|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| atwood wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Just sayin' that your post makes no sense. |
Regulating energy use has nothing to do if a nation is on the verge of being a superpower. |
Nonsense. It's a perfectly legitimate indicator if a nation has the ability to stretch beyond its borders and impose its will on the world at large. How can it do that and the things necessary to doing that, such as become a leader in military technology, if it can't even build the infrastructure to produce enough energy without fear of blowing a million fuses? (I stole the hyperbole from br--credit where credit is due.) |
Easily. By valuing military supremacy over the welfare and concerns of the lower classes and prioritizing funding for the military over infrastructure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Just sayin' that your post makes no sense. |
Regulating energy use has nothing to do if a nation is on the verge of being a superpower. |
Nonsense. It's a perfectly legitimate indicator if a nation has the ability to stretch beyond its borders and impose its will on the world at large. How can it do that and the things necessary to doing that, such as become a leader in military technology, if it can't even build the infrastructure to produce enough energy without fear of blowing a million fuses? (I stole the hyperbole from br--credit where credit is due.) |
Easily. By valuing military supremacy over the welfare and concerns of the lower classes and prioritizing funding for the military over infrastructure. |
Sure, a country relying on a foreign power to guard its borders could do that as EASILY as flipping a switch.
Wait a minute! I just flipped the switch and nothing happened! Maybe those female soldiers holding down the DMZ could set up a portable generator and get us some power.
Blind rabbit, blind rabbit! How you make me chuckle! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Just sayin' that your post makes no sense. |
Regulating energy use has nothing to do if a nation is on the verge of being a superpower. |
Nonsense. It's a perfectly legitimate indicator if a nation has the ability to stretch beyond its borders and impose its will on the world at large. How can it do that and the things necessary to doing that, such as become a leader in military technology, if it can't even build the infrastructure to produce enough energy without fear of blowing a million fuses? (I stole the hyperbole from br--credit where credit is due.) |
Easily. By valuing military supremacy over the welfare and concerns of the lower classes and prioritizing funding for the military over infrastructure. |
Sure, a country relying on a foreign power to guard its borders could do that as EASILY as flipping a switch.
Wait a minute! I just flipped the switch and nothing happened! Maybe those female soldiers holding down the DMZ could set up a portable generator and get us some power.
Blind rabbit, blind rabbit! How you make me chuckle! |
It doesn't involve making a switch. It involves spending more of the government budget on things like war materiel than on say, heating for the citizenry. Also, the greatest indicator of becoming a superpower is timely and decisive military victories, NOT whether or not they have cooling in the summer and heat in the winter.
So you're claiming that Great Britain and the Soviet Union during their rises to power emphasized the welfare of the lower classes and general supply of heating and cooling over military affairs and maintaining their global reach. Oh and did A/C even exist during Britain's rise?
And no one is saying that S. Korea will end up a superpower, just that your reason for it not being one is completely and utterly moronic. It is obviously moronic, your continued defense of it is showing you to be a moron who can't admit when they are wrong, and your grasp of history is failing.
| Quote: |
| Sure, a country relying on a foreign power to guard its borders could do that as EASILY as flipping a switch. |
Korea could easily build enough power plants to make up for the downtime until the new nuclear ones come online, but that would be a massive waste of money to do so for so little gain. Also it would take funds away from something else or necessitate a raise in taxes. The obvious answer is to instead mandate reduced power consumption in government buildings or at large facilities for a couple of years until the situation is fixed. That's what sensible countries do. A problem caused a delay, this happens in government. Rather than panicking and throwing money at the problem, they simply do some sensible cutbacks and deal with things for a couple years and solve the problem. Or they could just waste a bunch of money blasting heating and cooling in buildings that are times sparsely populated instead of simply dressing in layers/shorts which solves the problem and pollutes less.
| Quote: |
| Maybe those female soldiers holding down the DMZ could set up a portable generator and get us some power. |
So now you're buying EZE's stupidity about "female soldiers holding down the DMZ"? atwood, I'm sure your time in a Soviet summer or winter would have been real pleasant compared to Korea when it comes to comfort and body temperature. 
