|
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 |
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
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. |
Pavlichenko was a Soviet defending the Soviet Union. So was Roza Shanina. Most of the anti-aircraft guns at Stalingrad were manned by women...Soviet women. When you see footage of women digging those monstrous anti-tank trenches near Kursk, those women were Soviet.
That's because the USSR was a superpower and didn't need foreign women to guard its border. The US didn't need foreign ladies to guard the west coast or any coast during WWII because it was also a superpower back then. Unlike the USSR and USA of the mid 20th century, South Korea does need ladies on its own soil to protect its men, women, and children. I saw an article just yesterday where 800 more foreign troops are coming to South Korea. Some of them will be ladies.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 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. |
They threw in the towel and went home losers. The NVA didn't throw in the towel and won the Vietnam War.
A few years ago, I was watching a YouTube documentary which sums it all up. Vietnam veteran Max Cleland was telling about how his unit was questioning a captured NVA colonel and they asked him who was winning the war. The NVA colonel said, "You are." Then they asked him who would win the war. He replied, "We will, because you're going home." Cleland said the colonel ended up being proven exactly right.
You probably think Roberto Duran was the actual winner of his fight against Sugar Ray Leonard even though Duran said, "No more," and gave up. 
| Steelrails wrote: |
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. |
You referred to WWII in your previous post and asked who won. The Germans conquered all of Poland during WWII and lost all of Poland during WWII, and lost the war. The South Koreans controlled certain pieces of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War and so did the Americans. By the end of the war, it was all under control of Hanoi and still is in 2014.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 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. |
Things like normal relations with China and the collapse of the Soviet Union happened despite or loss in Vietnam, not because of our loss in Vietnam.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| By that logic, Prussian forces which suffered defeat at the hands of Napoleon should pose little threat in 1871. |
There were a lot of Prussians at Waterloo, Napoleon's final defeat.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 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? |
I don't think moral victories mattered to the Germans in the summer of 1945, especially in the Soviet-controlled sector. You can talk about how effective the German units were until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that they all lost, all of them.
| Steelrails wrote: |
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? |
The American forces weren't surrounded and forced to surrender in Vietnam either. We threw in the towel and quit. That's what we do. There's a well-established pattern of it in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and we're going to quit in Afghanistan too. You keep saying "the next war will be different." They may be true or it might not be. Odds are, we'll quit because that's what we do.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 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. |
Any success in the Cold War was despite the failure of the USA and South Korea in Vietnam, not because of our failure in Vietnam. And the USA and South Korea did fail in Vietnam, even though you try to paint it as some sort of success story.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Never said that. |
Yes, you did. You were writing about Bush's strategy in Iraq being successful because al Qaeda didn't establish a 1000 year Caliphate. Al Qaeda establishing a 1000 year Caliphate wasn't going to happen under any circumstance.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I don't think you even truly believe that. If you did you're either insane or a complete fool. |
Foreign ladies are on South Korean soil defending South Korea. I don't know why that fact upsets you as much as it does. It really tears you up.
American women are also defending the USA while you and I, American men, do not. I don't feel insecure about needing ladies to protect my ass, so I'm not sure why you feel so insecure about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="EZE"]
| Steelrails wrote: |
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. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/pentagon-to-loosen-restrictions-on-women-in-combat.html?hp&_r=0
| Quote: |
| Reflecting the steady but glacial evolution of the role of American women in war, the Pentagon took a small step Thursday and announced that women would be formally permitted in crucial and dangerous jobs closer to the front lines. But it stopped short of officially allowing women to serve in combat. |
Although some women have been killed in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan..the numbers remain small. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pavlichenko was a Soviet defending the Soviet Union. So was Roza Shanina. Most of the anti-aircraft guns at Stalingrad were manned by women...Soviet women. When you see footage of women digging those monstrous anti-tank trenches near Kursk, those women were Soviet.
That's because the USSR was a superpower and didn't need foreign women to guard its border. The US didn't need foreign ladies to guard the west coast or any coast during WWII because it was also a superpower back then. Unlike the USSR and USA of the mid 20th century, South Korea does need ladies on its own soil to protect its men, women, and children. I saw an article just yesterday where 800 more foreign troops are coming to South Korea. Some of them will be ladies.
|
You do realize that there were Polish, Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, Czech, and other women needed to "defend the border", right? By your standard at least.
| Quote: |
They threw in the towel and went home losers. The NVA didn't throw in the towel and won the Vietnam War.
A few years ago, I was watching a YouTube documentary which sums it all up. Vietnam veteran Max Cleland was telling about how his unit was questioning a captured NVA colonel and they asked him who was winning the war. The NVA colonel said, "You are." Then they asked him who would win the war. He replied, "We will, because you're going home." Cleland said the colonel ended up being proven exactly right.
