|
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 |
tideout
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:13 am Post subject: Re: Evaluating risk |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| tideout wrote: |
It's difficlut evaluating risk in situations like this as I was mentioning in a previous post.
Bill Richards is in N. Korea and one would like to think that with his long history of diplomacy there there would be less chance of hostility. On the other hand, I don't think he's an alarmist and he's quoted as saying it's a "tinderbox".
It sounds like there's a lot of "action" around the same island today etc..
I'm wondering if we won't see a wierd version of "Korean - Falkland Islands"?
Essentially meaningless geography to piss on each other and lob shells from time to time.
I do think this could have a negative effect on people coming to work here if it goes on. It certainly isn't helping the value of the Won is it? |
Hopefully this will scare off a bunch of NETs from coming here and scare people from working in Seoul so I can go there and make the big bux |
If NET"s start leaving in drovers it will probably be for good reason. What do you think the Won would be at after a real "event" in Seoul, the DMZ etc..?
Last edited by tideout on Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tideout
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sojusucks wrote: |
| FWIW there was a large "Death to America" rally outside Seoul Station this afternoon and guess who was walking through the crowd, (from the station to the cab stand), just as a female speaker shrieked about "The Evil MeeGook"? Why, it was me, of course-lol. A bunch of them glared at me but there were literally columns of police standing a few feet away ready for any any excuse to bust some heads. |
Just curioius - what was the event about or what's the connection to the USA and the protests? Recent trade deals or NK issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tideout wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| bobbybigfoot wrote: |
An American friend of mine emailed yesterday and urged me to leave Korea.
"It's not safe."
The feeling of war is getting very real.
The Korean Won is losing value again.
Maybe it is time to leave.
I'm considering wiring all my money home first thing Monday morning. |
Meh, I'll worry when Koreans start worrying. War is in no one's best interests. |
A co-worker of mine, educated and possibly one of the more reasonable people in my school was talking a few weeks ago about how he wasn't worried at all yet yesterday he started relaying an ongoing conversation he and his wife are having about what to do w/ the kids in the event of an attack and that he and his wife have been worried. He's also told me he thinks walking cures cancer.
I'm not sure why anyone believes Koreans are any better predictors of what North Korea is going to do than anyone else. Apparently the SK military wasn't worried about either an attack on ship this last summer or an artillery shelling of a small island a few weeks ago - despite being warned by NK in both instances.
It's just a guess of my own that Koreans may have seen enough of these types of events they're less likely to see things clearly. |
North Korea has shown itself to be rational actor, and they'd totally flout all international relations theory by staging any kind of attack. They just want food. They're a pretty standard issue dramatic actor. Their biggest (only?) advantage is that they can mess up Seoul, an advantage that disappears the moment they attack it.
Korean public opinion plus my IR degree makes me think that conflict is highly unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tideout
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| tideout wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| bobbybigfoot wrote: |
An American friend of mine emailed yesterday and urged me to leave Korea.
"It's not safe."
The feeling of war is getting very real.
The Korean Won is losing value again.
Maybe it is time to leave.
I'm considering wiring all my money home first thing Monday morning. |
Meh, I'll worry when Koreans start worrying. War is in no one's best interests. |
A co-worker of mine, educated and possibly one of the more reasonable people in my school was talking a few weeks ago about how he wasn't worried at all yet yesterday he started relaying an ongoing conversation he and his wife are having about what to do w/ the kids in the event of an attack and that he and his wife have been worried. He's also told me he thinks walking cures cancer.
I'm not sure why anyone believes Koreans are any better predictors of what North Korea is going to do than anyone else. Apparently the SK military wasn't worried about either an attack on ship this last summer or an artillery shelling of a small island a few weeks ago - despite being warned by NK in both instances.
It's just a guess of my own that Koreans may have seen enough of these types of events they're less likely to see things clearly. |
North Korea has shown itself to be rational actor, and they'd totally flout all international relations theory by staging any kind of attack. They just want food. They're a pretty standard issue dramatic actor. Their biggest (only?) advantage is that they can mess up Seoul, an advantage that disappears the moment they attack it.
Korean public opinion plus my IR degree makes me think that conflict is highly unlikely. |
You raise a valid point. I think North Korea's "nuttiness" is way overplayed, at least in US media, thought I don't know about it in S. Korean media etc..
There's a great C-Span video "The Cleanest Race", I think it's R. B. Meyers or something similar. I've seen his book on the table at What the Book before. At any rate, much of what we think about North Korea may be off including our ideas about how "starved" they are. He said in the video that more than half ( I think I'm remembering the figure correctly) actually bribe their way back into North Korea - something that never happened during the cold war w/ Russia, E. Germany etc.. It's a very interesting clip.