Anyways, instead of making up dumbass nicknames maybe you should instead try to think things through and that way you wouldn't make basic mistakes like linking being a rising superpower to building cooling while using Britain as an example. Maybe think that timeline a little more through. To say nothing of the Soviets. Also, the blind rabbit thing hasn't caught on and no one else is joining in. You're in your own private world on that. In fact its starting to make you look a little off your rocker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Just sayin' that your post makes no sense. |
Regulating energy use has nothing to do if a nation is on the verge of being a superpower. |
Nonsense. It's a perfectly legitimate indicator if a nation has the ability to stretch beyond its borders and impose its will on the world at large. How can it do that and the things necessary to doing that, such as become a leader in military technology, if it can't even build the infrastructure to produce enough energy without fear of blowing a million fuses? (I stole the hyperbole from br--credit where credit is due.) |
Easily. By valuing military supremacy over the welfare and concerns of the lower classes and prioritizing funding for the military over infrastructure. |
You're mostly just repeating yourself. But even you should see the folly of comparing a 19th century superpower, England, to a modern-day one.
Besides,you've never given any factual evidence about all these energy shortages you claimed. Which when you realize England was chockful of coal, the energy source of the time, just don't add up.
Sure, a country relying on a foreign power to guard its borders could do that as EASILY as flipping a switch.
Wait a minute! I just flipped the switch and nothing happened! Maybe those female soldiers holding down the DMZ could set up a portable generator and get us some power.
Blind rabbit, blind rabbit! How you make me chuckle! |
It doesn't involve making a switch. It involves spending more of the government budget on things like war materiel than on say, heating for the citizenry. Also, the greatest indicator of becoming a superpower is timely and decisive military victories, NOT whether or not they have cooling in the summer and heat in the winter.
So you're claiming that Great Britain and the Soviet Union during their rises to power emphasized the welfare of the lower classes and general supply of heating and cooling over military affairs and maintaining their global reach. Oh and did A/C even exist during Britain's rise?
And no one is saying that S. Korea will end up a superpower, just that your reason for it not being one is completely and utterly moronic. It is obviously moronic, your continued defense of it is showing you to be a moron who can't admit when they are wrong, and your grasp of history is failing.
| Quote: |
| Sure, a country relying on a foreign power to guard its borders could do that as EASILY as flipping a switch. |
Korea could easily build enough power plants to make up for the downtime until the new nuclear ones come online, but that would be a massive waste of money to do so for so little gain. Also it would take funds away from something else or necessitate a raise in taxes. The obvious answer is to instead mandate reduced power consumption in government buildings or at large facilities for a couple of years until the situation is fixed. That's what sensible countries do. A problem caused a delay, this happens in government. Rather than panicking and throwing money at the problem, they simply do some sensible cutbacks and deal with things for a couple years and solve the problem. Or they could just waste a bunch of money blasting heating and cooling in buildings that are times sparsely populated instead of simply dressing in layers/shorts which solves the problem and pollutes less.
| Quote: |
| Maybe those female soldiers holding down the DMZ could set up a portable generator and get us some power. |
So now you're buying EZE's stupidity about "female soldiers holding down the DMZ"? atwood, I'm sure your time in a Soviet summer or winter would have been real pleasant compared to Korea when it comes to comfort and body temperature.
Anyways, instead of making up dumbass nicknames maybe you should instead try to think things through and that way you wouldn't make basic mistakes like linking being a rising superpower to building cooling while using Britain as an example. Maybe think that timeline a little more through. To say nothing of the Soviets. Also, the blind rabbit thing hasn't caught on and no one else is joining in. You're in your own private world on that. In fact its starting to make you look a little off your rocker. |
You're mostly just repeating yourself. But even you should see the folly of comparing a 19th century superpower, England, to a modern-day one.
