|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Seoulman69 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Please, do lay it all out here on Dave's. Prove that you have the slightest clue that you know what you are talking about.
Yes, the "invincible" NK Army. The one that hasn't invaded in over 60 years.
No, they can't possibly be the equivalent of Saddam circa 1991, no, they have Zombie Legions and Nukes and Tunnels and 1,000,000 men with jeeps. |
Your rants of hyperbolic nonsense are non stop.
Here are the facts:
The US and her allies lost the Vietnam war against a weaker side.
No-one knows what kind of arsenal NK has.
NK will never invade South Korea because it would be suicide. I mentioned this in an earlier post. You're not reading what i'm posting. |
So did you have any knowledge of the ROK Army's COIN record in S. Vietnam before you posted your nonsense? Care to explain their COIN record?
No, you just did this- The "Allied" side lost. ROK was on the Allied side, therefore they must have sucked.
You didn't even bother to research the record of the ROK Army in S.Vietnam and how they fared.
| Quote: |
| I don't know about this. How many guys who served in Nam are still active? I'm asking because it seems like there aren't many if there any at all when you consider the current Joint Chief of Staff, who is one of the oldest guys in the military, was still too young to serve in Nam. |
As I said its a core of senior NCOs and career officers. That is nothing to sneeze at. Combat experience is incredibly valuable in war.
Yes, everything is out of date, still, the intangible things would prove to be highly beneficial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ajosshi
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: ajosshi.com
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:08 am Post subject: Re: A Korean's viewpoint |
|
|
| nate1983 wrote: |
| ajosshi wrote: |
I'm a U.S. citizen and familiar with how schools work. I used to teach graduate students at an engineering school. I also concentrated on taxation during law school, so I'm familiar with the concept.
Let's take UCs, for example. A California resident would pay about 12. A foreigner would pay about 35. That's about triple the resident tuition. Yes, you can argue that the foreigner is taking a spot away, but the opposite can also be true. Because of the foreigner, a school has the needed funds to accommodate more of their residents.
Street sweepers? A city's DOT would derive their funding from several sources. They would include general funds, state and federal subsidies from fuel taxes, state registration fees, and sales and business taxes. If a foreign student drives (registration fees, sales tax on vehicle, fuel taxes, etc.), then they are a contributor.
|
Foreigners at UCs pay exactly the same as I would, and there is still a difference to be made up. Even if every student paid full ticket price, that still wouldn't cover it, and this difference comes from government sources. I had TA-ships and fellowships in grad school, and without exception similarly qualified foreigners were given the same funding. I don't know who this girl is, but she very well could be included in that group, which means she would be receiving substantial assistance. And even if she is not, part of her cohort is, and as I'm sure you know, foreigners are over-represented in [funded] graduate programs compared to undergrad. Again, I have absolutely no issues with these policies, but it's the irony of her position that it's "justifiable for Koreans to be wary of foreigners because [blah blah blah]," yet she plops herself down as a foreigner over in the states with no qualms about it at all.
I don't know where you got street-sweeper from; besides the fact that most foreign students don't drive cars, I was referring to the incredible cost needed to build and maintain our whole infrastructure, rather than some guy picking up cigarette butts. |
Here's the tuition schedule for UCLA: http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htm#4 Foreign students pay several times more than residents.
I know of very few foreign students that don't drive. I've lived in SoCal for most of my life. It would be very difficult to have a normal life without a car. Sure, it can be done, but one would just be existing, not living. Think inmate life.
Public transpo in SoCal sucks. Just think of Seoul, but take away 99.9999% of the cabs, 90% of the buses and subways, then spread everything out by 20 times. Unless one lives in a ghetto (or lives the life of an inmate on campus), most shops are 5 to 10 minutes by car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
| By the way, people who keep brining up Vietnam and Afghanistan need to study their military history before making comparisons to the NK situation. |
Studying theirs isn't as important as studying ours.
