Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Selfish, irresponsible Korean government

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

Selfish, irresponsible Korean government
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

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

The Korean government has much to apologize for. So do the French, Italian and German should they have done the same thing. They are extending legitimacy to the taliban. Each successful abduction creates more.

And really, is Italy is serious nation? France proved herself disgraceful in bribing Libya.

From your own link otoh:

Quote:

For all the headlines they grab, the kidnapping of European and Asian hostages in Iraq and Afghanistan is far from the worst of the many woes afflicting the two countries. But the damage caused by these incidents goes far beyond individual human tragedy, mostly thanks to the hapless reactions of the victims� governments. Their willingness to pay huge ransoms for their citizens has turned hostage-taking into a highly profitable industry in both war zones. That has helped to finance the insurgencies, slowed down reconstruction and put even more Westerners at risk.

The consequences of these payments are disastrous, however. Due to the weakness of their governments, Germans, French and Italian citizens are coveted targets for both terrorist and criminal groups. Every payment has put fellow citizens at risk, making it virtually impossible for Westerners to work in Iraq � and increasingly also Afghanistan. �If you are a terrorist the perception is that Germany pays for hostages and that is problematic,� said Nick Pratt, a former CIA operative now working as a terrorism expert in Germany. The growing risk of abduction has also dashed the hope that European experts will come and help with reconstruction and development and added to the economic woes of both countries.

Lastly, the lives of archaeologists, journalists, nurses and engineers are inherently more valuable than those of missionaries. The Koreans didn't deserve protection because they were warned not to go there and were doing extremely dangerous work for no good reason at all. If they had been journalists then maybe I'd be more sensitive.

But the initial point stands. Canadian and other NATO soldiers now have 2,000,000$ in addition weapons pointed at them. Thanks Korea!

Glass houses. OK to bomb, shoot, maim and kill innocents, including women and children, but not OK to pay for the safety of your own citizens in a war your nation is not really even party to?

On the other hand

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

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You missed my point: of course our presence here has nothing to do with counterterrorism. The point is that we have even less obligation to assist the ROK in its defense against the DPRK in view of their unwillingness to actively and steadfastly support the war in Afghanistan.

Are you referring to a moral obligation? If so, then we definitely are not on the same page in terms of our understanding of foreign policy motivations.

Quote:

Even if he were and we accept this as a breach of foreign policy stance, we need to keep things in proper perspective, i.e., Iran at that time wasn't threatening the West (they were waging a border war with Iraq).

Thanks for the pro-Iranian apologetics Steve, but according to the CFR...

Quote:

U.S. officials say Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s)

Glad to hear that Hezbollah(founded 1985) is not an anti-western organization. Mind if I quote you on that next time Joo says otherwise?

Quote:

I think you're the one who's letting his ties to Korea get the best of him over this issue.

If you want to know the honest truth, I am probably the least Koreanized of the long-term expats on this board. Can't speak the language, don't much care for the food, and I certainly don't have much good to say about the Confucian patriarchy. It's just that I don't think the credibility of a discussion is enhanced when people let their personal vendettas against a culture get in the way of objective discussion.

Sort of like when you're trying to discuss the ethics of American foreign policy, and some Canadian dork pipes up to inform everyone that one of the main problems with the USA is that Americans don't know some obscure fact about Canadian geography. Someone not caught up in the petty emotionalism of the whole Canada/US rivalry would probably not see that as a useful contribution to the debate.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/state_sponsors.html

Last edited by On the other hand on Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:40 pm; edited 2 times in total

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

BJWD wrote:

Quote:

Glass houses. OK to bomb, shoot, maim and kill innocents, including women and children, but not OK to pay for the safety of your own citizens in a war your nation is not really even party to?

I'd like you to find one instance where I have expressed, articulated or otherwise alluded to a position that I hold that might embrace violence/murder as acceptable policy.

The Koreans, while maybe not the first to do it, are ensuring more kidnapping and that the taliban will be better armed. Best outcome, everybody leaves those people to their own culture/religion. Sure. But that isn't the reality and the Koreans just made it a whole bunch more dangerous while at the same time running away with their tail between their legs.

The taliban are also ensuring that Koreans will be targets for kidnapping around the world (likely the Philippines). The state will directly negotiate with terrorists without any reservation or facade at all.

I stand by my statement that the hostages should not have been paid for. This was Darwin at work. They went out of their way to get kidnapped (painting Xtian slogans on the inside of a mosque, trying to convert locals, ignoring government warnings to go there, not warning the police that they were there, not having a guide/guard that was armed and so on). They got themselves into a very bad situation because of their inherent stupidity. I'm not happy that some Canadian dude will likely get blown up because of that. They very simply got the situation that they deserved. Life is real like that.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:18 am Post subject:

OTOH wrote:

Quote:

Are you referring to a moral obligation? If so, then we definitely are not on the same page in terms of our understanding of foreign policy motivations.

No, I'm referring to an honor-bound obligation. Considering how much the U.S. invests in terms of human resources and financing a 38,000 permanent contingent, I'd say the least the Korean government could do is stand its ground against Taliban extremists.

