Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The hostage crisis is America's fault

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The hostage crisis is America's fault
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

mack the knife wrote:

A nice editorial in the Chosun Ilbo today expressed displeasure with the misguided attempt of some Korean lawmakers to persuade the U.S. government to change its stance with regards to terrorist negotiations in the "special" case of the Korean hostages. The U.S. government told them where to go and how fast, and rightfully so.

In my opinion, the Chosun accounts for 94-95% of all editorial/journalistic sanity in the ROK.

You mean like when one of their columnists said that Hwang Woo Suk's problems were the result of a leftist "witch hunt"?

Quote:

Korean society witnessed an unusual phenomenon when MBC�s "PD Diary" attacked cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk: the nation's leading left-wing media outlets and progressively inclined people were not only united in their defense of the program�s reporting, they even sided with its Hwang Woo-suk bashing.

Quote:

Most ordinary citizens were puzzled. What is in it for MBC, they wondered. Is it so disagreeable for us to be proud of Prof. Hwang when he has emerged as our first world-class scientist in a long time? Of course, they felt, Hwang should be censured if it turns out that he fabricated results intentionally. But if there were errors in procedure, couldn�t the producers have the kindness to point them out quietly so they can be corrected?

Yeah, a journalist saying that his fellow journalists should withhold damaging evidence to protect someone's reputation. Does this guy even know what journalism is?

Korean conservatives are just as capabale of doing the "mommy mommy not my fault" routine as the leftists are.

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200512/200512060028.html

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

BJWD wrote:

mack the knife wrote:

In my opinion, the Chosun accounts for 94-95% of all editorial/journalistic sanity in the ROK.

You mean like when one of their columnists said that Hwang Woo Suk's problems were the result of a leftist "witch hunt"?

Quote:

I actually agree. But if there is sanity being spread, the Chosun likely is doing the spreading. But that doesn't mean that they aren't able to spew the typical crap as well.

Vicissitude

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject:

Atavistic wrote:

So are you saying Korea needs to go ask the Masons for help?

Those are the people who've been running the fricken country from its inception starting with George Washington, the dollar bill and the declaration of independance.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/uspresidentasmasons.htm

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject:

AbbeFaria wrote:

We had 50 years of reasons not to trust the North Koreans and Clinton ignored that and gave them the means anyway. America not bad, Clinton bad.

-S-

It wasn't quite 50 years yet when Clinton was in charge, but that's a useless quibble ...

The US did not give Pyeongyang the capability of building bombs. Most indications are that that came from a certain Pakistani fellow named Khan, who did it for personal profit, and somehow has enough stature in his country that he has still faced few or no repucussions for violating the non-proliferation thing.

You might be saying something I'm not understanding, and if so, please clarify.

Vicissitude

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

AbbeFaria wrote:

Vicissitude wrote:

BJWD wrote:

No, really. Masons get drunk, talk sports and negotiate business. They aren't even really secretive.

wrong. Lies lies and more lies.

Another conspiracy nut. Where's IGTG when you need him.

-S-

The conspiracy theories feed on the fact that there is a difference between continental Freemasonry(by which I basically mean Masons in Catholic countries), and Anglo-American freemasonry.

In Catholic countries, the lodges did tend to be invloved in political activity, usually of a liberal and anti-clerical character. Not so in the USA, where they evolved into the middle-brow drinking and philanthropy clubs that we all know and love. So, when an American joins the Masons, he is basically doing the most conservative, pro-establishment thing imaginable. But when an Italian or a Frenchman joins the Masons, it can be viewed as a bit more of a gesture against the status quo. (Or at least this was true when the Catholic Church was a serious force in European politics.)

So, the basic gist any Masonic conspiracy theory goes like this...

"Hey, you know, Mazzini and Allende were Masons, and their lodges were mixed up in conspiratorial politics. Wow, Clinton was a Mason too. Guess he's mixed up in all that kind of stuff as well."

You are really mixed up. I think you better check your facts:

"The Anti-Masonic Party (also known as the Anti-Masonic Movement) was a 19th century minor political party in the United States. It strongly opposed Freemasonry, and was a single-issue party, aspiring to become a major party. It introduced important innovations to American politics, such as nominating conventions and the adoption of party platforms.
History
The Anti-Masonic Party was formed in upstate New York in 1826, and was the first third party in American national politics.

