|
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 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There was a recent poll out that was very interesting. It shows Koreans being very supportive of the military alliance- with 93% supporting it and 66% supporting it even in the aftermath of a reunification, and in the survey America was by far the most popular country. |
Given that this is what the ROK establishment wants her subjects to believe it is not surprising that the people absorb what their rulers want them to absorb.
I don't see public opinion as something that forms from millions of individuals making well-informed decisions but rather something that is shaped and moved by the ruling class. |
Even if what you say is true, I think we disagree on the extent that it is, it is worth noting what the elite want, then? Also, even more worth noting considering how much less support there was during the G. W. Bush administration and the whole Sunshine policy moment.
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I wonder if the isolationists will like the world that would be if America left it. |
You're referring to me as the isolationist? Firstly, and most importantly, isolationist as a pejorative is regime propaganda. It is used to place people who want a normal policy in a box as outside of normal opinion. This is a great example of how public opinion is shaped and moved. We're social creatures and want to belong. When it is communicated that an ideal is outside norms most people will then avoid holding that idea.
Secondly, I'm not an isolationist for any country. Nations should trade and interact as their interests demand. I'd support 'nation building' and 'democracy promotion' if I thought those ideals to be ideal and in any way obtainable. |
That comment was not directed at you at all. I also didn't intend it to be pejorative. It was actually a sincere, open question, and mostly me thinking out loud as it were. In general I prefer 'isolationists' to 'interventionists', and prefer people without an ideological frame most of all, but it frustrates me that people don't understand the second and third and fourth order effects of what they want. It was more directed towards SteelRails and Blue who talk about our alliance, and presence in, the RoK, without understanding the reasoning behind it, or how it is the only thing keeping East Asia frozen in the current status quo and what it would mean for it to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It was more directed towards SteelRails and Blue who talk about our alliance, and presence in, the RoK, without understanding the reasoning behind it, or how it is the only thing keeping East Asia frozen in the current status quo and what it would mean for it to change. |
It may...check that...IS a foregone conclusion that, the "alliance" is set in stone, simply for strategic reasons. Now, going back in history, Korea suffered from this, as it was the division that was made from Communist and Western powers, regarding Korea.
But...I truly feel, that South Korea should be left to defend itself. It is no longer the responsibility of the United States to be here. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are infused with a country that resents those who, seemingly, try to help them.
Should this entail having South Korea become a beneficiary of China, that is OK, as it was such, in the past.
In regards to an isolationist policy, I don't recall anyone here, implying that type of ideology. Globalism has been the disease that has prevented such actions (as stated above). I am only thinking in terms, in which would be best, for MY country...not Korea, not China and not Japan. This statement, applies to all most countries who receive U.S. taxpayer money.
The United States has too many moles within, and should start taking care of its own house.
But, this scenario only applies to a clock that could be wound back to 19th century...in which case, unless there is nuclear war, is impossible.
The United States has clearly surpassed that of which, it was intended to be. And as a result, many parts of the world, are...phucked.
...and China has a long memory.
Therefore, I believe that all U.S. military forces should be withdrawn from Korea and be brought back to U.S. soil, so they can do a better job of actually defending the Constitution. However, since the military does not go into depth, regarding Constitutional matters and teachings during training, that may be a pipe dream as well.
That in itself, can be set aside, for a new topic.
But I stand by what I said....the United States needs to cut military ties and let the "family" work it out, so that U.S. taxes are not wasted here. I feel that South Korea has more of an attachment to its historical relationship with China and I could not blame them, for restoring that relationship.
Now should China, under the hypothetical circumstances decided to move past Japan, that is why the U.S. should always have the strongest and most deadly Navy in the world.
Fire away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It was more directed towards SteelRails and Blue who talk about our alliance, and presence in, the RoK, without understanding the reasoning behind it, or how it is the only thing keeping East Asia frozen in the current status quo and what it would mean for it to change.
|
Oh I understand the reasons and rationale, and they are very good ones. In fact, if I was in another position, I might feel that the continuation of such things serves my interests and the nation's.
As I said, I wasn't looking for a total removal, but a reduced presence might be practicable and still generate the same benefits we enjoy now, at far reduced cost.
And there is an argument to be made as to whether these things truly DO serve our interests.
But, as I said, the agreement the US has with the world (this includes China and Russia) is security for sovereign debt/other financial considerations. As the only nation capable of projecting sizable power over an extended period, that's the deal. All those messes we deal with, we do so because the rest of the world wants us to and is unable to do so themselves. It's got its benefits and its costs. I question its longterm sustainability, but it is undeniably what we have done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As the only nation capable of projecting sizable power over an extended period, that's the deal |
True...but things change, especially when those in power are corrupted by the promise, of MORE power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Use the quote option DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
As for you...I would suggest a shot of soju and a 1mg dose of Klonopin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It was more directed towards SteelRails and Blue who talk about our alliance, and presence in, the RoK, without understanding the reasoning behind it, or how it is the only thing keeping East Asia frozen in the current status quo and what it would mean for it to change. |
It may...check that...IS a foregone conclusion that, the "alliance" is set in stone, simply for strategic reasons. Now, going back in history, Korea suffered from this, as it was the division that was made from Communist and Western powers, regarding Korea.
But...I truly feel, that South Korea should be left to defend itself. It is no longer the responsibility of the United States to be here. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are infused with a country that resents those who, seemingly, try to help them.
Should this entail having South Korea become a beneficiary of China, that is OK, as it was such, in the past.
In regards to an isolationist policy, I don't recall anyone here, implying that type of ideology. Globalism has been the disease that has prevented such actions (as stated above). I am only thinking in terms, in which would be best, for MY country...not Korea, not China and not Japan. This statement, applies to all most countries who receive U.S. taxpayer money.
The United States has too many moles within, and should start taking care of its own house.
But, this scenario only applies to a clock that could be wound back to 19th century...in which case, unless there is nuclear war, is impossible.
The United States has clearly surpassed that of which, it was intended to be. And as a result, many parts of the world, are...phucked.
...and China has a long memory.
Therefore, I believe that all U.S. military forces should be withdrawn from Korea and be brought back to U.S. soil, so they can do a better job of actually defending the Constitution. However, since the military does not go into depth, regarding Constitutional matters and teachings during training, that may be a pipe dream as well.
That in itself, can be set aside, for a new topic.
But I stand by what I said....the United States needs to cut military ties and let the "family" work it out, so that U.S. taxes are not wasted here. I feel that South Korea has more of an attachment to its historical relationship with China and I could not blame them, for restoring that relationship.
Now should China, under the hypothetical circumstances decided to move past Japan, that is why the U.S. should always have the strongest and most deadly Navy in the world.
Fire away. |
I posted a very recent survey that showed your basic premise is false, the RoK wants greater ties with America and trusts America more than China. You think the militaries place is is defending the constitution domestically? The funny thing about the constitution is that it is a very old piece of paper- that throughout its lifetime has been interpreted numerous times to mean different things, and I do know that the last thing I want is to have the U.S. militaries interpretation imposed on me by them at home domestically where they should not be deployed. |
|
| 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