Quote:

Thanks for the pro-Iranian apologetics Steve, but according to the CFR...

I'm well ware of Hizbollah's activities in that time frame but you know darn well those missiles weren't going to them.

Quote:

Sort of like when you're trying to discuss the ethics of American foreign policy, and some Canadian dork pipes up to inform everyone that one of the main problems with the USA is that Americans don't know some obscure fact about Canadian geography. Someone not caught up in the petty emotionalism of the whole Canada/US rivalry would probably not see that as a useful contribution to the debate.

Agreed, but again I don't count myself among those who thus motivated on this thread.

On the other hand

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

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:30 am Post subject:

Steve wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
Thanks for the pro-Iranian apologetics Steve, but according to the CFR...

I'm well ware of Hizbollah's activities in that time frame but you know darn well those missiles weren't going to them.

So, giving arms to a terrorist regime is okay, so long as the arms aren't used against your own side? If the Koreans had found a way to ensure that none of the ransom had gone to kill Koreans, that would be okay by you?

And if you want to dispute that Iran circa mid-80s was a terrorist regime, ask yourself why they, and not the kidnappers, were on the receiving end of the ransom.

Quote:

America wants the bases here because it serves their interests. Korea wants the bases here because it serves THEIR interests. So, they've entered into a mutually benefical relationship, based on self-motivated ends. America owes Korea soldiers and equipment, Korea owes America land on which to house the bases. That, and whatever else is in the contract, is all that either party owes the other.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject:

OTOH wrote:

Quote:

No, I'm not overly concerned as long as the weapons are not intended for use against civilians. Iran used them against the Iraqi army. The way I see it, let them have their bloodbath. Same goes for the recent Shi'a civil strife: just fewer thugs and potential terrorists in their midsts as far as I'm concerned. Same when Hamas fights Fatah.

Quote:

So, they've entered into a mutually benefical relationship, based on self-motivated ends. America owes Korea soldiers and equipment, Korea owes America land on which to house the bases. That, and whatever else is in the contract, is all that either party owes the other.

You make it sound strictly like a business deal. It isn't, nor should it be. Entering into a long-term alliance makes a nation duty-bound, which you apparently fail to understand. It requires reciprocity. My contention is that this security arrangement no longer serves American foreign policy interests enough to warrant the deployment, the expenditure, and the hardship for families kept stateside. China and Russia are no longer potential threats on the peninsula. Only the DPRK continues to pose a threat. Well, so what: let the Koreans work out their own mess.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject:

Korea wasnt' that wrong for doing what they did just as long as they finesse this issue. They ought to make up for what they did by contributing far more for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan than they paid to the Taliban. The Taiban doesn't want to see Afghanistan fixed up so by doing this Korea would also get back at the Taliban. If Korea does nothing of the sort then they are being selfish and irresponsibile.

On the other hand

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

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You make it sound strictly like a business deal. It isn't, nor should it be.

Well, I guess we're gonna disagree about that. I regard international agreements the same way as I would regard a business deal. To suggest otherwise, I think, is just to clutter the issue up with intrusive sentimentalism.

Quote:

It requires reciprocity.

But I don't think the reciprocity extends outside the terms of the agreement. You can't start multiplying obligations upon obligations.

The UK and the USA both have reciprocal obligations under NATO, right? If one gets attacked, the other is obliged to join in the defense. But let's say that the UK wants to start up another international organization, with the specific purpose of launching a surge into Belfast and cleaning up the IRA once and for all. So, they ask the US to join the new group. The American president looks at the opinion polls, and sees that he'll lose Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois in the next election if he enlists America in the Brits new group. So, he says no thanks. Is the American president reneging on his obligations to the British by refusing involvement?

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

You make it sound strictly like a business deal. It isn't, nor should it be.

Quote:

It requires reciprocity.

If the U.K. had some 40 thousand troops or so in America to protect them against a Canadian/Mexican invasion, and had for 50 years I should think that the general public would have been bought up in a much different political climate...therefore with much different ideals.

My point? You can't compare your hypothetical situation with the US/Korea issue, you're comparing apples to oranges.

We spent a large number of lives to keep the South free.

It would not exist had it not been for NATO involvement (most troops were U.S.) though.

So a little reciprocity is in order. At the very least you do not pay 20 million dollars to a terrorist group so it can use the money to kill MORE soldiers of an army, who, 50-odd years ago, not only kept your land invasion free but provided huge loans in order to help rebuild your country.

But to get back to your hypothetical situation. Wouldn't you agree that if the U.S paid 20 million dollars to the IRA, that they WOULD be reneging on their obligations? After all, if you are in a pact to defend someone...you don't give money to their enemy.

On the other hand

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

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

But to get back to your hypothetical situation. Wouldn't you agree that if the U.S paid 20 million dollars to the IRA, that they WOULD be reneging on their obligations? After all, if you are in a pact to defend someone...you don't give money to their enemy.

Well, my original comparison was not to the paying of the ransom, but to the removal of the troops, as per my understanding of McG's original point...