And I didn't use England as an example; you tried to and failed.
Besides,you've never given any factual evidence about all these energy shortages you claimed. Which when you realize England was chockful of coal, the energy source of the time, just don't add up. You're the one not thinking.
EASILY, again. Again wrong--In a democracy, you need the support of the people. They're not going to give up what they've just gotten standard of living-wise to support the type of military build-up you suggest. Korea doesn't have the budget for the R&D for that type of military build-up, much less the factories, raw materials, etc.
Moreover, what would you know about sensible? You didn't even know England was a superpower.
EZE was correct. You merely begged the question by trying to redefine rely. You're one duplicitous hare.
The nickname isn't stupid--it fits you like a glove, hare-brained one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You're mostly just repeating yourself. But even you should see the folly of comparing a 19th century superpower, England, to a modern-day one.
And I didn't use England as an example; you tried to and failed.
|
No, I said "Two superpowers", which was a mistake. I forgot to include England. Since we were discussing things like electrical heating and cooling, I figured that it was pretty obvious not to include them.
Then, you mentioned them. Alright, fair game.
| Quote: |
Which when you realize England was chockful of coal, the energy source of the time, just don't add up. You're the one not thinking.
|
And what does coal have to do with cooling? And second, are you sying that the entire British populace had adequate winter heating?
| Quote: |
| In a democracy, you need the support of the people. They're not going to give up what they've just gotten standard of living-wise to support the type of military build-up you suggest. |
Soviet Union was a democracy?
| Quote: |
| Korea doesn't have the budget for the R&D for that type of military build-up, much less the factories, raw materials, etc. |
Yes, and if you said that those are the reasons S.Korea couldn't be a Superpower, I'd agree with you. But you linked superpower status to heating and cooling, something.
EZE was an idiot and if you buy into his "foreign females" line you are an utter moron. Anyone with a modicum of understanding about military affairs would realize that. If he had just limited it to "foreign military assistance", that would be fine. But he threw in the whole "foreign female" line in an attempt to be witty and it ruined his whole argument by making him look like an idiot.
| Quote: |
You didn't even know England was a superpower.
|
I did, and it slipped my mind to mention it. I don't have a problem admitting an error. I should have issued a disclaimer in citing England, even though as you say, we were talking about superpowers in a modern sense where you could do things like electrically cool buildings.
atwood, you've jumped the shark on this one. Let it go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
You're mostly just repeating yourself. But even you should see the folly of comparing a 19th century superpower, England, to a modern-day one.
And I didn't use England as an example; you tried to and failed.
|
No, I said "Two superpowers", which was a mistake. I forgot to include England. Since we were discussing things like electrical heating and cooling, I figured that it was pretty obvious not to include them.
Then, you mentioned them. Alright, fair game.
| Quote: |
Which when you realize England was chockful of coal, the energy source of the time, just don't add up. You're the one not thinking.
|
And what does coal have to do with cooling? And second, are you sying that the entire British populace had adequate winter heating?
| Quote: |
| In a democracy, you need the support of the people. They're not going to give up what they've just gotten standard of living-wise to support the type of military build-up you suggest. |
Soviet Union was a democracy?
| Quote: |
| Korea doesn't have the budget for the R&D for that type of military build-up, much less the factories, raw materials, etc. |
Yes, and if you said that those are the reasons S.Korea couldn't be a Superpower, I'd agree with you. But you linked superpower status to heating and cooling, something.
EZE was an idiot and if you buy into his "foreign females" line you are an utter moron. Anyone with a modicum of understanding about military affairs would realize that. If he had just limited it to "foreign military assistance", that would be fine. But he threw in the whole "foreign female" line in an attempt to be witty and it ruined his whole argument by making him look like an idiot.
| Quote: |
You didn't even know England was a superpower.
|
I did, and it slipped my mind to mention it. I don't have a problem admitting an error. I should have issued a disclaimer in citing England, even though as you say, we were talking about superpowers in a modern sense where you could do things like electrically cool buildings.
atwood, you've jumped the shark on this one. Let it go. |
You are exceedingly fond of asking (silly) questions. Let's see if you can answer one.
