|
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 |
AfroBurrito
Joined: 19 Dec 2013
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Who's Your Daddy? wrote: |
==
Here's a superpower. When a new disease like SARS appeared in Hong Kong, they called the US Center for Disease control - not the UN.
When there's a plane crash anywhere, they call the US National Transportation Safety Board.
The US Food and Drug administration approval for medicines I believe (not sure) is also used by other countries. |
While I'm loathe to rely upon Wikipedia as anything close to a definitive source, its article on the SARS outbreak indicates that it was the World Health Organization, not the CDC, which was initially alerted to the outbreak, and while the CDC did issue travel alerts (and was more than likely involved in the maneuverings of the WHO's response), it was the WHO, which is described on its web site as the "coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system."
The NTSB does not have carte blanche or boundless international province over plane crash investigations. It abides by an international convention.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/foreign.aspx
http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx
The NTSB web site refers to a very specific standard governing if or when it is able to participate in a crash investigation. Most countries have their own civil aviation investigation bodies.
The FDA's approval is not used for countries outside of the USA. It's one of the reasons why the governor of my home state came to Korea to receive a stem cell treatment which was currently outlawed in the US. Granted, the FDA tries to have a more "global" reach insofar as it is more vigilant about what it imports from other countries, it otherwise has no ability to approve or disapprove the practices of a sovereign nation.
http://www.fda.gov/InternationalPrograms/Agreements/default.htm
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Overviews/ucm095305.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| cabeza wrote: |
| I remember before Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 many military analysts were predicting that Kabul and other major cities would be captured in days/weeks but after that the US and friends would be tied up for the next 10-20 years and there would be no victory. They were pretty spot on. |
In the United States, the Pentagon sold both wars to the public as quick, easy victories. As early as October 2001, the Pentagon even bragged about how the Taliban forces had been "eviscerated." Now, it's 2014, the "eviscerated" Taliban fighters are still doing their thing, and the Pentagon doesn't know what to do about it. It was going to be so easy and the budget was projected so low until it wasn't easy or cheap.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/27/ret.war.results/
| cabeza wrote: |
Also in Korea you need to take into account
non-Porous borders
Conventional forces
60 years of planning
China/Russia
Nuclear weapons
as well as many many other things, to see it differs markedly from the middle east.
As much as I disagree with SR on many things and think he may be the world's worst creator of analogies he does seem to know what he's talking about when it comes to military stuff. Well as much as one can on a forum for English teachers in Korea. |
You and Steelrails keep talking about how it would be easy because North Korea has conventional forces. That's exactly how Americans, including the Pentagon, talked about the war in Iraq. It was projected to be a quick victory and cost $55 billion. Iraq's conventional forces were quickly destroyed, which prompted Bush and the US military to have its MISSION ACCOMPLISHED party on May 1, 2003. After nearly a decade of guerilla warfare and trillions of dollars later, the troops finally went home and there were no victory parades.
It's always going to be so easy and the enemies are always going to do exactly what we expect them to do...until the wars actually begin and the enemies adapt, evolve, and fight on until we give up. |
You do realize that in the case of Afghanistan that we invaded them, but in the case of Korea it would be the North invading the South, right? If you can't see why that would make a huge difference, then you are being silly. You keep comparing the Korean military to the Singaporean one, so you must be silly. Also, hypothetical nukes aside, the South doesn't need the US to prevail against the North, just to deter the North from doing something stupid like bombing Seoul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| You do realize that in the case of Afghanistan that we invaded them, but in the case of Korea it would be the North invading the South, right? If you can't see why that would make a huge difference, then you are being silly. You keep comparing the Korean military to the Singaporean one, so you must be silly. Also, hypothetical nukes aside, the South doesn't need the US to prevail against the North, just to deter the North from doing something stupid like bombing Seoul. |
I think neither Singapore nor South Korea can project military power on a global scale. Do you disagree with that? At least you're conceding South Korea needs help from foreign ladies to deter military aggression from the North. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's this carp of Korea being small? South Korea has like 50 million people, making it a pretty large country. A unified Korea would have like 74 million people, would be larger than most European countries except Germany and Russia. Sure countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia maybe larger, but Korea is far more influential.
Anyways, Korea will never be a 'super'power. But an influential power, that can influence superpowers like China and the USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| If every single female US soldier vanished, would North Korea suddenly come storming over the DMZ? |
You're asking the wrong person. It's South Korean political and military leaders who think they're necessary. Personally, I don't think the combined US and ROK militaries could stop North Korea, or China, or their two forces combined. I believe our ladies would merely be speed bumps for North Korean and Chinese tanks on their drive to Jinju. |
So you admit your statement of "but it still needs girls from other countries to guard its border." is a complete crock of crap?