You probably think Roberto Duran was the actual winner of his fight against Sugar Ray Leonard even though Duran said, "No more," and gave up. Laughing |
S. Korea's deployment was linked to the US, the US decided to stop supporting the Saigon regime in large part because it sough the normalization of relations with China. It withdrew its troops and traded success in Vietnam for success in China in the larger Cold War campaign.
The Vietnam Campaign was not a decisive event in the Cold War. The normalization of relations with China had far greater implications. You are treating the Vietnam War as though it exists in a vacuum. It does not. It was part of the broader struggle of the Cold War. Just as larger wars have individual battles, and individual battles have advances and retreats, this was one of those.
| Quote: |
| The South Koreans controlled certain pieces of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War and so did the Americans. |
The South Koreans and Americans were the military forces responsible for certain areas. All of Vietnam was under the control of the Saigon regime.
| Quote: |
Things like normal relations with China and the collapse of the Soviet Union happened despite or loss in Vietnam, not because of our loss in Vietnam.
|
You don't think the whole Vietnam issue was not a major part of the PRC's concerns regarding normalization? Are you serious?
| Quote: |
| I don't think moral victories mattered to the Germans in the summer of 1945, especially in the Soviet-controlled sector. You can talk about how effective the German units were until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that they all lost, all of them. |
So because Germany lost the war, EVERYTHING they ever did and everything related to them should be disregarded as ineffective?
By that logic we should never have reformed our armor doctrine, adopted the jet aircraft or cruise missiles, remote controlled bombs, advanced armor tactics, and so on.
| Quote: |
Odds are, we'll quit because that's what we do.
|
Every single one you referred to was a police action fought against a non-uniformed enemy. The conventional wars against Saddam, which is likely how a conflict resulting around a North Korean invasion would resolve itself, is completely different.
| Quote: |
| Any success in the Cold War was despite the failure of the USA and South Korea in Vietnam, not because of our failure in Vietnam. And the USA and South Korea did fail in Vietnam, even though you try to paint it as some sort of success story. |
But we'll never know. Maybe if America had done nothing it would have lost the Cold War. Maybe if it had won military by annexing North Vietnam, it would have lost the Cold War in the long-run.
However we do know this- The Vietnam conflict was part of the larger struggle of the Cold War. That larger struggle guided the decisions to be made in Vietnam. The decision to pull out appears to be strongly linked to relations with China.
| Quote: |
| Yes, you did. You were writing about Bush's strategy in Iraq being successful because al Qaeda didn't establish a 1000 year Caliphate. Al Qaeda establishing a 1000 year Caliphate wasn't going to happen under any circumstance. |
Nope, go back and reread everything.
| Quote: |
Foreign ladies are on South Korean soil defending South Korea. I don't know why that fact upsets you as much as it does. It really tears you up.
American women are also defending the USA while you and I, American men, do not. I don't feel insecure about needing ladies to protect my ass, so I'm not sure why you feel so insecure about it. |
Then why do you speak of it as sucha derisive thing? Why "foreign ladies" and not "foreign soldiers"? YOU were the one who injected gender into this and assigning them an inferior place.
And they are not relied upon. They are engaged in cooperative maneuvers and deployments. You're just trying to sound clever but if people actually think what you say through, they conclude you are a buffoon and you won't admit it. The more you claim this, the more idiotic you look. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dude you might as well be saying that McDonald's is relying on the staff at its Grover's Corners franchise to ensure its profitability. Whether that store exists or not does not effect major or even minor decisions by anyone at headquarters.
Similarly the plans for defense of the Korean border do not rely on US female soldiers. US female soldiers are not a separate entity. No one beyond perhaps the Company level (and for most, the platoon level) is "relying" on them.
As I said, if you waved a wand and removed every single female soldier from the peninsula, would that change anything? Would North Korea come screaming across the border? No. Then the statement is meaningless and is obviously an attempt to make a witty point but instead just makes its claimant look like an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Dude you might as well be saying that McDonald's is relying on the staff at its Grover's Corners franchise to ensure its profitability. Whether that store exists or not does not effect major or even minor decisions by anyone at headquarters.
Similarly the plans for defense of the Korean border do not rely on US female soldiers. US female soldiers are not a separate entity. No one beyond perhaps the Company level (and for most, the platoon level) is "relying" on them.
As I said, if you waved a wand and removed every single female soldier from the peninsula, would that change anything? Would North Korea come screaming across the border? No. Then the statement is meaningless and is obviously an attempt to make a witty point but instead just makes its claimant look like an idiot. |
No, you're the one who looks like an idiot. First, because you replied to that remark rather than the main point of the OP, and second because you keep on defending your obvious mistake. Of course, that's something we can all rely on.