Our military got pushed halfway down the Korean peninsula the last time. It lost in Vietnam. Our navy got routed in two hours by the Israelis in 1967. Our Marine Corps lost to a single Islamic soldier in Lebanon in 1983. Our soldiers left Somalia after some got dragged dead through the streets of Mogadishu. The Pentagon sold the war in Iraq by saying it would last just a few weeks in 2003, but some more American soldiers got killed just the other day in 2011. The war in Afghanistan was supposed to be a cakewalk against men with no real equipment, but it just entered its second decade the other day.
One reason we thought the war in Iraq would last just a few weeks was because we thought it would be a conventional war. It was for a while, but that was a long time ago, during the first quarter of the war. It quickly evolved into a guerilla war and there's no reason to believe a war here would remain conventional for long. The initial thrust to breach the DMZ obviously would be, but why would the North Koreans stay in uniform in South Korea, where they could cause confusion and chaos by blending in so well? If they've survived life in North Korea to adulthood, living off the land in South Korea wouldn't require the type of logistics the American and South Korean militaries would require. They're tougher than we are and would be able to function with fewer calories and comforts than our troops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| fermentation wrote: |
| By the way, people who keep brining up Vietnam and Afghanistan need to study their military history before making comparisons to the NK situation. |
Studying theirs isn't as important as studying ours.
Our military got pushed halfway down the Korean peninsula the last time. It lost in Vietnam. Our navy got routed in two hours by the Israelis in 1967. Our Marine Corps lost to a single Islamic soldier in Lebanon in 1983. Our soldiers left Somalia after some got dragged dead through the streets of Mogadishu. The Pentagon sold the war in Iraq by saying it would last just a few weeks in 2003, but some more American soldiers got killed just the other day in 2011. The war in Afghanistan was supposed to be a cakewalk against men with no real equipment, but it just entered its second decade the other day.
|
Our military utterly routed the Iraqi military in 1991. The British were able to defeat the Argentinians. The Israelis smashed "million men with AKs and third-rate Soviet equipment" armies time after time.
Again, would you really take the NK Army over the SK one in a fight?
The only one of those conflicts that was a full on conventional fight was Korea War I, and that was over 50 years ago and the force disparity was not near as favorable for the Americans.
The Norks could do a fair job as a guerrilla force, but that would require a sustaining cause to fight for.
Do you really think the North is dealing from a position of strength or is it in fact desperation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatisinmyhead
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
1945: kaboom... (3 days later) kaboom...
koreans: now you don't have to learn japanese.
i'd be the first to admit that american foreign policy has done terrible things in the past (and continues to do terrible things today).
but the notion (belonging not just to her but many people all over the world) that american foreign policy has never resulted in anything good, anywhere, ever, is just silly. 理解しなさい? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulman69
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So did you have any knowledge of the ROK Army's COIN record in S. Vietnam before you posted your nonsense? Care to explain their COIN record?
No, you just did this- The "Allied" side lost. ROK was on the Allied side, therefore they must have sucked.
You didn't even bother to research the record of the ROK Army in S.Vietnam and how they fared. |
I don't want to critique the ROK's battles in the Vietnam war.
My point is that we don't know the capabilities of the North Koreans therefore it would be foolish to assume that the South will prove victorious.
You know as little as the rest of us about the North Korean army so your opinions on what would happen are as ignorant as everyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hagwonnewbie
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Location: Asia
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Korean apologist's approach to racism is similar to pretty much all haters, "It's our unique culture that influences our view of outsiders. We have a right to our hateful values because of history." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: A Korean's viewpoint |
|
|
| ajosshi wrote: |
| nate1983 wrote: |
| ajosshi wrote: |
I'm a U.S. citizen and familiar with how schools work. I used to teach graduate students at an engineering school. I also concentrated on taxation during law school, so I'm familiar with the concept.