Are female soldiers a part of the American forces in SK? If so, then they would be a part of any defense of SK. So are they or are they not a part of the U.S. military in SK?
Surely you know about an army of one.
Air conditioning in the Victorian era--that would have been quite something. Do you EVER think?
What does a silly rabbit know about sharks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are female soldiers a part of the American forces in SK? If so, then they would be a part of any defense of SK. So are they or are they not a part of the U.S. military in SK? |
But they aren't relied upon. S. Korea's independence isn't dependent upon their presence. As I've said, North Korea or China wouldn't storm the DMZ like Yosemite Sam the second they looked through their binoculars and saw every single US female soldier leave. For that matter, every single US soldier period.
| Quote: |
| Air conditioning in the Victorian era--that would have been quite something. Do you EVER think? |
That was my bloody point atwood. Britain had no capability to cool its buildings because scientific advancements had not been made. How can you judge superpower status based on something that can't even be applied? That would be like saying a country that can't maintain its highways is not on the road to being a superpower.
And again, the Soviet Union wasn't exactly a place of creature comforts.
Why not just admit your reason was not well thought out and instead claim that S. Korea is not on the path to becoming a superpower because it lacks the resources and capacity to become one? Why not point to the lack of money for it to throw into R&D for advanced weapons systems that would enable it to be a superpower?
You tried for a reason. Its not a strong one. Why don't you do the sensible thing and go for a better reason? For example, the ones you already said or my supporting idea of "timely and decisive military victories"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are female soldiers a part of the American forces in SK? If so, then they would be a part of any defense of SK. So are they or are they not a part of the U.S. military in SK? |
But they aren't relied upon. S. Korea's independence isn't dependent upon their presence. As I've said, North Korea or China wouldn't storm the DMZ like Yosemite Sam the second they looked through their binoculars and saw every single US female soldier leave. For that matter, every single US soldier period.
| Quote: |
| Air conditioning in the Victorian era--that would have been quite something. Do you EVER think? |
That was my bloody point atwood. Britain had no capability to cool its buildings because scientific advancements had not been made. How can you judge superpower status based on something that can't even be applied? That would be like saying a country that can't maintain its highways is not on the road to being a superpower.
And again, the Soviet Union wasn't exactly a place of creature comforts.
Why not just admit your reason was not well thought out and instead claim that S. Korea is not on the path to becoming a superpower because it lacks the resources and capacity to become one? Why not point to the lack of money for it to throw into R&D for advanced weapons systems that would enable it to be a superpower?
You tried for a reason. Its not a strong one. Why don't you do the sensible thing and go for a better reason? For example, the ones you already said or my supporting idea of "timely and decisive military victories"? |
You do realize you just admitted that it is a reason, don't you?
Your analogies don't work. You've been using comparisons to the past to try to justify your rebuttals, and now you post how much things have changed since the past. With such great changes, how can any comparison you make be valid? And remember, you made that comparison, not me, so it changes nothing regarding my original observation.
Who knows what would happen if the U.S. Army pulled out, especially under unfriendly circumstances? Your posts rely on conjecture, blind rabbit. The U.S. Army, which in part defends SK, puts it reliance in its soldiers, including the female ones.
http://vimeo.com/37716601 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You do realize you just admitted that it is a reason, don't you? |
No, I didn't admit it was a reason. I said it was YOUR reason.
| Quote: |
how can any comparison you make be valid? And remember, you made that comparison, not me, so it changes nothing regarding my original observation.
|
In other words, rather than ever admit you were wrong on anything, you'll just play word games and dance around things.
