if such a thing happens... Japan only invites the US to leave. Suddenly (~2025) we have an unstable DPRK, a beefed up ROK and an uneasy Japan with a new offensive force. All while the Chinese, now just a few billion dollars away from catching the US in GNP, find themselves with a boiling pot on their front doorstep.

And the US can only watch with 20,000 marines from Guam.

__________________
JIMMY JOE

A breakdown in the political system will be the least of their problems.

Question: Would GM have come to Korea and bailed out the auto manufacturing arm of Daewoo if it thought the place was unstable or unsafe?

Answer: No.

The reason foreign investment has flowed into Korea is that foreign investors feel it's a safe place to invest.

Question: Why don't companies invest in African nations at a greater rate?

Answer: Instability.

If the US military pulls out - so does most of the foreign capital. When the foreign capital leaves - the standard of living goes down. Way down.

Thats is true, good commerce does demand a perception of stability. I would think that it is mainly the promise of a massive air attack, (and possible missle attack), on the north that is the primary deterrent. The numbers of boots on the ground we have in the south is really a drop in the bucket compared to the norths standing army. Given the current administrations policies I don't think there will be any more but, most likely less U.S. troops in the ROK at some future point. South Korea does already have quite a substantial military, ground and air. My view is that I can't seen Japan being intimidated by a strong ROK military. Going along with Willy's view of economic ties, I believe the ROK has many economic ties with Japan. Of course, there is no crystal ball to see how the future could unfold. Many things could happen to change the status quo at any given time.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

[quote=willy]Question: Would GM have come to Korea and bailed out the auto manufacturing arm of Daewoo if it thought the place was unstable or unsafe?[quote]

Your parallel with Africa is respected, but not completely accurate. While foreign investment has not met its fullest potential, Africa provides the greatest profit opportunity in the world. In addition, GM produces the HUMMER in Africa for export to Europe and Asia.

I would argue that business in a place like Nigeria or South Korea is all about infrastructure, market place and risk-reward management. While there is little available infrastructure available to produce vehicles in Nigeria (South Africa produces 80% of Africa's vehicles) and a relatively small marketplace, you won't find GM there. But you will find Exxon, BP and other oil corporations in Nigeria because there is huge profit to be made despite its instability.

I am sure GM understands the mid- and long-term risk in doing business in South Korea, but the immediate and potential long-term profits are judged worthy of such risk.

__________________
JIMMY JOE

To simply state that GM produces the HUMMER in Africa is a little mis-leading. It produces the HUMMER in the country of South Africa - the only westernized nation on the continent, and basically the only country in Africa that has well-developed financial, legal, communications, energy, and transportation sectors, not too mention an active stock market.

Korea was called the Hermit Kingdom in the days before the Dutch succeeded in trading with them. They had learned early on that foreigners usually had ulterior motives in attempting to establish relations. They avoided contact with outsiders for many years. When the Japanese invaded and took over the country, from 1910 until 1945, all of Korea (Before there was a North and South) was essentially a part of the Japanese Empire. Korean language was forbidden. All schools were Japanese. All flags were Japanese. Koreans were not allowed to hold important jobs, not even to be Engineers on the trains.
When World War 2 ended, the Japanese were moved out, and the Russians and the U.S. divided Korea, creating the DMZ we have today. After 35 years of domination, North and South Korea were set afloat to begin again.
The Russians ran the Government in the North, and the U.S. took over administering the South. No leaders had been allowed to exist among the Koreans for 35 years. Now they were dominated again, this time again by foreigners. Military foreigners. Five years passed quickly. The Russians established communism in the North, and The U.S. and U.N. set up a democratic regime in the South. It was 1950, and on June 25th a civil war broke out between the North and South. Disaster remained the Korean's fate
for 3 more years. Transition from military domination to civilian government was not without incident over the ensuing years. The Korea you see today is a far cry from what it was in those days. Is it time to leave them to their own defense? Maybe.

Even in the face of the fairly recent and brutal history of Korea, (recent in historical terms), it's my perception that the younger Koreans do not have the same appreciation of the previous hard times as their parents and grandparents have. I would even say that the history of Korea from 1900 through 1981 is to the young South Korean a lesson in school and old persons talking around the family dinner. The generational disconnect between actual events and being taught about the events second or third hand is one that effects all societies. It is the only way to grow, socially speaking. There is simply not the same hatred for the Japanese among new generations of South Koreans as there was among their parents and grandparents. The North Koreans are a much different story of course.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

Your perception of the younger generation is correct, and is true of most all younger generations including ours, I believe. Our children generally draw a blank in geography, and studied history only enough to pass the test. Hopefully there will be some scholars arise from among the "Nerds" and get into politics! Probably every country has that problem. Is South Korea capable of standing up and maintaining a stable government? Is the communist influence from the North pushing them into accepting friendship and re-unification with a country that has domination of the Peninsula as it's goal? Tune in next week for the next chapter...

If people STUDIED HISTORY and learned from it, we wouldn't be wasting money on lost causes, or giving away our resources overseas when our own country needs to learn that charity begins at home. We need to understand that Allah is NOT the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. That Islam and Christianity cannot live together. That Ishmael came from the illicit union of Abraham and his maidservant. That the enmity between Ishmael and his Christian brothers will exist forever. That it is very true that those who refuse to learn from history will be doomed to repeat it. Our mistakes are coming home to roost.