I think that's just some line you thought was clever that you tell yourself to feel better in times of frustration at the country, not sober defense analysis.
| Quote: |
| It's South Korean political and military leaders who think they're necessary |
No, they want US units, and US units, like all military units around the world, have female personnel. There isn't some Amazonian all-female infantry unit out there specially tasked with border patrol that was requested by the Korean government.
| Quote: |
| I only think the Chinese would win in a matter of days |
Sorry, but in the 21st century, you can't just mass troops around borders and mobilize your country without other people noticing. A million troops don't suddenly emerge from the ground like a swarm of ants.
| Quote: |
| Why do I think North Korea would win? My whole life I've heard how we're going to whip this country or that country or Afghanistan in a matter of days or weeks, but we end up not doing well against third world countries. We usually do very well initially and brag about our vastly superior technology, but we eventually give up before they do. People from third world countries are used to having a crappy life. |
Since you can't distinguish between an occupation of country and fighting against irregular, guerrilla forces and fighting a conventional war against a uniformed, organized, military force, you really shouldn't be theorizing on such things and should instead devote yourself to the study of military history and theory.
| Quote: |
| That's exactly how Americans, including the Pentagon, talked about the war in Iraq. It was projected to be a quick victory and cost $55 billion. |
That's how the neoconservatives talked about the invasion as they used it to push a political position.
There were A LOT of people, both liberal, moderate, and paleoconservative who took one look at the situation and deduced what would happen. Heck, George Bush I decided not to remove Saddam for precisely those reasons- The country would break into three parts, Americans would become mired in a bloody occupation and managing low-level civil war, Iran would gain in power, Muslim rage would build against the US, and it would bankrupt America.
| Quote: |
| I think neither Singapore nor South Korea can project military power on a global scale |
Neither can the Albanian military, but it makes just as much sense to compare them to Seoul.
I will say, the Singaporean military is no slouch. They do spend a disproportianate amount on defense and possess modern, well-trained, capable forces. But they are on a much smaller scale.
But dude, between the "needing females to guard its border", "China steamrolling them in a week" and "North Korea will be like Iraq" you really need to brush up on your military studies. Things don't work the way you are portraying them and you are making obvious errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A country that can't produce enough energy to heat its buildings in winter and cool them in the summer is not on the path to being a superpower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| A country that can't produce enough energy to heat its buildings in winter and cool them in the summer is not on the path to being a superpower. |
When California had rolling blackouts, the US was still regarded as a superpower.
Also, a country that has energy demands so great that they are exceeding projections is probably a country that is prospering. This is true when things like nuclear power plants take years to get approved and built. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smithington
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To think that Korea can become a global superpower is ludicrous. That's not to knock Korea, it's simply to state the obvious. The only thing sillier is that it's acxtually being discussed here as if it were a possibility. It isn't. Google the definition of "superpower" and then ask yourself if Korea meets that definition (or has the potential to meet that definition). At best a united Korea would be a "middling power". And there's nothing wrong with that.
A superpower? Give me a friggin' break. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| A country that can't produce enough energy to heat its buildings in winter and cool them in the summer is not on the path to being a superpower. |
When California had rolling blackouts, the US was still regarded as a superpower.
Also, a country that has energy demands so great that they are exceeding projections is probably a country that is prospering. This is true when things like nuclear power plants take years to get approved and built. |
Most, if not all, of the California energy shortages were due to Enron and the like, not to any inability to produce enough energy.
Also, can you give some reference for your statement "exceeding projections"?
Try again, br. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Most, if not all, of the California energy shortages were due to Enron and the like, not to any inability to produce enough energy. |
And the ones in Texas or others? Dude, this happens everywhere you get a REALLY big summer heatwave.
And yes, Korea has almost no natural energy reserves so it has to import fuel or construct nuclear power plants. Those things take time and budgeting and have to go through processes. Imported fuel supplies can be inconsistent. They can't just start shoveling coal.
Since Korea is exporting nuclear reactors, it seems that they don't lack the material or funding to produce more energy, but rather that government projections and the bureacratic process probably resulted in poor projections.
Also, its not like Seoul is blacked out constantly. You have the odd summer blackout. These things happen regularly in any country with really hot summers and lots of people sucking A/C.
You do realize that excessive power demand because of A/C use is a sign of prosperity, right? Poor people don't have A/Cs and don't turn them on. Well-off areas blast the A/C to cool the coffee shop or cell phone store that has 3 people sitting in it. That's what causes the blackout. Same here, same back home.
