''South Korea said April 15 it had vetoed a joint U.S. and South Korean combined forces plan for armed intervention in North Korea in the event of instability there...
...Under a bilateral treaty, the South Korean military comes under U.S. command only in times of war.
Analysts said the U.S. military may have wanted control of South Korean forces to handle massive disruption envisaged by the potential collapse of impoverished North Korea, which has been in a standoff with the outside world for more than two years over its nuclear weapons drive.'' From: South Korea Scraps U.S. Military Plan on North Korea.
So how come South Korea doesn't want to give George Bush possible control over their forces? Might they be considering his track record as commander in chief with his own American forces? Consider what the American people think of Mr. Bush's records as a military leader:
''CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 1-2, 2005. N=1,040 adults nationwide. MoE +/- 3.
''Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?''
Approve 43 percent
Disapprove 54 percent
Unsure 3 percent
''All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?''
Worth Going To War 45 percent
Not Worth Going To War 53 percent
Unsure 2 percent
''Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?''
Yes, Misled 50 percent
No, Did Not 48 percent
Unsure 2 percent
Polling data from: CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 1-2, 2005.
Wow, can AMERICA follow the lead of South Korea and make arrangements so that Bush can no longer get control of OUR armed forces either?
Article comments
1 - RJ
The South Koreans will be BEGGING for our help the second North Korea begins firing artillery shells at Seoul...
2 - SFC SKI
Sorry, BTP, you're late to the party, again. South Korea is in such deep denial over its 'sunshine policy' in gaining real headway with North Korea that they will go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of war preparations.
So now, South Koea doesn't want to pressure North Korea, China doesn't, and Japan can't project power. Russia is staying out of the way, and the UN sees no problems worth addressing.
Any practical suggestions?
3 - Marc
BTP bloviating as usual. As one who spent 13 years of my 20 in the Navy training with the SK forces I can assure you that every joint training done between the US and SK is done under US command.
I can also tell you with complete confidence the SK military couldn't start a good arson fire in a match factory.
Period. If you beleive anything coming out of SK to the contrary go ahead. But that wasn't the point of the post was it? It's just another cheap attampt to bash Bush.
4 - Big Time Patriot
Hmmm, so 50% of Americans believe our President misled us into a war while only 48% believe he was not just being "slick" Georgie...
But some people still can't believe the President has any faults. Sounds like we got some "dead-enders" here.
Interesting thing to say that "South Korea is in deep denial", I can say the same thing about many Republicans.
As far as a practical suggestion, I think the world is already starting to take steps on their own. There are signs (such as India's agreements with China, and yes, this example of South Korea stepping away from the US) that the world is starting to disengage with American foreign policy. When the Bush Administration feels that it doesn't need to get any international agreement for things, well, surprisingly enough, that does NOT increase the amount of international agreement they will get.
Of course, historically America has had no signifigant allies and has always been unpopular in the world. Oh wait, that isn't "historically" true, it's only presently true. AND we have achieved this status in only a few short years after having the worlds sympathy and support after 9-11. Hmmm, it sounds like we have a great leader in our midst...
I'm sorry if this seems like "Bush Bashing" to you. I guess blaming a President for lying under oath about sex was ONLY "Clinton Bashing" but the Republicans felt fine in taking their "Clinton Bashing" all the way to impeachment. So if holding someone accountable for their actions is "bashing", well I guess I AM a "Bush Basher"...
What do you call someone who does NOT actually hold someone responsible for their own actions? A "Bush Enabler"?
5 - Joe
2 things:
1. For all you wrote you still failed to offer a practical suggestion.
2. In the dictionary, sympathy is located between shit and syphillis.
6 - Dave Nalle
>>Period. If you beleive anything coming out of SK to the contrary go ahead. But that wasn't the point of the post was it? It's just another cheap attampt to bash Bush.<<
That's what BTP is all about. Nothing of substance, no reason, no facts, just pure white hatred straight from the heart.
Dave
7 - Big Time Patriot
I'm sorry, I think the point is pretty clear. My solution is to demand competency from our President. To be more specific, Democrats and Republicans and American Patriots of all types should demand that George Bush get rid of those people who said "Iraq will welcome us with open arms", "the Iraq war will pay for itself with oil revenues", "we can't increase the amount of armored humvees because it's physically impossible" (followed by the next day's revelation that it only took a request to the manufacturer to increase production) These are paraphrases and not literal quotes, you can look the quotes up yourselves. Each of those statements is a collosal mistake, what happened to those who make mistakes in the current administration? Promotions, medals, at the least (in Rumsfelds case) continued support by the President instead of at least a rebuke for putting our troops in needless danger by not giving them the proper equipment.