Quote:

The point is that we have even less obligation to assist the ROK in its defense against the DPRK in view of their unwillingness to actively and steadfastly support the war in Afghanistan.

Quote:

therefore with much different ideals

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

Well, my original comparison was not to the paying of the ransom, but to the removal of the troops, as per my understanding of McG's original point...

Quote:

The point is that we have even less obligation to assist the ROK in its defense against the DPRK in view of their unwillingness to actively and steadfastly support the war in Afghanistan.

Let's say that the US joined the Brit's anti-IRA coalition, and then pulled out because the president thought it was costing votes in Boston and New York. I wouldn't see that as an affront to a NATO ally, because NATO has nothing to do with the anti-IRA alliance.

But yes. South Korea's payment of the ransom could be seen as undermining the USA in Afghanistan(though no more than other countries' payments.) My point to Steve was that that has no bearing on the question of whether the US should pull out of Korea, because the US-Korea alliance has nothing to do with ensuring good behavior from Korea in Afghanitstan.

If Korea benefits from a U.S alliance as in its armed forces preventing a North Korean invasion, then it could be argued that the U.S has a similar claim on the South Korean army.
At the bare mimimum they should not be undermining the U.S and enabling its enemies to regroup and strengthen as the ransom money will do (according to the kidnappers' spokesman) . As for those other countries (France and Germany?). France has no U.S contingent in it defending it to my knowledge and Germany is more than capable of defending itself. Plus these countries are in the NATO alliance which means they don't need American forces inside their borders.

Quote:

Russia lost 20 million lives defeating the Nazis, something that the Eastern Europeans on their own probably couldn't have done. Does this mean that, circa 2007, Hungary is obliged to give material support to every foreign policy undertaking of Russia?

But Russia then instituted a corrupt and brutal regime every bit as bad as the Nazis. And Russia wasn't defeating the Nazis for the sake of Hungary, it was a matter of its own survival. In fact Russia was perfectly prepared to carve up Eastern Europe between itself and Nazi Germany prior to the Germany attack of 1942 as the example of Poland shows.

The North Korean army on the other hand was not a threat (then or now) to the American homeland...or for that matter to practically any other NATO ally. If Russia's occupation of East Europe had had the consequences of making those countries rich and prosperous, then yes I would argue that they had some obligation.

Quote:

therefore with much different ideals

"Ideals"(as in "naively idealistic") would be the correct word to describe it, it Americans were thinking that the UK was defending them out of the goodness of their heart, and hence entitled to considerations above and beyond those dictated by mere self-interest. If the UK had 40 000 troops in the USA to ward off a Mexican invasion, it would be simply because the British government had decided that containing Mexico was somehow in the interests of the UK.

In that case I would argue that the U.S still would own the UK 40,000 troops because that's 40,000 troops THEY (the U.S) would have to put up and finance if Britian decided ITS troops were urgently needed elsewhere. And again at a minimum I would expect the U.S not to pay huge sums of money to the IRA so that the IRA could finance a long struggle against the U.K Particularly when the IRA was hard-pressed prior to such a payment.

On the other hand

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

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject:

I gotta run to work, but I will comment on this...

Quote:

But Russia then instituted a corrupt and brutal regime every bit as bad as the Nazis.

The postwar Eastern European regimes were as bad as the Nazis? I think I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Even postwar Russia under Stalin was better than it was in the 1930s.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

You make it sound strictly like a business deal. It isn't, nor should it be.

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

I gotta run to work, but I will comment on this...

Quote:

But Russia then instituted a corrupt and brutal regime every bit as bad as the Nazis.

The postwar Eastern European regimes were as bad as the Nazis? I think I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Even postwar Russia under Stalin was better than it was in the 1930s.

I think some of those countries would disagree with you. In fact some sources say it was worse. (See the bolded part)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

When the Soviets invaded Germany and Hungary in 1944 "the number of war crimes, plunder, murder of civilians and especially rape reached a level of previously unknown proportions"

According to the article this went on until around 1949 well past the end of the war in Europe.

Ever read Antony Beever?

The article also claims a large number of Eastern European men joined the Nazi army voluntarily to fight against the Soviet advance. That in itself says something. I've read that from other sources as well, that they were joining up even when the Nazi defeat was inevitable.

Prior to the war the Soviet regime was known for incredible brutality even in peacetime.

You seem rather literate so surely you've heard of the Holodomor?

On the other hand

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

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:20 am Post subject:

Quote:

You seem rather literate so surely you've heard of the Holodomor?

Yes, the Ukranian famine. (Though I will admit that until a few days ago, I was unaware that it went by that name.) There is in fact a monument to its victims in my hometown, which has a sizable Ukranian population.

Still though, your original point was...

Quote:

But Russia then instituted a corrupt and brutal regime every bit as bad as the Nazis.

I understood this to mean postwar. I take your point about Hungary though. But I'd be interested to know, given what you apparently regard as the moral equivalence between Nazism and Stalinism, if it would have been just as well to allow Hitler to win the war.

More on the rest of your points in a bit.

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