Anyways, your claim was the Superpowers can't have blackouts and the like. Our world has had two superpowers. We've already discussed America's occasional fails of infrastructure. Any bets on whether or not the Soviet Union experienced its fair share of power blackouts and failures? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Most, if not all, of the California energy shortages were due to Enron and the like, not to any inability to produce enough energy. |
And the ones in Texas or others? Dude, this happens everywhere you get a REALLY big summer heatwave.
And yes, Korea has almost no natural energy reserves so it has to import fuel or construct nuclear power plants. Those things take time and budgeting and have to go through processes. Imported fuel supplies can be inconsistent. They can't just start shoveling coal.
Since Korea is exporting nuclear reactors, it seems that they don't lack the material or funding to produce more energy, but rather that government projections and the bureacratic process probably resulted in poor projections.
Also, its not like Seoul is blacked out constantly. You have the odd summer blackout. These things happen regularly in any country with really hot summers and lots of people sucking A/C.
You do realize that excessive power demand because of A/C use is a sign of prosperity, right? Poor people don't have A/Cs and don't turn them on. Well-off areas blast the A/C to cool the coffee shop or cell phone store that has 3 people sitting in it. That's what causes the blackout. Same here, same back home.
Anyways, your claim was the Superpowers can't have blackouts and the like. Our world has had two superpowers. We've already discussed America's occasional fails of infrastructure. Any bets on whether or not the Soviet Union experienced its fair share of power blackouts and failures? |
"Probably." There's that word again, a staple of your posts. You don't know, but blather on nevertheless.
Nothing happens everywhere. You should really cut back on the caffeine.
And again you twist my words. I never said Seoul was blacked out constantly. But who knows what would happen if the government didn't restrict energy use?
Yes, the USSR, which in the arms race bankrupted itself may well have experienced energy shortages but SK doesn't have that excuse; it's protected by a superpower. And it doesn't have the technological prowess of the old USSR or even modern day Russia. Koreans are hitching a ride into space with Russia, not the other way around.
Blind rabbit, back up to his old tricks. But you could have a future in some two-bit freak show--the rabbit that lies like a bear rug. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| what would happen if the government didn't restrict energy use? |
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently that TomNToms I went into turns off their A/C every 45 minutes because of government restrictions.
The Korean government seems to restrict energy use about as much as it restricts scooters on the sidewalk.
| Quote: |
| but SK doesn't have that excuse; it's protected by a superpower. |
But if that superpower itself experiences blackouts, and if the only other superpower in history likely had energy problems, how does that substantiate your claim that superpowers don't have energy shortages?
| Quote: |
Koreans are hitching a ride into space with Russia, not the other way around.
|
Because its more cost effective that way. Duh. Korea could go to space if it poured money into it at the expense of other government spending. It chooses not too.
atwood, A while back Captain Corea said I jumped the shark. I don't necessarily agree, but if someone like him said I was taking it up a notch, he probably has a point.
This thread is where you jumped the shark. There are two superpowers in history and one has a confirmed history of blackouts and another probably did (sorry, I'm not up on my Soviet Electrical Infrastructure, I know you'll point to my lack of a term paper on that and declare me a liar. So be it) Those things just happen.
=========================================
Anyways, no one here is supporting the idea that Korea will be a superpower. Everyone should rightfully laugh at that. But a few blackouts do not prevent a nation from being called a superpower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| So you admit your statement of "but it still needs girls from other countries to guard its border." is a complete crock of crap? |
It's not a crock of crap until South Korea stops needing foreign females to guard its border. I could understand if you and Leon were getting upset about an opinion, but you're getting upset about an actual fact.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I think that's just some line you thought was clever that you tell yourself to feel better in times of frustration at the country, not sober defense analysis. |
If it makes you feel better, tell yourself foreign ladies aren't guarding South Korea's border right now.
The topic of the thread is South Korea as a superpower. When you need foreign ladies to guard your border, you're not a superpower or anything remotely close. I think South Korea is a great country with a high standard of living, which is why I don't understand why some people are so insulted about the comparisons to Singapore and Switzerland. I'm sure some apologists would travel to those countries and think, "Man, these countries totally suck compared to Korea," which is why you and Leon feel insulted. I consider Singapore and Switzerland to be top flight countries, but with limited power globally. South Korea's power is limited to the extent that it needs foreign women to help guard its border, and that's a fact.