Is this clear. As Patriots of America we deserve good governance. It's that simple. Demand it and don't put up with less from EITHER party. I guess I could rant about Clinton and some things he did that I didn't like (such as welfare "reform") but since he is not in office it doesn't bother me so much on a daily basis.
"In the dictionary, sympathy is located between shit and syphillis."
So why does George Bush keep saying we saved Iraq from a dictator? Isn't it supposed to be so we will be sympathetic with the Iraqi's? And isn't that sympathy supposed to be part of justifying a war?
It's interesting how its bad to bash Bush, but you just ignore or contradict what Mr. Bush actually says...
Don't you believe George Bush when he talks to America?
8 - Joe
I'm sorry, you're producing a high pitched whine and labeling it a solution. Knowing you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, how about a "reality-based" proposed course of action instead of some knee-jerk supposition of how I do or do not feel about Bush because I'm challenging to use your brain?
9 - MArc
BTP: "I'm sorry, I think the point is pretty clear. My solution is to demand competency from our President."
And that is only valid if, and it's a large if, the Korean decision is related to Bush competency. You have zero knowledge of the reasons for that decision. Thus a childish Bush rant based on thin air.
BTP: "My solution is to demand competency from our President."
That was demanded on Nov. 2nd also and your still bitching about the result.
BTP: "I could rant about Clinton and some things he did that I didn't like (such as welfare "reform")"
History instructs (you do know history right?) that was the Gingrich led and Republican controlled Congress.
Clinton only stood on the sidelines then used his pen to place the reform into law.
10 - Demi
Let me get this straight. The hypothesis you present is that Kerry would have gained South Korea's trust?
The Hypothetical observation, is that Bush does not inspire trust.
The Hypothetical analysis is that Kerry does?
What kind of crap are you trying to throw down. Give it up already. Kerry lost his own election, and the point is moot.
Bush on the other hand may not inspire trust. He's lame in 2 years and preoccupied with Iraq right now.
Not to worry
I'm sure HillBilly Klinton will gain all the trust back, once she's coronated.
11 - Marc
Demi: "Let me get this straight."
Thanks for adding a little levity to the thread.
But alas, there is no "straight" to BTP's logic. It has more kinks in it than a drunken snake slithering thru a maze.
12 - Big Time Patriot
"Let me get this straight. The hypothesis you present is that Kerry would have gained South Korea's trust?"
I never mentioned Kerry... not sure where that came from.
My hypothesis is that ANY President who had not started the Iraq war under false pretenses and with its resulting increase in terrorism (you can check the bush administration generated reports if you don't believe me), would be much more trusted by other world governments.
But I know I'm not going to convince some of you.
But just consider what the American people think:"Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?"
Yes, Misled 50 percent
No, Did Not 48 percent
Wow, isn't that kind of a mindblowing statement? Not just me and my fellow "bleeding heart liberals", but 50% of America thinks the president DELIBERATELY MISLED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. It is a pretty sad sight to see.
13 - Demi
BTP: "I never mentioned Kerry... not sure where that came from."
Obviously you are discontented with the outcome of the last election, and obviously your positions reflects that someone else would be able to foster and inspire trust in the ROK.
Since the obvious doesn't exist in the present reality of the situation...nor in your invective (diatribe, tirade, denunciation, rant, criticism), please state the obvious, and clarify the position with recommendations and summary, you have left the readers hanging in mid-air for your hypothetical analysis.
The obscurity of your position is glaring.
counter?
14 - Marc
BTP "My hypothesis is that ANY President who had not started the Iraq war under false pretenses."
And maybe you can enlighten us as to why repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire agreement is a false pretense.
Not to mention the other double digit list of reasons given by the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Not to mention it was the stated goal and administration policy to oust Saddam since Clinton signed a joint resolution in 1998.
So tell us BTP, where are the "false pretenses," discounting the WMD issue you so love to cling to like a puppy sleeping with an old smelly sock.
15 - RJ
"the world is starting to disengage with American foreign policy."
Actually, we have strong foreign-policy relations with the UK, Australia, Israel, and improving foreign-policy relations with Japan and (believe it or not) Canada.
16 - RJ
"So why does George Bush keep saying we saved Iraq from a dictator?"
Uh, because we did?