Let's take UCs, for example. A California resident would pay about 12. A foreigner would pay about 35. That's about triple the resident tuition. Yes, you can argue that the foreigner is taking a spot away, but the opposite can also be true. Because of the foreigner, a school has the needed funds to accommodate more of their residents.
Street sweepers? A city's DOT would derive their funding from several sources. They would include general funds, state and federal subsidies from fuel taxes, state registration fees, and sales and business taxes. If a foreign student drives (registration fees, sales tax on vehicle, fuel taxes, etc.), then they are a contributor.
|
Foreigners at UCs pay exactly the same as I would, and there is still a difference to be made up. Even if every student paid full ticket price, that still wouldn't cover it, and this difference comes from government sources. I had TA-ships and fellowships in grad school, and without exception similarly qualified foreigners were given the same funding. I don't know who this girl is, but she very well could be included in that group, which means she would be receiving substantial assistance. And even if she is not, part of her cohort is, and as I'm sure you know, foreigners are over-represented in [funded] graduate programs compared to undergrad. Again, I have absolutely no issues with these policies, but it's the irony of her position that it's "justifiable for Koreans to be wary of foreigners because [blah blah blah]," yet she plops herself down as a foreigner over in the states with no qualms about it at all.
I don't know where you got street-sweeper from; besides the fact that most foreign students don't drive cars, I was referring to the incredible cost needed to build and maintain our whole infrastructure, rather than some guy picking up cigarette butts. |
Here's the tuition schedule for UCLA: http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htm#4 Foreign students pay several times more than residents.
I know of very few foreign students that don't drive. I've lived in SoCal for most of my life. It would be very difficult to have a normal life without a car. Sure, it can be done, but one would just be existing, not living. Think inmate life.
Public transpo in SoCal sucks. Just think of Seoul, but take away 99.9999% of the cabs, 90% of the buses and subways, then spread everything out by 20 times. Unless one lives in a ghetto (or lives the life of an inmate on campus), most shops are 5 to 10 minutes by car. |
I think his point was that foreigners and out of state residents are looked at in exactly the same light. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once again, people seem to be confusing conventional warfare with insurgencies.
| Reggie wrote: |
Studying theirs isn't as important as studying ours.
One reason we thought the war in Iraq would last just a few weeks was because we thought it would be a conventional war. It was for a while, but that was a long time ago, during the first quarter of the war. It quickly evolved into a guerilla war and there's no reason to believe a war here would remain conventional for long. The initial thrust to breach the DMZ obviously would be, but why would the North Koreans stay in uniform in South Korea, where they could cause confusion and chaos by blending in so well? If they've survived life in North Korea to adulthood, living off the land in South Korea wouldn't require the type of logistics the American and South Korean militaries would require. They're tougher than we are and would be able to function with fewer calories and comforts than our troops. |
Here's a few things we should keep in mind. Historically, it has been extremely difficult for an attacking force, however powerful, to fully defeat an insurgency in its own turf. This was true all the back to Alexander. In conventional combat, the US has had huge success. You can cite the wars America has lost, but from a purely military standpoint, the US military has proved to be one of the most powerful fighting forces in the world. However, wars are won and lost not by the number of men you kill, but the acheivement of political goals. Wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan were not conventional wars, but a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. You can't win over the people of an entire nation just by having better equipment and soldiers. The US easily defeated Iraqi regulars but took years to subdue an insurgency.
In order to engage in guerilla warfare, you really need political support from the locals. Afghani tribesmen let the Taliban into their villages, Afghani locals (in some cases Islamic extremists from neighboring countries) are either conscripted or volunteer to join the insurgency. It's going to be hard to subdue such a force when almost the entire country is rooting against you and helping your enemy. But like in anyother war, you need logistical support to supply your troops. The Taliban and the Vietcong got this from the locals but they also had sources of supply safe from US attack (North Vietnam and Laos for the VC. Pakistan for the Taliban). The same was true for the Chinese during Korea. The US weren't allowed to bomb China, giving the CPV pretty much an undisturbed line of supplies.