I see nothing that suggests that temporary energy shortages, such as the ones S. Korea is facing, would prevent a continuing U.S., a growing China or India, a resurgent Russia, or any other country from being a superpower. Rather, such things might just be one of the problems they solve while on that path.
In fact, if they experience rapid growth and dramatic increases in prosperity, such problems might be expected or even indicators of increasing power, rather than impotence.
| Quote: |
Your posts rely on conjecture, blind rabbit. The U.S. Army, which in part defends SK, puts it reliance in its soldiers, including the female ones.
|
An Army of One is an advertising slogan, not military doctrine. Duh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You do realize you just admitted that it is a reason, don't you? |
No, I didn't admit it was a reason. I said it was YOUR reason.
| Quote: |
how can any comparison you make be valid? And remember, you made that comparison, not me, so it changes nothing regarding my original observation.
|
In other words, rather than ever admit you were wrong on anything, you'll just play word games and dance around things.
I see nothing that suggests that temporary energy shortages, such as the ones S. Korea is facing, would prevent a continuing U.S., a growing China or India, a resurgent Russia, or any other country from being a superpower. Rather, such things might just be one of the problems they solve while on that path.
In fact, if they experience rapid growth and dramatic increases in prosperity, such problems might be expected or even indicators of increasing power, rather than impotence.
| Quote: |
Your posts rely on conjecture, blind rabbit. The U.S. Army, which in part defends SK, puts it reliance in its soldiers, including the female ones.
|
An Army of One is an advertising slogan, not military doctrine. Duh. |
You're playing with words, not me.
For example, "temporary energy shortages." You have a very loose definition of temporary. Two or three days is temporary; not two or three years.
That you don't, or rather didn't, see it as a problem and something that is indicative of a country not being ready to be a superpower is, in your words, "on you." Don't blame me for your limited powers of observation and for not keeping up with the news.
You called it a reason. Fess up, rabbit.
A dancin' rabbit, dancing all around the facts and never landing on a single one--maybe you should sign up for one of those audition shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtNfJUNJ_P4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ust because there are more Korean men than American women guarding South Korea doesn't mean people aren't counting on the ladies. |
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that S. Korea is relying upon Korean men to defend its border to the point where the participation of foreign female soldiers is irrelevant and not calculated?
Please. |
South Korea relies upon Korean men to defend its border, but it also relies on foreigners, including foreign women.
| Quote: |
| That doesn't mean that the Ohs up at the DMZ aren't being relied upon to defend the border. They are. That's why they're up there. |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| No, they aren't. There isn't the 125th 'Fighting Oh' Brigade composed entirely of people with the name Oh. Strategies aren't developed around people named "Oh". |
The Korean government doesn't spend the money it spends training these guys and equipping them if it isn't counting on them. It doesn't give them responsibilities if it isn't counting on them. They don't put uniforms on them and put them in a tank or fighter jet for decoration or for the fun of it. Just because they're not depending on them exclusively doesn't mean they're not depending on them.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Yes, but they aren't guarding the border. |
They're a part of the border defense, which means they're guarding the border.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Instead of amateurish analysis, why don't you actually look at things? The S.Korean zone of control was one of the most effective zones in S. Vietnam. The South Korean military had a SUPERB record of COIN operations and the area was largely avoided by NLF forces because of their unwillingness to challenge the S. Koreans. |
South Korea still left Vietnam in defeat. So did we. If Ron Paul, a Vietnam veteran, can admit it, you should be able to as well.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| They lost the Cold War. |
They still won the Vietnam War. The capital is Hanoi. Saigon is Ho Chi Minh City now. Red flags with a yellow star and red flags with a hammer and sickle fly in areas formerly occupied by the South Korean military.
