|
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 |
PeterDragon
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Scotticus"]
| The_Conservative wrote: |
While I agree that money was a TERRIBLE way to get them back, I don't think your above scenario would work. Do you really think the UN would give the okay for a nation to send in tens of thousands of troops to commit what would degenerate into genocide? The RoK's biggest problem in these negotiations is that they had no power and no leverage. |
Actually, the pre-invasion government of Afghanistan had no legitimate recognition from the U.N., making any invasion there effectively legal as long as the weak-ass U.S.-installed new government approves. I agree that the Koreans should have just sent in a bunch of men. They should have notified the U.S. media that they were doing it, then asked the US army if we could lend them some extra men. It would be a great circle-jerk photo-op for the "coalition of the willing". Another suggestion would be to use the 20 ml to hire mercanries for a covert ops rescue mission. It worked when Ross Perot did it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scotticus
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PeterDragon wrote: |
Actually, the pre-invasion government of Afghanistan had no legitimate recognition from the U.N., making any invasion there effectively legal as long as the weak-ass U.S.-installed new government approves. I agree that the Koreans should have just sent in a bunch of men. They should have notified the U.S. media that they were doing it, then asked the US army if we could lend them some extra men. It would be a great circle-jerk photo-op for the "coalition of the willing". Another suggestion would be to use the 20 ml to hire mercanries for a covert ops rescue mission. It worked when Ross Perot did it. |
You can't seriously compare the initial invasion of Afghanistan to the situation now. As you, yourself, stated, the UN didn't even recognize the government as legitimate, not to mention the fact that the US had blank check (from almost the entire planet) after 9/11. So yes, sending troops there wasn't an option so much as an inevitability.
There's a reason the US does whatever it wants. It's because it's the US. The RoK doesn't have that kind of clout, and never will. They can't just drop tens of thousands of troops into a country. Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan has a legitimate democratic government now. The government is a joke, and weak, and incompetent, but it's still considered a soveriegn nation. Weak or not, I promise you they would NOT allow some random nation to drop 50k troops into the countryside to start slaughtering anyone they saw as "Taliban" in an effort to avenge some dead hostages.
In conclusion: this is NOT a Tom Clancy novel, this isn't Rainbow 6 or 24. This is real life. On the bright side, at least Mack gets it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack4289 wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| spliff wrote: |
| Paying ransom is/was a mistake, IMHO. If every country made it clear that they back President Bush's "no ransom" policy than terrorists wouldn't bother kidnapping people...now they must be sitting back and pulling their beards and saying ...Hmmmmmm. |
Exactly. The negotiations should have gone something like this.
"You give us back our guys and we agree to do nothing in reponse. However if you don't give them back, we will send an additional force of 50,000 soldiers over there with 'take no prisoners' orders. Any Taliban we catch will be shot out of hand. No mercy." |
The logistics of this would be a nightmare. You might get the hostages back but not without killing a lot of civilians and taking more than a few casualties in the process.
It would however demonstrate that taking S.K's for ransom is a bad BAD idea. And in the long run save lives and money
Plus I know the Taliban aren't suicide bombers, but how much do you think threats on their life count for? They'd probably prefer to be shot dead rather than rot in a prison for the rest of their lives.
But do you think they want to increase the CHANCE of being shot dead by an additional 50,000 soldiers? Do you think they want reinforcements over there?
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2878973
"First of all, we must carry out a clandestine operation like the one Israeli special forces performed in Uganda, because there is no chance that the government of Afghanistan would permit such a mission. It is not possible at all.
Typical politican spineless talk. The government of Afghanistan would do what the U.S told it to do. Either that or the U.S tells the Taliban "go to it boys" and pulls out.
... Unlike the Entebbe operation, [Koreans] do not have information on the accurate location of the Koreans in the hands of Taliban."
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2878827
[i]"One of the major obstacles, said a Foreign Ministry official who declined to be named, is the sovereignty of Afghanistan. �The incident is not in our jurisdiction,� the official said. �We would need permission from Kabul. Otherwise it�s an invasion. There is a need by Kabul to demonstrate that it can handle this situation. It also has to consider public sentiment.�
See above
Even with a green light from the administration of President Hamid Karzai, Seoul would need to get permission from the National Assembly while it gauges public support. The actual operation, whether a rescue mission or retaliatory in nature, would then require cooperation from the United States and other international forces in Afghanistan.
�We have to operate in a foreign country. Intelligence and logistic support such as airlifting our forces are crucial,� said a retired official who was instrumental in setting up the country�s first counter-terrorist unit. �But even with full support we would need sufficient time to practice any mission.�
The official, who declined to be named, said the �political will� to accept casualties was also crucial."
