|
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 |
crossmr
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Hwayangdong, Seoul
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bramble wrote: |
I'll try to address your other points later because they do warrant a response. I just don't want to spend all day on the Internet when I have things to do. |
Please do, because so far from that side of the fence the only thing I can interpret from the responses so far is that when the tanks roll through the streets you're just going to lay down and die, possibly first so you don't have to watch them slaughter and rape your loved ones. You guys are right though, I don't know how anyone could interpret that as not being a man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
you seem to be citing WWII as your frame of reference which is a bit antiquated .
any war with north korea will most likely involve tactical nuclear strikes and long range artillery shelling (from the North) and tons and tons of air strikes (from SK and the US), with some minor ground skirmishes between the advance NK troops that come across the border. the SK army is not meant to stop the North in case of invasion, American air power is what they're going to have to rely on.
all of this equals huge civilian casualites, no matter how many 19 year old South Korean men choose to be conscripted or not. given the traditional East Asian regard for the rights of the individual, i wouldn't find a Verdun-style strategy (maximize casualties to demoralize) as terribly unlikely.
mandatory military service is a valuable tool for the SK elite to instill the same brain-dead Confucian hierarchical thinking into another generation of automatons. a readied population is one thing, citing universal conscription in a 21st century framework as being vital to the national defense of Korea is another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
espoir
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Location: Incheon, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There will always be war so long as there are idiots to start it and fools to fight it.
Last edited by espoir on Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crossmr wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
I'll try to address your other points later because they do warrant a response. I just don't want to spend all day on the Internet when I have things to do. |
Please do, because so far from that side of the fence the only thing I can interpret from the responses so far is that when the tanks roll through the streets you're just going to lay down and die, possibly first so you don't have to watch them slaughter and rape your loved ones. You guys are right though, I don't know how anyone could interpret that as not being a man. |
One possible response is that we can control our own choices, not other people's choices. The Jehovah's Witnesses might say that even if an evil enemy invaded and decided to kill everyone, a good person would rather die doing the right thing than live by doing the wrong thing.
However, I'm not opposed to all uses of force in situations such as that, and it's hard to say what I'd do if it ever happened. I can't say definitively what level of force would be justified, but I would draw the line well before any action that was guaranteed to take innocent lives.
Another point is that if you accept the war mentality, you're less likely to look for other solutions. That may be what Smee was getting at�although you seem very determined to pick apart your opponents' literal words without much regard for the intent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Plenty of murder goes on in the course of military operations. It's called 'collateral damage'. Civilian deaths have exceeded combatant deaths in just about every war in the 20th Century. |
Once again, this is a really good point. Even if you accept the use of violence in self-defence (which I do) or to prevent immediate harm to someone innocent (which I also do), there is no way to justify warfare between countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crossmr
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Hwayangdong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| you seem to be citing WWII as your frame of reference which is a bit antiquated . |
The frame of reference I'm citing is any scenario of an invading/oppressive force. There are plenty of situations where innocents are being slaughtered even today.
| Quote: |
| any war with north korea will most likely involve tactical nuclear strikes and long range artillery shelling (from the North) and tons and tons of air strikes (from SK and the US), with some minor ground skirmishes between the advance NK troops that come across the border. the SK army is not meant to stop the North in case of invasion, American air power is what they're going to have to rely on. |
Most likely, but not necessarily. Having 1.2 million soldiers sitting around wouldn't be that efficient of an attack. The 28,000 the US are providing would be little more than a speed bump. 20 million trained fighting men on the other hand..
| Quote: |
| all of this equals huge civilian casualites, |
and that is completely immaterial. Not having trained soldiers means more civilian casualties in the event that the north decided to invade and there is nothing SK could do to prevent that so they have to prepare themselves to try and minimize the losses.
| Quote: |
| citing universal conscription in a 21st century framework as being vital to the national defense of Korea is another. |
You seem to be using the west as your frame of reference for which there isn't currently any outstanding force poised to invade. Force conscription for the US, Britain, Canada all unnecessary (though frankly Canada is getting a bit soft and could use a larger army, the US may not always be there to protect us)
| Quote: |
| There will always be war so long as there are idiots to start it and fools to fight it. |
pretending it won't happen won't make it go away either.