Anyway, I don't even think the USA is a superpower anymore. We were a superpower in the late 1940s and we were in the 1950s, but somewhere along the way we turned into a country that has to bum money from other countries and we can't finish the wars we start. That's not superpower material. Some on here may disagree with that, but if the USA ever needs South Korean girls to hold the line at Laredo or Buffalo, I'm sure everyone would unanimously agree that we could no longer be considered a superpower.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| No, they want US units, and US units, like all military units around the world, have female personnel. |
No what? You're saying the South Korean government wants foreign females to guard it's border, but you get upset when I say it.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Sorry, but in the 21st century, you can't just mass troops around borders and mobilize your country without other people noticing. A million troops don't suddenly emerge from the ground like a swarm of ants. |
We're both making an assumption here. You're making the assumption China would have to have the element of surprise in order to have success. I'm making the assumption they wouldn't even need it.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Since you can't distinguish between an occupation of country and fighting against irregular, guerrilla forces and fighting a conventional war against a uniformed, organized, military force, you really shouldn't be theorizing on such things and should instead devote yourself to the study of military history and theory. |
Iraq had uniformed, organized military force and it was completely destroyed in a matter of weeks, which prompted our military to hang up a Mission Accomplished banner and celebrate the big victory. Nobody expected for it to evolve into a guerilla war, stretch on for nearly a decade, and ultimately end in defeat.
The best and most brilliant minds at the Pentagon got pantsed by some ragtag religious nuts with little more than testosterone and homemade weapons.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| There were A LOT of people, both liberal, moderate, and paleoconservative who took one look at the situation and deduced what would happen. Heck, George Bush I decided not to remove Saddam for precisely those reasons- The country would break into three parts, Americans would become mired in a bloody occupation and managing low-level civil war, Iran would gain in power, Muslim rage would build against the US, and it would bankrupt America. |
Nobody deduced what would happen. A very large majority of Americans wanted that war, but these days it's hard to find anyone who will admit to it. Most Americans who were cheerleading us into the war in 2003 were talking about how easy it would be. Today in 2014, those same exact people who wanted the war say they knew all along how bad of an idea it was all along because "Americans would become mired in a bloody occupation and managing low-level civil war, Iran would gain in power, Muslim rage would build against the US, and it would bankrupt America."
| Steelrails wrote: |
Neither can the Albanian military, but it makes just as much sense to compare them to Seoul.
I will say, the Singaporean military is no slouch. They do spend a disproportianate amount on defense and possess modern, well-trained, capable forces. But they are on a much smaller scale. |
South Korea spends $19 billion more on its military than Singapore does, but it spends $30 billion less than Japan and $160 billion less than China. South Korea's military is more comparable to Singapore's than it is to China's.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But dude, between the "needing females to guard its border", "China steamrolling them in a week" and "North Korea will be like Iraq" you really need to brush up on your military studies. Things don't work the way you are portraying them and you are making obvious errors. |
I didn't compare North Koreans to the Iraqis, other than to say it's possible for each to adapt and evolve in ways we wouldn't expect. Also, they would be going up against the same opponent, and winners find a way to win and losers find a way to lose. The USA and South Korea lost in Vietnam. During my lifetime, I've seen us lose to one man in Lebanon. I saw us lose in Somalia and get dragged through the streets. I've seen the USA and South Korea lose in Iraq. I'm seeing the USA and South Korea lose in Afghanistan. Yet, we're somehow going to whip the North Koreans and the Chinese and probably make it look easy. Yeah, right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| what would happen if the government didn't restrict energy use? |
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently that TomNToms I went into turns off their A/C every 45 minutes because of government restrictions.
The Korean government seems to restrict energy use about as much as it restricts scooters on the sidewalk.
| Quote: |
| but SK doesn't have that excuse; it's protected by a superpower. |
But if that superpower itself experiences blackouts, and if the only other superpower in history likely had energy problems, how does that substantiate your claim that superpowers don't have energy shortages?
| Quote: |
Koreans are hitching a ride into space with Russia, not the other way around.
|
Because its more cost effective that way. Duh. Korea could go to space if it poured money into it at the expense of other government spending. It chooses not too.
atwood, A while back Captain Corea said I jumped the shark. I don't necessarily agree, but if someone like him said I was taking it up a notch, he probably has a point.
This thread is where you jumped the shark. There are two superpowers in history and one has a confirmed history of blackouts and another probably did (sorry, I'm not up on my Soviet Electrical Infrastructure, I know you'll point to my lack of a term paper on that and declare me a liar. So be it) Those things just happen.
=========================================
Anyways, no one here is supporting the idea that Korea will be a superpower. Everyone should rightfully laugh at that. But a few blackouts do not prevent a nation from being called a superpower. |
Again, you twist my words. I'm not talking about a few blackouts. I never used the word "never."
What I've said, rightfully, and what you've tried to discredit, is that the government restricts the use of electricity. Large institutions and businesses violating those restrictions face heavy fines. And they fell in line rather than pay those fines.
Only two superpowers in history? And you a history buff. The British Empire was a superpower.
I'm not "declaring" you a liar. You are a liar. That's as obvious as the ears on a rabbit. |
|
| 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