Your argument that the NK would start an insurgency in hostile territory (South Korea) is pretty offbase. The South Korean locals aren't going to support them, and their line and source of supply are vulnerable to US/ROK attack. It's possible with special operations units which are used in small scale operations (which is why the best way to counter insurgents are with SO operations) but you're talking about the entire NK military here. You really think its that easy to turn entire corps into insurgents? If it was that easy, every invading military in history would've done the same. You can't expect guys to all the sudden drop their AKs and learn how to use K2s, or T72 crewmen to automatically translate their skills in a K1A1. It doesn't work like that.
You can't automatically transform conventional units into guerillas. In fact, the NKA actually did employ guerilla tactics in South Korea, and guess what? They failed. Your argument would make sense if we were the ones going up North though. But if there ever is an insurgency, it would be us South Koreans doing it against the NK Army. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found her rant to be mostly racist and ill informed. The part when she said "I want to say, if you hate it here leave." was my favorite, who says this to their 'friend', while living and studying in America and writing an English blog. It sets a nice tone and lets us know her values.
Also, she says that China and Korea have never been allies (false) and she raises the interesting idea that maybe they should replace the USFK's role in Korea. I'm not sure most Koreans want to relive the glory days of Chinese forces protecting Korea. During the Imshin wars, they came to Korea's rescue and then again during the Korean war...this alliance wasn't the best for Korea. My point is what the America army has done to Korea isn't nearly as bad as what the Chinese army has done or would do. Also the recent Northwest project is a good example of how the Chinese view Korean ethnicity.
I understand her optimism about China and Asia surpassing North America, but Korea can use their alliance with America to their continued advantage, there is no point in severing it because China and Asia are rising. A shift in priorities perhaps, but the free market will decide this long before governments do.
A few crimes that USFK commit here aren't worth finding out what would happen if there were no forces here. Punish the offenders and move on. I don't even know what their crime rate is compared to the Korean population, but I have my guesses. Demonizing the troops that protect you because of a couple of bad apples? Also the economic benefits of having soldiers in America and the close trading relations with the west has benefited Korea immensely. After the war they were a mess and they weren't much better before it. Now look at them, you think autarky and Chinese allies are good ideas? It hasn't exactly worked well for DPRK.
I know they are a bad example, but they are a very obvious one. I'm not saying keep them here permanently but is this the right time for them to be booted out? North Korea has never been so testy and neither has China. Does Korea have any other allies with military forces in Asia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulman69 wrote: |
| Quote: |
So did you have any knowledge of the ROK Army's COIN record in S. Vietnam before you posted your nonsense? Care to explain their COIN record?
No, you just did this- The "Allied" side lost. ROK was on the Allied side, therefore they must have sucked.
You didn't even bother to research the record of the ROK Army in S.Vietnam and how they fared. |
I don't want to critique the ROK's battles in the Vietnam war.
My point is that we don't know the capabilities of the North Koreans therefore it would be foolish to assume that the South will prove victorious.
You know as little as the rest of us about the North Korean army so your opinions on what would happen are as ignorant as everyone else. |
Right, they might have space death rays and hidden robo-troopers.
In the real world we know that they are a military with a bunch of 50s-70s era Soviet equipment with a few newer pieces mixed in, but those newer pieces are in low quantity.
What we can do is make projections based on the information at hand. Something you have to do sooner or later. Unless you just want to blunder about and say "well whatever happens, happens".
Between the "Why bother analyzing capabilities" and "why bother researching previous ROK combat performance" what I hear is "that thinking and reading stuff is too difficult". Aren't we educators? Aren't we supposed to enjoy thinking, reading, and researching?
Last edited by Steelrails on Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting points, and I agree with most of them (especially about goal posts for winning a war) Fermentation, but I have to ask...