Exactly. Spineless politicans
Since they are held scattered around in civilian houses, it is difficult to carry out raids on multiple targets simultaneously." |
Well I wasn't envisoning a rescue mission more of declaring war. And keep in mind this is hypothetical...at the absolute mimimum they should have refused to pay ransom. This only increases the chance of more kidnappings and more money being paid. Pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Gee, paying terrorists. There definitely won't be any unintended consequences resulting from that. Nope. |
Not for South Koreans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scotticus wrote: |
[ Weak or not, I promise you they would NOT allow some random nation to drop 50k troops into the countryside to start slaughtering anyone they saw as "Taliban" in an effort to avenge some dead hostages.
it. |
First of all they wouldn't be indiscrimantly slaughtering just anyone.
Second of all, all the U.S would have to do is say "Look either you allow those 50k in OR WE (The U.S and whoever else wants to) pack up and go home. If you're not going to dance to our tune...what do we care if the Taliban win?"
They wouldn't be able to agree fast enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| mack4289 wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| spliff wrote: |
| Paying ransom is/was a mistake, IMHO. If every country made it clear that they back President Bush's "no ransom" policy than terrorists wouldn't bother kidnapping people...now they must be sitting back and pulling their beards and saying ...Hmmmmmm. |
Exactly. The negotiations should have gone something like this.
"You give us back our guys and we agree to do nothing in reponse. However if you don't give them back, we will send an additional force of 50,000 soldiers over there with 'take no prisoners' orders. Any Taliban we catch will be shot out of hand. No mercy." |
The logistics of this would be a nightmare. You might get the hostages back but not without killing a lot of civilians and taking more than a few casualties in the process.
It would however demonstrate that taking S.K's for ransom is a bad BAD idea. And in the long run save lives and money
Plus I know the Taliban aren't suicide bombers, but how much do you think threats on their life count for? They'd probably prefer to be shot dead rather than rot in a prison for the rest of their lives.
But do you think they want to increase the CHANCE of being shot dead by an additional 50,000 soldiers? Do you think they want reinforcements over there?
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2878973
"First of all, we must carry out a clandestine operation like the one Israeli special forces performed in Uganda, because there is no chance that the government of Afghanistan would permit such a mission. It is not possible at all.
Typical politican spineless talk. The government of Afghanistan would do what the U.S told it to do. Either that or the U.S tells the Taliban "go to it boys" and pulls out.
... Unlike the Entebbe operation, [Koreans] do not have information on the accurate location of the Koreans in the hands of Taliban."
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2878827
[i]"One of the major obstacles, said a Foreign Ministry official who declined to be named, is the sovereignty of Afghanistan. �The incident is not in our jurisdiction,� the official said. �We would need permission from Kabul. Otherwise it�s an invasion. There is a need by Kabul to demonstrate that it can handle this situation. It also has to consider public sentiment.�
See above
Even with a green light from the administration of President Hamid Karzai, Seoul would need to get permission from the National Assembly while it gauges public support. The actual operation, whether a rescue mission or retaliatory in nature, would then require cooperation from the United States and other international forces in Afghanistan.
�We have to operate in a foreign country. Intelligence and logistic support such as airlifting our forces are crucial,� said a retired official who was instrumental in setting up the country�s first counter-terrorist unit. �But even with full support we would need sufficient time to practice any mission.�
The official, who declined to be named, said the �political will� to accept casualties was also crucial."
Exactly. Spineless politicans
Since they are held scattered around in civilian houses, it is difficult to carry out raids on multiple targets simultaneously." |
Well I wasn't envisoning a rescue mission more of declaring war. And keep in mind this is hypothetical...at the absolute mimimum they should have refused to pay ransom. This only increases the chance of more kidnappings and more money being paid. Pathetic. |
I agree the ransom shouldn't have been paid, they shouldn't have agreed to pull troops or volunteer workers out. That will only encourage this type of thing in the future.
But I'm against a rescue operation because of the impracticality of it. We didn't even know for sure where these people were. They weren't all being kept in the same place. As that article explained, any operation would take considerable time and effort to organize and I'm guessing would have to involve Afghanis, which would lead to a leak to the Taliban. The Taliban finds out about the operation and scatters the hostages even more.
Korea sends in its special forces and let's say they get a few of the hostages back but the remaining hostages are stowed away in some other village. They can't find them so they start searching every house in the village, p*ssing off every villager in the process. All you need is one of these people to push already very on-edge Korean soldiers before one of the villagers get killed.
Meanwhile, the Taliban are videotaping some very gruesome executions of the remaining Korean hostages to be broadcast all over the internet.