Many people feared the Masons, alleging that it was a powerful, secret society that was trying to rule the country in defiance of republican principles. Other objections were to Freemasonry's links to the occult, witchcraft, and ceremonial magic. They came together to form a political party after the Morgan incident convinced them the Masons were murdering their opponents. The key episode was the mysterious disappearance, in 1826, of William Morgan (c. 1775-c. 1826), a Freemason of Batavia, New York, who had become dissatisfied with his Order and claimed he was going to publish secrets about the local lodge. When his purpose became known to the lodge, Morgan was subjected to frequent annoyances, and finally in September 1826 he was seized and surreptitiously taken to Fort Niagara, after which he disappeared.

The event created great excitement, and led many to believe that not just the local lodge but that all Freemasonry was in conflict with good citizenship. Because judges, businessmen, bankers, and politicians were often Masons, ordinary citizens began to think of it as an elitist group. Moreover, many argued that the lodges' secret oaths bound the brethren to favor each other against outsiders, in the courts as well as elsewhere. Because the trial of the Morgan conspirators was mishandled, and the Masons resisted further inquiries, it became an article of faith[citation needed] of its opponents that Masonic judges would not sentence and Masonic juries would fail to convict fellow members of the order. They considered the Masons to be an exclusive organization taking unfair advantage of common folk and violating the essential principles of democracy. True Americans, they said, had to organize and defeat this conspiracy.

Opposition to Masonry was taken up by the churches as a sort of religious crusade, and it also became a local political issue in western New York, where, early in 1827, the citizens in many mass meetings resolved to support no mason for public office.

In New York at this time the National Republicans, or "Adams men," were a very feeble organization, and shrewd political leaders at once determined to utilize the strong anti-Masonic feeling in creating a new and vigorous party to oppose the rising Jacksonian Democracy. In this effort they were aided by the fact that Andrew Jackson was a high-ranking Mason and frequently spoke in praise of the Order. The alleged remark of political organizer Thurlow Weed, that a corpse found floating in the Niagara River was "a good enough Morgan" till after the election, summarized the value of the crime for the opponents of Jackson. In the elections of 1828 the new party proved unexpectedly strong, and after this year it practically superseded the National Republican party in New York. In 1829 it broadened its issues base when it became a champion of internal improvements and of the protective tariff. The party published 35 weekly newspapers in New York. Soon one became preeminent, the Albany Journal edited by Thurlow Weed.

The party invented the convention, a system whereby locally elected delegates would choose state candidates and pledge their loyalty. Soon the Democrats and Whigs recognized the convention's value in building a party, and held their own conventions. The newspapers reveled in partisanship. One brief Albany Journal paragraph on Van Buren included the words "dangerous," "demagogue," "corrupt," "degrade," "pervert," "prostitute," "debauch" and "cursed."

By 1832 the movement had lost its focus on Masonry, and had spread to neighboring states, becoming especially strong in Pennsylvania and Vermont. A national organization was planned as early as 1827, when the New York leaders attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade Henry Clay who was a Mason, to renounce the Order and head the movement. In 1831, William A. Palmer was elected governor of Vermont on an Anti-Masonic ticket, an office he held until 1835.

The party conducted the first U.S. presidential nominating convention in the U.S. at Baltimore, in the 1832 elections, nominating William Wirt (a former Mason) for President and Amos Ellmaker for Vice President. Wirt won 7.78 percent of the popular vote, and the seven electoral votes from Vermont. The highest elected office ever held by a member of the party was that of a governor: besides Palmer in Vermont, Joseph Ritner was the governor of Pennsylvania from 1835 to 1838.

This was the high tide of its prosperity; in New York in 1833 the organization was moribund, and its members gradually united with the National Republican Party and other opponents of Jacksonian Democracy in forming the Whig Party. The Whigs' great New York boss, Thurlow Weed, began his political career as an Anti-Mason. In other states, the party survived somewhat longer, but by 1836 most of its members had united with the Whigs. Its last act in national politics was to nominate William Henry Harrison for president and John Tyler for vice-president at a convention in Philadelphia in November 1836.

