| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
sml: I didn't intend for that to be a show of bravado, only to reply to Steelrails' minor Civil War reference. To say that I wouldn't have had moral qualms about fighting Union troops while they burned farms in the South.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I AM saying that foreign troops on my country's soil in peacetime (or as close as it gets, as in South Korea) is unacceptable and worthy of civil disobedience or worse. |
Why? What are they doing that is so heinous beyond their presence? Are they failing to provide their function? Are they changing domestic and foreign policy of your government or are they a reflection of it? Are they causing a civil disturbance? What beyond "They're there, and I don't want them" is the problem? |
A military force is both a reflection of the host government's foreign policy as well as an influence upon it. That doesn't mean that the host government is justified in those policies, nor that those policies reflect the will of the people (I'm referring here more to ME countries than Korea). More importantly, a symbiotic (perhaps co-parasitic) relationship is established with the troop-deploying nation in the dominant position. If there is a genuine threat which warrants the presence of foreign troops, that foreign nation gains significant leverage over the host nation. If no such threat exists, the nation has effectively polarized itself on the global stage in alignment with the foreign nation's policies, allies and enemies and simply in exchange for a subsidized defense budget.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You mean the way that Germany is currently in "the fight of its life" and needs American military bases? |
I was talking about America. America has unique conditions. What is appropriate for America is not necessarily the same for S.Korea or Germany or anywhere else. |
That's certainly true, but I wouldn't use that fact to say that people in those countries should feel differently about American troops where they live than I do about foreign troops in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| True. All the gates I've ever gone through were manned by (apparent?) Korean nationals. |
The gates on the US military bases are manned by both military personnel of the US and ROK militaries and Korean employees of G4S, the company contracted to provide security for the bases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Military Illegally Arresting Korean Nationals |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
[ I AM saying that foreign troops on my country's soil in peacetime (or as close as it gets, as in South Korea) is unacceptable and worthy of civil disobedience or worse.
. |
Thing is it is NOT peacetime or close to it. The two Koreas have been in a state of WAR since the Korean War. They have NEVER signed a peace treaty with each other. Not only that but most of the North Korean army is very closely positioned to the border with thousands of artillery pieces trained on Seoul.
That's not peacetime not even close to it. It's a hairtrigger detente. It could go belly up at anytime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Got news for some of you: there are foreign troops, foreign troop units, stationed in the United States right now. They've been stationed there for quite some time too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Got news for some of you: there are foreign troops, foreign troop units, stationed in the United States right now. They've been stationed there for quite some time too. |
| comm wrote: |
You have no idea what I would do to a foreign military force were it to be stationed in the U.S., even if my government told me they were "for my protection". How could a true patriot respect foreign troops on his or her own land? I would make the continued presence of foreign troops untenable by whatever means necessary. And if that resulted in a threat to my country's national security in the future, then bring them on.
Liberty or death. |
Looks like your hand has been called Mr. comm. Time to put up or fold.
Here's just one such instance
http://www.rt.com/news/troops-russian-drills-america-214/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Visiting another country for a joint training exercise isn't the same thing as being stationed or having a permenant base. Militaries do the former all the time. Even Korean troops go over to the US for training exercises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice attempt to "call Mr. comm's hand," TUM  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the one hand I agree that a single unit of soldiers visiting the US for training isn't the same as troops stationed permanently on a base, at the same time "Military Advisors" and training personnel can be a rather vague term. Vietnam being the most high-profile example of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
| Visiting another country for a joint training exercise isn't the same thing as being stationed or having a permenant base. Militaries do the former all the time. Even Korean troops go over to the US for training exercises. |
Except Mr. Coom didn't qualify his statement as foreign troops that were stationed or having a permanent base.
He stated and I quote
| Quote: |
"comm wrote:
[ I AM saying that foreign troops on my country's soil in peacetime (or as close as it gets, as in South Korea) is unacceptable and worthy of civil disobedience or worse. |
No room for qualifications there. Foreign troops on my country's soil in peacetime is unacceptable was his claim.
Time to back it up.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Chance wrote: |
| Nice attempt to "call Mr. comm's hand," TUM |
Yes yes it was. See above. And I do believe Mr.comm is a big boy and can defend himself. No need to embarrass yourself on his behalf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K1020
Joined: 20 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/542411.html
Life in the shadow of a US military base
-A long feature regarding the incident and the general affairs of Shinchang area.
After reading this a couple of things are have been made more clear. While soldiers were in no way sanctioned to deal with the traffic and certainly not arrest a Korean it seems that, according to the SOFA (clarified in the article) Pyeongtaek laid the foundation for this incident by cutting its police accompaniment to town patrol, a condition of the SOFA. Had police been with the town Patrol as required this would not have played out the way it did.
Some might argue that without an escort T.P. should not have been working but that would leave police to deal directly with American forces, something they are reluctant to do (as mentioned) --"'The American soldiers are scary guys;'" I don't believe that American forces really want that either.
This article goes on to voice complaints about USFK's policy to blacklist clubs recognized for illegal practices. This is where the logic gets fuzzy. USFK not blacklisting these places is asking for more disturbances and can only lead to greater antipathy. Contrary to Lee Kyung-mi's argument a ban on USFK patronage to off base establishments has nothing to do with Korean sovereignty. Koreans ambivalence to Americans really shines through in the last few paragraphs (sentences): Apparently not getting Americans money is a violation of sovereignty but American soldiers being in Korea is otherwise distasteful. -Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Some in Pyeongtaek are asserting military policing and particularly the USFK blacklisting is unnecessary and unfair to merchants, "'Domestic law is enough to prevent illegal things from happening here,' said Son Hyeon-sik, secretary-general of Pyeongtaek People�s Solidarity for Participation and Autonomy." Son Hyeon-sik fails to mention Pyeongtaeks large redlight district, directly behind the police station at Pyeongtaeks subway station. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