At the end of all this, besides the humiliation inflicted on the Korean government and military, the already extremely weak Afghani President is weakened even more by the outrage directed against him for allowing the operation and so, subsequently, the Taliban is more empowered.
All this to save 19 Koreans who should've known that preaching Christianity in Afghanistan is extremely dangerous and should've resigned themselves to the fact that they were taking their lives in their hands.
I'm not saying this would definitely happen. But I can guarantee an operation like this in some remote village or villages in Afghanistan would be very messy and complicated and would do more harm than good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Saxiif wrote: |
| Wow, what a wonderful way to paint a nice big target on the backs of all Koreans. |
Jesus Christ, you TV war people...
The big target has always been on the backs of everyone who isn't an Islamo-fascist. It will continue to be there and it would have been there regardless of the outcome of this situation. Or did all of those kidnappings and decapitations just start this month?
They did what was within their power to bring their people home alive. Which should be a government's only choice.
And it really disgusts me how so many of you wanting the Rambo option are basically making the argument of: "I'm glad the hostages are back safe and alive but I would have liked it better if they died to send a message to the Taliban that we're every bit as callous and uncaring about human life as they are!"
But hey, you're all toeing the Bush party line, so that's gotta mean something.
Meh.
Last edited by twg on Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Korean government should have made it clear that for one harmed Korean 20 Taliban would die. Ratio of 15 taliban family members to 5 taliban fighters dead would be right on the money. Go after their kids and mothers, wives and fathers, friends. Just dont pay. 20 dead Koreans? Ok, thats 300 dead taliban wives and children. Good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| what are you, a fucking child? This is video games or something? Jesus. what a pile of stupidity I'm seeing in this thread from the usual suspects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| what a pile of stupidity I'm seeing in this thread from the usual suspects. |
Must be why you came to this thread then...like attracts like.
FYI there are other alternatives to get hostages back without paying money. That just encourages it to happen again and again and again... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand all the problems assiciated with giving into terrorists.
But imagine that you were a public official and 20 plus citizens (prodiminently female) from you country were kidnapped.
It's a looses looses situation. You give into the terrorists and in turn aid them in their future activities. You don't give into the terrorists and in the eyes of some (especially family members) you have blood on your hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It makes me sick to think that there are now going to be $20,000,000 in weapons aimed at Canadian, American, British soldiers, etc. while the Koreans are getting the hell out of there to protect their own asses. So, basically Korea is funding the war against the UN. Great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotticus
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
First of all they wouldn't be indiscrimantly slaughtering just anyone.
Second of all, all the U.S would have to do is say "Look either you allow those 50k in OR WE (The U.S and whoever else wants to) pack up and go home. If you're not going to dance to our tune...what do we care if the Taliban win?"
They wouldn't be able to agree fast enough. |
You're living in a dream world if you think it wouldn't turn into a genocidal witch-hunt. Would it be indiscriminate? Probably not, but if you think tons of non-combatants wouldn't be slaughtered in the name of "justice," then you need to study your history books a bit more.
Furthermore, you say "all the US would have to do." So first we're bastards for policing the world, now we should be threatening allied nations with abandonment if they don't let us ship in thousands of revenge-hungry troops into an already volatile situation?
Like I said before: This is not a video game, nor a political suspense novel. This is real life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Saxiif wrote: |
| Wow, what a wonderful way to paint a nice big target on the backs of all Koreans. |
Jesus Christ, you TV war people...
The big target has always been on the backs of everyone who isn't an Islamo-fascist. It will continue to be there and it would have been there regardless of the outcome of this situation. Or did all of those kidnappings and decapitations just start this month?
They did what was within their power to bring their people home alive. Which should be a government's only choice.
And it really disgusts me how so many of you wanting the Rambo option are basically making the argument of: "I'm glad the hostages are back safe and alive but I would have liked it better if they died to send a message to the Taliban that we're every bit as callous and uncaring about human life as they are!"
But hey, you're all toeing the Bush party line, so that's gotta mean something.
Meh. |
Your point regarding the target on the backs of the "infidels" is true, but that doesn't mean we should respond to their kidnappings by giving them money and taking pressure off them. The government did choose to get their people home, but they also chose to empower the Taliban. Not a fair trade for the lives of 19 people who should've been ready to accept the danger they faced in going to Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh I haven't seen a single report they used money or bribes. The deal I heard was the troops leave as soon as possible and no more missionary work, ever in Afghanistan.
Could someone please provide a link saying there was a bribe. Not that I don't trust the Dave's bloviators but I'd like to see a link. |
|
| 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