The growth of the anti-Masonic movement was due more to the political and social conditions of the time than to the Morgan episode, which was merely the catalyst. Under the name of "Anti-Masons" able leaders united those who were discontented with existing political conditions, and the fact that William Wirt, their choice for the presidency in 1832, was not only a Mason but even defended the Order in a speech before the convention that nominated him, indicating that simple opposition to Masonry soon became a minor factor in holding together the various elements of which the party was composed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party

"Freemasonry and Patriotism
Freemasonry is often alleged to hold back its members from fully committing to their nation[16]. Critics claim that compared to Operative Masonry's clear denunciations of treachery[17] Masonry after 1723 (Speculative masonry) was far more ambiguous[18]. It is alleged in the Catholic Encyclopedia that Masonic disapproval of treachery is not on moral grounds but on the grounds of inconvenience to other Masons.[19] The Catholic Encyclopedia argues[20] that the adage "Loyalty to freedom overrides all other considerations" [21] justifies treason.

American Freemasons are consistent advocates of the US Constitution in separation of church and state[22], which was seen especially by the Catholic church as a veiled attack on the Church's place in public life.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonry

AbbeFaria

Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:14 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

AbbeFaria wrote:

We had 50 years of reasons not to trust the North Koreans and Clinton ignored that and gave them the means anyway. America not bad, Clinton bad.

-S-

I'm feeling too lazy to dig up the info, but wasn't it through Clinton's treaty with the North Koreans that gave them the tech for a nuclear power plant and provided them with nuclear materials? I wasn't implying that Clinton taught them how to build the bomb, just that if they had not given the treaty, North Korea would not have had the ability to enrich the materials.

-S-

Vicissitude

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:40 am Post subject:

AbbeFaria wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

AbbeFaria wrote:

We had 50 years of reasons not to trust the North Koreans and Clinton ignored that and gave them the means anyway. America not bad, Clinton bad.

-S-

I had a few adult S. Korean students who worked for the ROK government and they went to North Korea on a regular basis to assist the North Koreans with their nuclear power plants. They were in favour of the plan as was the government that sent them up there. We had many talks about this very issue. Yes, South Korea had a big part to play, not just America.

Vicissitude

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:51 am Post subject:

Quote:

GHAZNI, Afghanistan - A group of 75 Taliban militants tried to overrun a U.S.-led coalition base in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday[August 7th], a rare frontal attack that left more than 20 militants dead, the coalition said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

To hell with people who think this hostage issue is America's fault. The US military is putting their lives on the line to defeat the Taliban. The US troops are doing a damn good job at it too! And all Koreans can do is criticize.... thankless ingrates.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject:

AbbeFaria wrote:

Offhand, I think you're too lazy. It's that guy in Pakistan who you need to blame. You ever find the energy to look for the info, I have a feeling it's what you will discover.

No hard feelings, I'm pretty lazy, too. I think most of the problems in the world are caused by people with too damn much energy. I hope to one day be so lazy I'll never cause a problem for anyone.

Wink

jhaelin

Joined: 30 Aug 2006

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject:

enns wrote:

I wonder if your average South Korean realizes that if it wasn't for the USA, the South would be in the same dire straights as the North. SK should feel nothing short of gratefulness to America. If they don't like the war in Afghanistan, why not be angry at your government for sending in your troops?

this is somewhat not related to the OP but...

i see this type of comment made way too often and it just sounds a bit ignorant and quite condescending to me...

the whole if america didn't help then south korea would be like north korea thing...

before making this sort of simplistic conclusion about history, why not first ask the question...

what would north korea have been like without ameircan involvement?
would there even be a north korea as we know it?
would kim il-sung ever have achieve his status without the korean war?
would there have been a korean war without american involvement?
could s. korean capitalism only have happened because of american influence?

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:

Quote:

what would north korea have been like without ameircan involvement?

North Korea, only bigger.

Quote:

would there even be a north korea as we know it?

No. There would be a Korea under the North Korean system.

Quote:

would kim jong-il ever have achieve his status without the korean war?

His daddy led the war, so probably not. But, as Nobel winner Fredric Hayek says, in communist systems "the worst rise to the top". If not KJI, somebody equally ruthless.

Quote:

would there have been a korean war without american involvement?

Yes. But it would have ended much sooner and you and yours would be eating bark or sitting in jail.

Quote:

could s. korean capitalism only have happened because of american influence?

No. Korean capitalism only worked because American facilitated ISI development. The Koreans has nearly unlimited export access to the American market while not permitting the Americans access to the Korean market. The Americans did this so your economy would grow and you would be in the Yankee sphere of influence. It worked. Same with West Germany, Japan and others.

You should say "Thank You America" 10 times every morning. Everything you have, you owe to them. Everything.

jhaelin

Joined: 30 Aug 2006

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

Quote:

what would north korea have been like without ameircan involvement?

North Korea, only bigger.