You asked what South Korea's record was in Vietnam and it's pretty obvious it's the same as ours: 0-1.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Also, the fact that you look at that as a victory parade for 'Iraq' shows your amateurish understanding of the situation in Iraq, a country with multiple factions vying for power. A victory march for Sadr is a defeat for the Kurds, Sunnis, Chaldeans, moderate Shia, secularists, and other Iraqis. Also Sadr doesn't represent the government of Iraq, but a political front. |
You said there were no victory parades in Iraq, but that video showed one, regardless of how repulsive you may find their victory parade. Just because the government may not have sponsored a parade doesn't mean Iraqis didn't have a victory parade because it's right there in the video.
Watch it again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S4KuSidJwI
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Ron Paul would laugh at your claim that US Females are essential to Korea's defense of the DMZ. |
That's the first sensible thing you've said in the whole thread. Ron Paul is against Americans, female and male alike, being stationed in South Korea. Unfortunately for him, the South Koreans feel they're needed, so they're here.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| you seem like a rank amateur when it comes to military affairs. |
Of course I'm a rank amateur when it comes to military affairs. I have never been a soldier and I don't pretend to be one. That's why I take the word of Vietnam veterans like Ron Paul, Robert Kiyosaki, and others who say we lost the Vietnam War. They use the word war, so that's what I use instead of police action. But I'm sure you know more than those Vietnam veterans about the Vietnam War, just as you know more about the Iraq War than the combat veterans of the Mahdi Army at their victory parade.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Korean government doesn't spend the money it spends training these guys and equipping them if it isn't counting on them. It doesn't give them responsibilities if it isn't counting on them. They don't put uniforms on them and put them in a tank or fighter jet for decoration or for the fun of it. Just because they're not depending on them exclusively doesn't mean they're not depending on them. |
But then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that S. Korea is relying on people NOT named Oh to defend itself. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that S. Korea is relying on military personnel OTHER than foreign females?
You might as well say that the US relied on British female soldiers for its victory in WWII or that the USSR relied on Polish female auxiliaries for its victory in WWII or that the Nazis relied on Austrian female auxiliaries for its early victories in WWII.
| Quote: |
| South Korea still left Vietnam in defeat. So did we. If Ron Paul, a Vietnam veteran, can admit it, you should be able to as well. |
S. Korea left Vietnam having fulfilled its tactical and strategic objectives.
| Quote: |
| They still won the Vietnam War. |
And the Nazis won the "war" against Poland. But who won WWII?
| Quote: |
| Red flags with a yellow star and red flags with a hammer and sickle fly in areas formerly occupied by the South Korean military. |
And again, who won The Cold War?
| Quote: |
| You asked what South Korea's record was in Vietnam and it's pretty obvious it's the same as ours: 0-1. |
In terms of specific military objectives. Certain German military units compiled an excellent combat record during WWII, even though Nazi Germany lost WWII, that doesn't diminish their effectiveness as a combat unit. They aren't responsible for other combat units.
| Quote: |
You said there were no victory parades in Iraq, but that video showed one, regardless of how repulsive you may find their victory parade. Just because the government may not have sponsored a parade doesn't mean Iraqis didn't have a victory parade because it's right there in the video.
|
Its not about repulsiveness, its about the military and political situation in Iraq. Might as well so a Fatwa victory party and proclaiming that Palestine had a victory over Israel, ignoring the Hamas equation.
Victory parades aren't signs of victory or else "Mission Accomplished" would be a sign of victory.
| Quote: |
| Of course I'm a rank amateur when it comes to military affairs. |
Obviously. To the point of bumbling buffoonery.
| Quote: |
| But I'm sure you know more than those Vietnam veterans about the Vietnam War, just as you know more about the Iraq War than the combat veterans of the Mahdi Army at their victory parade. |
I think if those people looked at what I said and what you said, they'd dismiss you as a blathering idiot.
Do you really think people at the S. Korean Ministry of Defense are altering strategic operations based upon the availability of US female soldiers?
If some you were somehow granted and advisory capacity concerning S.Korean-U.S. military affairs would you hold U.S. female troops as a central part of your strategy? You wouldn't even bring it up.
It's obvious- This was a throw away line you thought was clever but to anyone with any basic sense about military affairs comes across as juvenile and amateurish.