| Quote: |
| One possible response is that we can control our own choices, not other people's choices. The Jehovah's Witnesses might say that even if an evil enemy invaded and decided to kill everyone, a good person would rather die doing the right thing than live by doing the wrong thing. |
I consider protecting my loved ones and community members from death and rape to be the right thing.
| Quote: |
| but I would draw the line well before any action that was guaranteed to take innocent lives. |
I'm talking about defensive action, you have no choice. If someone invades you can't tell them, hey you're going to kill an innocent person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crossmr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| all of this equals huge civilian casualites, |
and that is completely immaterial. Not having trained soldiers means more civilian casualties in the event that the north decided to invade and there is nothing SK could do to prevent that so they have to prepare themselves to try and minimize the losses. |
This is the sort of argument I had in mind when I said we can control our own choices, not other people's choices. You can't control whether someone else kills civilians, but you can refuse to kill civilians yourself. The idea of killing innocent people to "minimize losses" seems morally bankrupt to me. Besides, what if both sides think they're minimizing losses?
| crossmr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| but I would draw the line well before any action that was guaranteed to take innocent lives. |
I'm talking about defensive action, you have no choice. If someone invades you can't tell them, hey you're going to kill an innocent person. |
I'm unclear on what you're saying here. I'm saying I would probably use some degree of force if faced with that situation, and if I had the opportunity to save myself or someone else ... but I would stop short of hurting someone who was completely innocent. What the attacker does is on their conscience, and it's not always possible to stop bad people from doing bad things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bryan
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Slavery.
70% of Koreans support enslaving young men. They think slavery is good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wylies99
Joined: 13 May 2006
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bryan wrote: |
Slavery.
70% of Koreans support enslaving young men. They think slavery is good. |
It's serving your country- aka, community service. In the USA, it's voluntary, and in South Korea it's not. That's all.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crossmr
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Hwayangdong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm unclear on what you're saying here. I'm saying I would probably use some degree of force if faced with that situation, and if I had the opportunity to save myself or someone else ... but I would stop short of hurting someone who was completely innocent. What the attacker does is on their conscience, and it's not always possible to stop bad people from doing bad things. |
Because if you argue for self defense you can't argue against service. Self-defense isn't much good on this scale with a bunch of peasants and rifles vs a trained army with equipment.
This isn't the movies.
You might argue against any offensive action, but the service itself is still necessary to protect your livelihood. However think about the following scenario, what do you do:
The north invades, bombs, hundreds of thousands march, the war is bloody. South korea responds and pushes them back to the DMZ. Now at that point we'd have already have done that twice. What do you?
"Now you crazy, silly SoB you stay north of that line this time. We've REALLY got our eye on you this time." Do you just sit there and push them back to the line every time losing countless lives each and every time they attack?
How would you explain to the people: The North invades every 50 years, slaughters a couple million people and we push em back. Its a cycle, but we're not going to do anything else to stop them.
He's already shown after 50 years that he's as crazy as they come and all the diplomatic sanctions in the world have no effect.
This is where your argument breaks down. At some point if they won't stop, you have to stop them and it might be on their soil. Otherwise they just pull back, build up, attack again.
If you can't act in that situation you might as well have not even defended them in the first place, because what did you save them for? a lifetime of wondering when the next attack will come? Of turning the other cheek as soon as the enemy steps off your soil? You only have 2 cheeks and after they're both blown off, you don't have much.
Now I'm not talking about preemptive strikes for every perceived danger. But you have to recognize in the case of repeated major threats, (e.g. if the north were to seriously invade again) an offensive may reduce over all civilian casualties.
The reason military training is a good idea in Korea is because there is a very real threat. You can bet that if Korea let its military lapse, after a few years things might get dicey. The North might start tossing its weight around realizing its much stronger. Considering he's already a nut job, giving him an "in" does not help the situation. The US is spread too thin to be of any real benefit..Canada has like 6 soldiers and they're all busy. Most of them don't even have guns. I don't know how britain is doing and I don't know how well the rest of the international community would respond for fear of angering China.
Diplomatically the best thing foreign countries could do is to get China to sever relations with North Korea entirely. Then if the north did invade, perhaps the existing forces could put a stop to it once and for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You seem to have misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that I may not be an absolute pacifist as the Jehovah's Witnesses understand the term ... as far as I know, they oppose even peaceful protests and may also be against using force in individual cases of self-defence (although I'm not 100 percent certain on that last part). I think people have a right to stand up for themselves, their beliefs and their families to some extent, but participating in military actions ("defensive" or not) is over the line IMO. I'm discussing what I consider moral limits on self-defence, and you seem to be discussing what you think is in your own interests (or Korea's interests). They're two different things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crossmr
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Hwayangdong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| You seem to have misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that I may not be an absolute pacifist as the Jehovah's Witnesses understand the term ... as far as I know, they oppose even peaceful protests and may also be against using force in individual cases of self-defence (although I'm not 100 percent certain on that last part). I think people have a right to stand up for themselves, their beliefs and their families to some extent, but participating in military actions ("defensive" or not) is over the line IMO. I'm discussing what I consider moral limits on self-defence, and you seem to be discussing what you think is in your own interests (or Korea's interests). They're two different things. |
That is what I'm discussing and my point is they're unreasonable.
you might not need military training to take on someone who breaks in to your house, but as a nation you're lost without it if another country invades.
This thread is about Korea's military service (or even military service in general). The claim was made that taking a life is never appropriate regardless of the circumstances, which included self-defense. Well self-defense applies to both individuals and countries. In addition to that, on the country level how do you deal with a continuing aggressor?
My point was that taking a life can be fully justified, and that military service is appropriate in the context of the political climate in which this country exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ukon
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| You seem to have misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that I may not be an absolute pacifist as the Jehovah's Witnesses understand the term ... as far as I know, they oppose even peaceful protests and may also be against using force in individual cases of self-defence (although I'm not 100 percent certain on that last part). I think people have a right to stand up for themselves, their beliefs and their families to some extent, but participating in military actions ("defensive" or not) is over the line IMO. I'm discussing what I consider moral limits on self-defence, and you seem to be discussing what you think is in your own interests (or Korea's interests). They're two different things. |
If a nations self-defense is not worth fighting for, they can take their kooky beliefs and move to some other nation......Even Ghandi disagreed with extreme pacifism....Violence is sometimes the answer...the north is bat-s**** insane and downright morally bankrupt...
I say throw'em in jail...and what about non-combat MOS? I'm sure there is an option to do non-fighting roles within the military...hell, I hear some even become fighter fighters or work with the police instead of military. They can't all be soldiers....somebody has to be a medic, drive trucks, cook meals, be radioman, etc. so I call BS on their excuse to not join....unless the K-army has people pick jobs out of a hat.
If these guys want alternative conscription, I say let them be poorly paid assistants who do menial jobs...If picking up liter off the streets beats military service for them, I say let them do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justaguy
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of Korean men doubt the truth of those who say they are concious objectors. They think they are just chicken s#its who will say and do anything to weasel their way out of their responsibility and duty to their nation.
I agree with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teachergirltoo
Joined: 28 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| justaguy wrote: |
| A lot of Korean men doubt the truth of those who say they are concious objectors. They think they are just chicken s#its who will say and do anything to weasel their way out of their responsibility and duty to their nation. |
I think it takes a pretty brave man (or woman) to stand up for what his conscience tells him is right...or wrong - even against the ridicule of his peers or national leader - and especially when he knows it may cost him his life. Serving as a CO in a Korean prison is no cakewalk. If you tour the prisons here and ask about the COs treatment of past and present it is surprising and disturbing. I have read and heard the accounts of COs from many countries tell of their experiences in the prisons, and concentration camps of the Nazi regime, and they are equally as harrowing. They are often given much harsher treatment than an ordinary prisoner and definitely do not fall into the category of people that are "chicken". For information concerning the CO treatment history in Korea there is a video posted at the following link: http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/5263723221/62734221.htm |
|
| 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