Quote:

would there even be a north korea as we know it?

No. There would be a Korea under the North Korean system.

the north korean system developed over time under the influence of a war, and continued military tension with the south and US forces.
e.g. if there was no military threat in the form of south korea/US forces what would the n. korea/korean government expenditure have been like?
would they have still have had to maintain one of the largest standing armies in the world? would the strict military structure continued without the threat of war?

Quote:

would kim jong-il ever have achieve his status without the korean war?

His daddy led the war, so probably not. But, as Nobel winner Fredric Hayek says, in communist systems "the worst rise to the top". If not KJI, somebody equally ruthless.

ok i don't even think this deserves a response...but
incidentally before the korean war, the north/kim il sung promoted having peninsula wide open elections. but the south stopped that and held separate elections. ironically it was during these years that many members and leaders of the democratic groups in south korea were rounded up and...well then picture the folks being found with hands tied and drill holes in their head -in that other, recent, US involved country.

Quote:

would there have been a korean war without american involvement?

Yes. But it would have ended much sooner and you and yours would be eating bark or sitting in jail.

ok since you don't even provide a shred of argument for this mean statement i wont try to argue your view.

Quote:

could s. korean capitalism only have happened because of american influence?

i probably could have posed this question better by asking, "could korea only have developed a market economy through america? in other words, was it necessary that the country be divided, and a war had to happen, and the southern part had to be under US influence for market economy to have flourished in this peninsula?
there was no other route?

mack the knife

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:55 am Post subject:

Quote:

could korea only have developed a market economy through america?

Korea doesn't have a market economy. It has a protectionism-based economy, which runs against market principles.

jhaelin

Joined: 30 Aug 2006

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:31 am Post subject:

mack the knife wrote:

Quote:

could korea only have developed a market economy through america?

Korea doesn't have a market economy. It has a protectionism-based economy, which runs against market principles.

if you're gonna nit-pick the definition of "markey economy" that way then wouldn't all modern capitalist economies have to be considered protectionist?
when europe protects it's farmers and prevents gm foods from being imported, does that make them model market societies?
when the american congress prevents the control of ports by a dubai-based company or axes the sale of a big oil company to a chinese firm, both under the premise of national security, are these examples of american market economy?

forieign investors moan and complain about the protectionsit measures that korean government often take but this happens all over the place.
as soon as the korean people realize that it's the foreign investors who have more to lose than the korean economy, should the foreign direct investments drop, is when the country will attain a more equal footing in international trade.

now as for why america would have fostered the growth of the south korean economy, by allowing them to maintain one-sided protectionist import economy and why they helped the industrial base of s. korea at the cost of american industry....?
you can answer that by seeing how the us/europe-based investment banks/groups recently are having a field day in asia through the financial/investment markets. i mean who cares where the successful company is when an investor can own dividend-rich stocks from anywhere? the bankers reap and the manufacturing workers find work at k-mart.
seen this way, doesn't it now make better sense why america would sign free trade agreements that seem unfair to its manufacturing base. well when you look at the ftas you will see they are all about opening up the financial/investment markets, theyr're not about protecting industries at home, but being able to buy the companies abroad. do you think that foreign investors are really gonna moan about not being able to get controlling interest in samsung when they get their dividend checks.
when hyundai/kia get open access to the us automobile market do you think the non-korean stock holders are gonna worry about the detroit economy? aside from the family members of chaebols who do you really think are making the big bucks from korean corporations? we always hear about the trade surplus in korea but under the radar are the figures that actually account for the cash flow back out of the country through investor/dividend profits.

the american govt's international policies have always been about helping the banking interests and not the middle class american workers. think of the cold war as laying the seeds to be harvested (e.g. 1997 financial crises, bargain sale). and think of the war on terror under the same principle, then the patterns since ww2 are painfully repetitive.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject:

jhaelin wrote:

mack the knife wrote:

Quote:

could korea only have developed a market economy through america?

Korea doesn't have a market economy. It has a protectionism-based economy, which runs against market principles.

You should violently assault every history teacher you ever had. That aside,

Explain to me, very clearly, exactly, precisely, how "the American governments international policies laid the seeds of the 1997 financial crises"?

You misuse fancy economic terms but have the economic sophistication of a typical nationalist VANKer Korean.

Explain very carefully.

Also, explain to me, very clearly, how the Korean ISI development would have been even 1% as successful if America and her allies didn't extend to her our open markets and tolerance of her closed markets.

Be very clear.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe