S. Korea to become second-largest military ally in Iraq

[seruriermarshal]

S. Korea to become second-largest military ally in Iraq

South Korea has decided to become a major contributor to the U.S.-led military effort to stabilize Iraq despite the recent abduction of Korean nationals by insurgents.

South Korea will deploy more than 3,700 soldiers in Iraq by August, officials said. They said the soldiers would be deployed in northern Iraq, either in Irbil or Suleimaniya.

The commitment by Seoul will make South Korea the third largest contributor of military troops to Iraq. Britain and the United States have been the leading contributors.


Officials said the first South Korean contingent will arrive in Iraq in June despite the abduction of South Korean nationals by Sh'ite insurgents, Middle East Newsline reported. They said the Korean Joint Staff has been working closely with U.S. Central Command to determine the location of deployment and that a delegation would leave for northern Iraq on Friday.

Most of the Korean force will not be composed of combat units, officials said. Instead, the force will focus on logistics that can be used for reconstruction tasks in Iraq.

"It is a mixture of logistics types," U.S. Army Lt. Col. Michael Finnegan, the South Korea country director in the Defense Department, said. "The unit will contain engineers, medics, truck drivers and other reconstruction skills. But the unit will also contain security and civil affairs personnel."



So far, Korea has 500 soldiers deployed in Nasseriya south of Baghdad. Most of the troops are engineers and medical personnel and they will join the new force in the north. Officials said this was not South Korea's first mission in the Middle East. South Korea has contributed forces to the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the disputed region of Western Sahara.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_10.html

[mack pl]

Well, Great Britain has more soldiers in Iraq.BTW South Korean contingent is not for combat missions,only for logistic etc.But i think its good news.Regards.

[Imshi-Yallah]

While I dont agree with most of the right wing idiocy spewed on this board about media bias etc I would like to see this deployment phrased as being "because of hostage taking".
This is whats needed in Iraq a major influx of international troops, creating the opposite of what the militias and terrorists hope to achieve.

[Obergefreiter]

This is whats needed in Iraq a major influx of international troops, creating the opposite of what the militias and terrorists hope to achieve.

What, 31 countries not enough? :bash:

[Imshi-Yallah]

Not enough troops from the 31, Spain should have the Principe De Asturias off the coast launching raids agains the Guerillas

[Resevoir Hogs]

Yea it's true most of the 31 nations only have small contingents. They should all send more troops (I guess except for Spain which has become a victim of idiocy)

[Obergefreiter]

That was the worst BS answer I have seen in a long time.

I will only be happy the El Salvador send their carrier to support operations. The Japanese need to send in an armored brigade.
The Poles need to send in Their whole army. The Brits need to park a whole fleet of the coast. Rumania and the Magyars needs to send their carriers and air forces as well.

I will be happy then. :backhand:

Spain has already rolled over, they took their ball and went home politically. They are a non issue.

So, if 50 countries all send a brigade would that not be enough?

You show your own double standard when you say that there are not enough ****ries there, but when shown there are many nations there, you suddenly say it is not the number of countries, but how much they send. What is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, liberals can not answer a question straight up, sorry, forget I asked. :bash:

[mack pl]

That was the worst BS answer I have seen in a long time.

I will only be happy the El Salvador send their carrier to support operations. The Japanese need to send in an armored brigade.
The Poles need to send in Their whole army. The Brits need to park a whole fleet of the coast. Rumania and the Magyars needs to send their carriers and air forces as well.

I will be happy then. :backhand:

Spain has already rolled over, they took their ball and went home politically. They are a non issue.

So, if 50 countries all send a brigade would that not be enough?

You show your own double standard when you say that there are not enough ****ries there, but when shown there are many nations there, you suddenly say it is not the number of countries, but how much they send. What is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, liberals can not answer a question straight up, sorry, forget I asked. :bash: Well, some countries cannot sent more troops, because they havent got money :(

[Imshi-Yallah]

That was the worst BS answer I have seen in a long time.