Again, if every female U.S. soldier was removed from Korea, does the strategic, operational, or tactical situation change 1 iota? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Heating and Cooling: How Their Widespread Availability Enabled the Rise of Superpowers and How its The Most Effective Indicator for Predicting Future Superpowers'
"Female Soldiers Along the DMZ: A Guide for US-Korean Defense Policy in the 21st Century"
I eagerly await your scholarly articles on such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| You might as well say that the US relied on British female soldiers for its victory in WWII or that the USSR relied on Polish female auxiliaries for its victory in WWII or that the Nazis relied on Austrian female auxiliaries for its early victories in WWII. |
The war was won by many people of many nationalities. As an American, I'm grateful for everyone who contributed to the Allied victory, including non-American females like Lyudmila Pavlichenko and thousands of other ladies who did what they did to achieve the victory.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| S. Korea left Vietnam having fulfilled its tactical and strategic objectives. |
They shipped a bunch of dead guys, the ones they were able to locate, back to Korea and the Vietnamese won the war anyway. The only thing they accomplished was getting a bunch of their own guys killed for nothing.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| And the Nazis won the "war" against Poland. But who won WWII? |
WWII began on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Germany lost that war. The Germans won a war in 1871. The Vietnamese have won multiple wars since then.
Vietnam was under French control and Ho Chi Minh declared independence at the end of WWII and eventually defeated the French. Vietnam was divided into two countries with the USA basically running South Vietnam. By 1975, Vietnam was unified, independent, with no whites from Europe or the USA telling them what to do. The Vietnamese accomplished what they set out to do. That wasn't the result the USA or South Korea wanted. A unified Vietnam governed out of Hanoi certainly wasn't what they sacrificed many men's lives to achieve. Meanwhile, Korea is still divided, exhibit B on the ROK military not being cut out of the same cloth as the NVA.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| And again, who won The Cold War? |
When South Korea needs American forces to protect it from a communist regime, it doesn't appear to be over.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| In terms of specific military objectives. Certain German military units compiled an excellent combat record during WWII, even though Nazi Germany lost WWII, that doesn't diminish their effectiveness as a combat unit. They aren't responsible for other combat units. |
They were all responsible for defending Germany, which was something even the most elite units were totally unable to do. Germany lost as thoroughly as a country could possibly lose. It was reduced to rubble. In 1945, the Soviet flag was hung on the Reichstag and nearly every German female in Berlin between the ages of 8 and 80 was raped by Soviet troops. That's total failure.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Victory parades aren't signs of victory or else "Mission Accomplished" would be a sign of victory. |
There's a big difference. The Iraqis hadn't thrown in the towel before "Mission Accomplished." They fought us for nearly a decade after our victory party. The Iraqis waited until we actually did throw in the towel before they did their victory parade.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Obviously. To the point of bumbling buffoonery. |
So says the self-proclaimed "military scientist" who thinks Vietnam didn't win its war against the US and South Koreans, believes the war in Iraq was a success because he believes al Qaeda could've actually created a 1,000 year Caliphate otherwise, and who also believes the South Korean government isn't relying on foreign women as part of its national defense.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Again, if every female U.S. soldier was removed from Korea, does the strategic, operational, or tactical situation change 1 iota? |
It really tears you up that foreign females are defending South Korea. Be glad those ladies have the courage to sign up. If they weren't volunteering, the US government might would draft us and then you would be demoted from your current rank of armchair general all the way down to buck private. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As an American, I'm grateful for everyone who contributed to the Allied victory, including non-American females like Lyudmila Pavlichenko and thousands of other ladies who did what they did to achieve the victory. |
| Quote: |
| t really tears you up that foreign females are defending South Korea. Be glad those ladies have the courage to sign up. If they weren't volunteering, the US government might would draft us and then you would be demoted from your current rank of armchair general all the way down to buck private. |
If you so value female soldiers contributions, then why do you utter statements like "countries that rely on foreign female soldiers to defend their borders are not on the way to becoming superpowers"? Doesn't sound very appreciative. Sounds like you are talking out of both sides.