I'd only add that history's filled with apparently rational countries doing what is later seen as irrational things. England and Argentina (Falklands) come to mind but there are countless other examples. Every empire that has folded (that would be all of them) have been rational enough to get to be empires yet made irrational decisions leading to their downfall.
I also think it's a mistake to think that NK's the only party that could hit the trip wire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tideout wrote: |
You raise a valid point. I think North Korea's "nuttiness" is way overplayed, at least in US media, thought I don't know about it in S. Korean media etc..
There's a great C-Span video "The Cleanest Race", I think it's R. B. Meyers or something similar. I've seen his book on the table at What the Book before. At any rate, much of what we think about North Korea may be off including our ideas about how "starved" they are. He said in the video that more than half ( I think I'm remembering the figure correctly) actually bribe their way back into North Korea - something that never happened during the cold war w/ Russia, E. Germany etc.. It's a very interesting clip.
I'd only add that history's filled with apparently rational countries doing what is later seen as irrational things. England and Argentina (Falklands) come to mind but there are countless other examples. Every empire that has folded (that would be all of them) have been rational enough to get to be empires yet made irrational decisions leading to their downfall.
I also think it's a mistake to think that NK's the only party that could hit the trip wire. |
Who was irrational in the Falklands? From an Argentine perspective, it was a domestic power play. From the Brits perspective it's that you need to maintain your power and the Falklands are a valuable base in a place where you have no other naval presence. Most things that are "irrational" are rational when viewed by IR theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tideout
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| tideout wrote: |
You raise a valid point. I think North Korea's "nuttiness" is way overplayed, at least in US media, thought I don't know about it in S. Korean media etc..
There's a great C-Span video "The Cleanest Race", I think it's R. B. Meyers or something similar. I've seen his book on the table at What the Book before. At any rate, much of what we think about North Korea may be off including our ideas about how "starved" they are. He said in the video that more than half ( I think I'm remembering the figure correctly) actually bribe their way back into North Korea - something that never happened during the cold war w/ Russia, E. Germany etc.. It's a very interesting clip.
I'd only add that history's filled with apparently rational countries doing what is later seen as irrational things. England and Argentina (Falklands) come to mind but there are countless other examples. Every empire that has folded (that would be all of them) have been rational enough to get to be empires yet made irrational decisions leading to their downfall.
I also think it's a mistake to think that NK's the only party that could hit the trip wire. |
Who was irrational in the Falklands? From an Argentine perspective, it was a domestic power play. From the Brits perspective it's that you need to maintain your power and the Falklands are a valuable base in a place where you have no other naval presence. Most things that are "irrational" are rational when viewed by IR theory. |
I would argue that the Brits were fairly irrational in the sense that they imagined they were still an empire and needed a far flung naval presence there.
The larger point remains the same - countries are known to miscalculate and err. Plenty of examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama canceled a highly anticipated appearance at an NBA basketball game. Something important must have come up to pull him away from this game.
| Quote: |
The Washington Wizards were expecting the president for Saturday night's game against LeBron James and the Miami Heat, and players arriving at the morning shootaround had to go through a Secret Service pat down. Fans were told to arrive 45 minutes earlier than usual because of enhanced security.
But the Secret Service abruptly departed the Verizon Center at noon. No more bomb-sniffing dogs. No more pat downs. No more talk of the president on the way. |
http://www.newser.com/article/d9k6g7jg1/presidential-change-up-obama-cancels-plans-to-attend-wizards-game-against-lebron-heat.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trevelyan66
Joined: 21 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bump |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tideout
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:12 am Post subject: Another round |
|
|
| I see they're amping up for one more set of drills - just when things were calming down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Evaluating risk |
|
|
| tideout wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| tideout wrote: |
It's difficlut evaluating risk in situations like this as I was mentioning in a previous post.
Bill Richards is in N. Korea and one would like to think that with his long history of diplomacy there there would be less chance of hostility. On the other hand, I don't think he's an alarmist and he's quoted as saying it's a "tinderbox".
It sounds like there's a lot of "action" around the same island today etc..
I'm wondering if we won't see a wierd version of "Korean - Falkland Islands"?
Essentially meaningless geography to piss on each other and lob shells from time to time.
I do think this could have a negative effect on people coming to work here if it goes on. It certainly isn't helping the value of the Won is it? |
Hopefully this will scare off a bunch of NETs from coming here and scare people from working in Seoul so I can go there and make the big bux |
If NET"s start leaving in drovers it will probably be for good reason. What do you think the Won would be at after a real "event" in Seoul, the DMZ etc..? |
A solid long-term investment like say, yen or deutschmarks in 1946. Buy low, sell high. Probably get a quicker return though.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hakwonner
Joined: 09 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tideout wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| tideout wrote: |
You raise a valid point. I think North Korea's "nuttiness" is way overplayed, at least in US media, thought I don't know about it in S. Korean media etc..