I will only be happy the El Salvador send their carrier to support operations. The Japanese need to send in an armored brigade.
The Poles need to send in Their whole army. The Brits need to park a whole fleet of the coast. Rumania and the Magyars needs to send their carriers and air forces as well.

I will be happy then. :backhand:

Spain has already rolled over, they took their ball and went home politically. They are a non issue.

So, if 50 countries all send a brigade would that not be enough?

You show your own double standard when you say that there are not enough ****ries there, but when shown there are many nations there, you suddenly say it is not the number of countries, but how much they send. What is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, liberals can not answer a question straight up, sorry, forget I asked. :bash:
Does this even make sense to yourself?
Yes I believe the contributing nations should react to the insurgency by increasing their military commitment what exactly is liberal about that, Im talking about whats necessary to win a battle.
Spain happens to have a carrier tasked for exactly this type of situation I'm saying they should use it

[usa320]

I am so sick of hearing this "unilateral bull****" for one thing, there are 31 Nations with forces in Iraq. Granted they could sent a few more units, but every bit of help helps. And secondly, if Europe was so pissed of that we did this "unilateraly" (yeah, 31 nations dont mean anything) then why the hell dont they step up to the plate and help out?

[Obergefreiter]

Yes it makes sense, it is sarcasm. I knew you would have no arguement as you just proved you don't. I thought I would have some fun with it while I had the chance.

There are enough troops there to win the battle, they simply need to do their jobs and be well lead.

Who gives a damn about Spain and their carrier. THAT is going to win this whole shooting match? WTF?
Spain has given up politically anyway, they are out of the picture.

The other nations are already goving probably more than they can afford. I really don't think it is a good idea to bank rupt the countries helping in the war just because they are willing to help.

[Imshi-Yallah]

How can I argue with you if I cant understand what you're saying?
In fact I never mentioned unilateralism, I simply said that more boots are needed on the ground to contain the insurgency, an aircraft carrier (really a helicopter carrier) provides a safe platform to carry out anti guerilla operations from.
So what exactly is your problem?

[Obergefreiter]

My problem is that you are talking out both sides of yor mouth. (I think that is how the phrase is said.)

You keep changing your arguement. First it is right winger idiocy, then not enough countries, then not enough from each country, then some stupid crap about a worthless helocopter carrier that will never be used.
(Look at the map, almost all the fighting is out of range of carrier borne helocopters!)

Just proving liberal idiocy, and you did just fine. Thank you.

[Imshi-Yallah]

You clearly didnt understand my original post.
I was refering seperately to the issue of assumed media bias and then put that issue aside.
The fact that you cannot have a conversation, all your posts so far have been a discussion with yourself, and your evident lack of understanding of the military situation don't really make me feel inferior.

[foxtrot023]

Yes it makes sense, it is sarcasm. I knew you would have no arguement as you just proved you don't. I thought I would have some fun with it while I had the chance.

There are enough troops there to win the battle, they simply need to do their jobs and be well lead.

Who gives a damn about Spain and their carrier. THAT is going to win this whole shooting match? WTF?
Spain has given up politically anyway, they are out of the picture.

The other nations are already goving probably more than they can afford. I really don't think it is a good idea to bank rupt the countries helping in the war just because they are willing to help.

However Spanish troops are currently in combat, and have been since Sunday, unlike others nations that are a: Picking their nose or b: Not even in Iraq.

Even though politically, the new Prez might be an idiot SHOW MORE RESPECT to our troops, `cause at least they GOT BALLS, which is more than many can say.

[Obergefreiter]

Foxtrot. I do not intend to show disrespect to Spanish troops either in combat or at home protecting their nation. Sorry if I came across that way, it was not my intent.

I specifically stated Politically, Spain has given up. That is directed at the leaders who I think have made things more dangerous for their own people at home, and have had to have effected the moral of the troops in Iraq.


I will never say anything bad about troops of any nation who are fighting a just war. Only an individual who has been shown to do something wrong, but that is not the case here.