Don't you think that the North already has a (somewhat) established network in the South? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulman69
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Between the "Why bother analyzing capabilities" and "why bother researching previous ROK combat performance" what I hear is "that thinking and reading stuff is too difficult". Aren't we educators? Aren't we supposed to enjoy thinking, reading, and researching?
|
You got me there. I don't care enough about this conversation to spend my time researching further. I've got better things to do.
My point stands that with the little we know about NK's army it would be foolish to alienate the US. None of us know what would happen if war was to break out. Therefore it is best to keep your friends close, and the US has been, and continues to be, a good friend to SK. NK are far less likely to do anything that might start a war while US forces are stationed in SK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not so simple to say which side would be victorious -North or South Korea. It's a meaningless argument. Even if the US pulled out, they would return if North Korea invaded. So, it couldn't happen, anyway.
The South spends much more money on modern equipment than the North. That's true. Even if the North lost, South Korea would sustain a lot of damage. Not only that, the South would all of a sudden have to take care of millions of North Koreans. That's something no one mentions. What kind of victory would that be? Someone brought up Vietnam. The US was winning, but it was more of a phyrric victory, and the American people wouldn't support the war. The amount of damage the Viet Cong was doing to the American side was heavy, even though NVA's weapons weren't as good. There are too many unknowns. We do know it's quite probable, the South would sustain a lot of damage, and if it goes for a true victory and wins, it will suffer financially if it takes over the North. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some posters mentioned the supposed "hardened" North Koreans are psychologically tougher than the soft, spoiled ROK and US troops. With all their comfortable upbringing, you'd think that Americans are going to break when the going gets tough. That's exactly what the Chinese told their troops during the Korean War.
Americans were supposedly spoiled because of their ability to get hot food and showers to the front lines. Americans didn't know cold and hardship like the Chinese. But the POW ratio of both sides tells another story. Guess which side had more (and a higher ratio) of waving the white flag? Like I said before, a soldier knows what a simple meal of hot chow can do for morale.
There are occasional NK officers who defect. Sometimes with their military gear like the NKAF captain who actually flew over with his MiG. The guy is now a colonel in the ROKAF and he was glad to share military secrets which, according to my dad, was stuff we already knew though (our intelligence isn't lazy after all). If officers (the elite of the military) are defecting, it shows what kind of situation the Norks are in.
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Interesting points, and I agree with most of them (especially about goal posts for winning a war) Fermentation, but I have to ask...
Don't you think that the North already has a (somewhat) established network in the South? |
Depends on what kind of network. The figures (of spies) that I've been given by an actual agent from the National Intelligence Service during my "interrogation" when I entered the Army were pretty damn high. They also are putting a lot of effort into cyber terror/espionage. So I figure the Norks have a pretty good intelligence network. Still I highly doubt they have adequate enough political support to wage an effective guerilla war in South Korea. I don't see drones of South Koreans flocking to the NKA except for the most extreme of liberals. The 연평도 shelling was enough to turn away a lot of North Korea sympathizers. Launching a full on assault won't help their cause.
| Quote: |
Right, they might have space death rays and hidden robo-troopers.
In the real world we know that they are a military with a bunch of 50s-70s era Soviet equipment with a few newer pieces mixed in, but those newer pieces are in low quantity. |
We actually know a lot more than people think. I'm not technically allowed to say this but we actually know the name and face of current NK commanders up to the Corp level (from what I've seen). Thankgod this site doesn't make me type in my registration number. They do have some stuff that'll surprise you (Russian made UAVs, Su-27s, large numbers of hovercraft, entire airfields built inside freaking mountains, etc), but at the same time, its not like they have some secret high-tech gadgets out of sci-fi flicks. Also in many aspects they're so primitive it's shocking.
Here's an interesting tibit. Last spring, we got reports that frontline NK units were starting to wear camouflage uniforms. I was like what, really? In 2010, where most militaries around the world are turning to more effective digital patterns, the NK are finally getting around to making camo patterns that the entire world has been using for decades? Kind of makes you think how backwards they might be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