There's a great C-Span video "The Cleanest Race", I think it's R. B. Meyers or something similar. I've seen his book on the table at What the Book before. At any rate, much of what we think about North Korea may be off including our ideas about how "starved" they are. He said in the video that more than half ( I think I'm remembering the figure correctly) actually bribe their way back into North Korea - something that never happened during the cold war w/ Russia, E. Germany etc.. It's a very interesting clip.
I'd only add that history's filled with apparently rational countries doing what is later seen as irrational things. England and Argentina (Falklands) come to mind but there are countless other examples. Every empire that has folded (that would be all of them) have been rational enough to get to be empires yet made irrational decisions leading to their downfall.
I also think it's a mistake to think that NK's the only party that could hit the trip wire. |
Who was irrational in the Falklands? From an Argentine perspective, it was a domestic power play. From the Brits perspective it's that you need to maintain your power and the Falklands are a valuable base in a place where you have no other naval presence. Most things that are "irrational" are rational when viewed by IR theory. |
I would argue that the Brits were fairly irrational in the sense that they imagined they were still an empire and needed a far flung naval presence there.
The larger point remains the same - countries are known to miscalculate and err. Plenty of examples. |
Well, they also invaded sovereign British territory. How many countries would stand back and say 'ahh it's ok, just take our land'?
Also, considering the Falklands is to this day British territory, and it remains a strategically important place, then how was the action taken by the UK 'irrational' exactly? Okay, if the British had gone and conquered the island in 1982, then I would understand your argument. As it was already British, then it seems rational that the UK acted to protect its territory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
I feel he raised some very interesting points.
I also feel that he hit upon the exact same things that I fear could happen.
Though a good read none the less.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/16/how_to_stop_the_next_korean_war
| Quote: |
For the first time in decades, a new war on the Korean peninsula appears to be a distinct probability. Not only does North Korea's regime seem determined to escalate its provocations, but the air has also changed in South Korea, where society is in an unusually bellicose mood nowadays. After North Korean artillery stunned the world by shelling the island of Yeonpyeong last month, killing four and wounding 20, South Korean generals are talking unusually tough. For example, Gen. Han Min-koo, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently promised that in case of another North Korean attack, his forces "will completely crush the enemy."
|
|
Excellent read, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tideout
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hakwonner wrote: |
| tideout wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| tideout wrote: |
You raise a valid point. I think North Korea's "nuttiness" is way overplayed, at least in US media, thought I don't know about it in S. Korean media etc..
There's a great C-Span video "The Cleanest Race", I think it's R. B. Meyers or something similar. I've seen his book on the table at What the Book before. At any rate, much of what we think about North Korea may be off including our ideas about how "starved" they are. He said in the video that more than half ( I think I'm remembering the figure correctly) actually bribe their way back into North Korea - something that never happened during the cold war w/ Russia, E. Germany etc.. It's a very interesting clip.
I'd only add that history's filled with apparently rational countries doing what is later seen as irrational things. England and Argentina (Falklands) come to mind but there are countless other examples. Every empire that has folded (that would be all of them) have been rational enough to get to be empires yet made irrational decisions leading to their downfall.
I also think it's a mistake to think that NK's the only party that could hit the trip wire. |
Who was irrational in the Falklands? From an Argentine perspective, it was a domestic power play. From the Brits perspective it's that you need to maintain your power and the Falklands are a valuable base in a place where you have no other naval presence. Most things that are "irrational" are rational when viewed by IR theory. |
I would argue that the Brits were fairly irrational in the sense that they imagined they were still an empire and needed a far flung naval presence there.
The larger point remains the same - countries are known to miscalculate and err. Plenty of examples. |
Well, they also invaded sovereign British territory. How many countries would stand back and say 'ahh it's ok, just take our land'?
Also, considering the Falklands is to this day British territory, and it remains a strategically important place, then how was the action taken by the UK 'irrational' exactly? Okay, if the British had gone and conquered the island in 1982, then I would understand your argument. As it was already British, then it seems rational that the UK acted to protect its territory. |
There are plenty of historians who've noted the stupidity of the Falklands War. I'm also not one to defend the Imperial desires of a fading empire in keeping "their" land (the Falklands are embarrassingly outside of their neighborhood). If you want to carry that flag then I wouldn't be inclined to convince you otherwise.
The larger point remains that libraries are filled with books about wars that evolved from hubris, error and overreach to name just a few issues with countries acting "rationally". |
|
| 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