And since you now admit that the Soviet Union and the US relied upon foreign female soldiers to help win wars and defend themselves, I guess we can call your statement complete and utter bull.
| Quote: |
The only thing they accomplished was getting a bunch of their own guys killed for nothing.
|
They demonstrated themselves to be an effective combat force, gained valuable experience with which to train future soldiers, and proved their reliability as an ally.
| Quote: |
| WWII began on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Germany lost that war. |
Germany declared war on Poland. It ended about a month later when Germany and the USSR partitioned Poland.
WWII wasn't called WWII at the start.
There are wars and conflicts within larger wars and conflicts.
| Quote: |
| The Vietnamese accomplished what they set out to do. That wasn't the result the USA or South Korea wanted. |
With the potential for exacerbating the Sino-Soviet split and normalization of relations with the PRC, the continuation of the Saigon regime was no longer the top priority. The U.S. was perfectly willing to give that up in exchange for the much more important strategic victory of fundamentally altering the balance of power in the Cold War.
| Quote: |
| Meanwhile, Korea is still divided, exhibit B on the ROK military not being cut out of the same cloth as the NVA. |
Yes, because the two forces are comparable in terms of men, materiel, and training between 1950-1968-2014. By that logic, Prussian forces which suffered defeat at the hands of Napoleon should pose little threat in 1871.
| Quote: |
| When South Korea needs American forces to protect it from a communist regime, it doesn't appear to be over. |
It's not longer The Cold War. It's something else. And the American forces are there to add an overwhelming superiority, as a tripwire, and to influence China.
If the Americans pulled out, the Norks wouldn't come screaming across the border.
| Quote: |
| They were all responsible for defending Germany, which was something even the most elite units were totally unable to do. |
So because the Germans were overwhelmed by superior numbers and lack of resources, you would grade their combat units as less effective than say, a token Czech unit which "won" WWII?
| Quote: |
The Iraqis waited until we actually did throw in the towel before they did their victory parade.
|
The American withdrawal was due to the expiration of its agreement with the Iraqi government and was a removal. They weren't surrounded and forced to surrender.
And the Iraqi conflict continues. Do you think the Sadrists are treating the recent fall of Fallujah and Ramadi as a victory? Do you think the Iraq War is over?
| Quote: |
| So says the self-proclaimed "military scientist" who thinks Vietnam didn't win its war against the US and South Koreans |
Vietnam won its war, the US won theirs. That was the nature of things, it wasn't a zero-sum game because it was fought within the larger context of the Cold War.
| Quote: |
| believes the war in Iraq was a success because he believes al Qaeda could've actually created a 1,000 year Caliphate otherwise |
Never said that. Just as you can have two sides that win, you can have a situation where both sides fail to achieve their objectives. They can claim success in preventing each other from achieving their objectives, while failing in their ability to achieve their own.
I'm sorry that you can't grasp a non-zero-sum situation.
| Quote: |
| who also believes the South Korean government isn't relying on foreign women as part of its national defense. |
I don't think you even truly believe that. If you did you're either insane or a complete fool.
As I said, go write the scholarly paper.
==============================================
| Quote: |
| Two or three days is temporary; not two or three years. |
Sorry, I should have said "short-term".
| Quote: |
| That you don't, or rather didn't, see it as a problem and something that is indicative of a country not being ready to be a superpower is, in your words, "on you." Don't blame me for your limited powers of observation and for not keeping up with the news. |
That you fail to see excessive energy consumption as a sign of prosperity is on YOUR limited powers of observation.
Which is a better sign of prosperity- A government having very minor power shortages due to delays in power plant construction OR Private citizens and companies paying for, and gobbling down energy to provide heating and cooling to the point of excessive luxury. |
|
| 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