BTW, you posted:
| Quote: |
No one beyond perhaps the Company level (and for most, the platoon level) is "relying" on them.
|
So you admit that they are being relied on. Why not just stop there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guess ya'll were right.
| Quote: |
S. Korea Braces for Invasion as Yeast Infection Outbreak Sidelines USFK Female Soldiers
Seoul, S. Korea (Reuters) -- Tensions along the DMZ have soared to an all-time high as a rampant yeast infection outbreak has resulted in nearly every single U.S. female soldier being placed on sick leave. Top officials in both Seoul and Washington are meeting tonight to outline their emergency strategy, while the S. Korean military is expected to issue a general call-up of its reserves. Meanwhile the U.S. Navy has sortied the entire U.S. 7th Fleet and is considering sending in units from the 3rd fleet to bolster its presence. Elsewhere, China and Russia have refrained from official statements, but are said to be monitoring the situation closely, while appealing for regional calm.
The situation began two days ago when the outbreak tore through the ranks of the U.S. female military personnel, resulting in nearly 98% becoming infected. Officials had hoped to keep news of the outbreak underwraps, for fear of North Korea learning about this situation and capitalizing with a military strike. However, not 12 hours into the outbreak North Korea issued a general mobilization and massive troop movements were being observed via satellite all across the country. Investigators and medical personnel have not ruled out the possibility that this was the result of a North Korean biological weapon. "The North Koreans have always been seeking to target our female soldiers, as they consider them the lynchpin of our defense and the single greatest impediment to a successful invasion of the South." an unnamed Pentagon official was quoted as saying. In a press conference yesterday, USFK commander General Curtis Scaparrotti stated "We don't have any concrete information on whether this was a North Korean biological attack, what is clear however, is that they have decided to act upon this incident. An incident we always feared but could never plan for". His counterpart, S. Korean Minister of Defense Kim Kwang-jin echoed his concern. "Our military deployments, defensive dispositions, indeed our entire national defense, has always centered around and relied upon the female soldiers of USFK. We always developed our plans assuming they would be there. There exists in Korea no reservists or private firms capable of replacing the U.S. female soldiers." He went on to state that him and President Park Geun-hye would be briefed following the press conference and emergency measures would be enacted. 28,000 US military personnel are based in S. Korea, and while no precise numbers of female personnel in Korea are given, the U.S. military as a whole has 14.6% of its members of women, virtually all in support roles, although a recent 2013 decision removed the restriction on women in combat for the U.S. military.
The rising tensions have provoked a variety of reactions across the globe. UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon pleaded for calm and urged both sides to return to the Six-Party Talks. The European Defence Agency of the European Union held a video conference with various heads of state as the body weighed what response to take in regards to the crisis. No official word came from The Kremlin, although several Russian sources made references to relying on Polish female border guards in June of 1941 as well as Hitler's failure to account for Russian and Lithuanian female soldiers and how they proved decisive at Stalingrad and Kursk, setting the stage for Russia's rise as a superpower. Chinese officials were equally mute, although Xinhua did have an op-ed piece making light of S. Korea's reliance on foreign female soldiers and assuring the people of China that their government would never engage in such an unwise policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's some very active yeast! It's certainly rising to epic heights.
But taste-wise, it's a bit heavy on the sexism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Although some women have been killed in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan..the numbers remain small. |
Don't let Steelrails find out a small number of deaths mean the soldiers were nothing. After all, South Korean deaths in Vietnam were a very, very small percentage of the millions of deaths during the war. You're strongly implying his heroes were just a big bunch of nothing.
I noticed you edited and took out your bolded part about women serving as nurses which attempted to emphasize how meaningless medical staff is during wars. Good decision, since we only have to look at the American Civil War, where 2 out of 3 of the soldiers who died were killed by sickness, to know how critically important medical soldiers are. As if combat wounds weren't a major enough issue by itself.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| You do realize that there were Polish, Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, Czech, and other women needed to "defend the border", right? By your standard at least. |
Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia were Soviet republics, so women from those republics were Soviet. I'm unaware of women from Poland and Czechoslovakia serving as soldiers on the soil of the USSR.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| S. Korea's deployment was linked to the US... |
...and we lost.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| All of Vietnam was under the control of the Saigon regime. |
No it wasn't. That's so delusional. Most of the countryside was out of control and it certainly had no control of Hanoi, Haiphong, or any other place up north. The Saigon regime didn't even have control of itself. They had to fall in line to Washington or end up like a capo getting whacked out by the mob boss. Look at what happened to President Ngo Dinh Diem.
| Steelrails wrote: |
So because Germany lost the war, EVERYTHING they ever did and everything related to them should be disregarded as ineffective?
By that logic we should never have reformed our armor doctrine, adopted the jet aircraft or cruise missiles, remote controlled bombs, advanced armor tactics, and so on. |
No, by that logic, we should never get ourselves into fights we're not going to win. All of those German soldiers who stormed into the USSR were responsible for Germany being reduced to rubble and the females of eastern Germany being reduced to cum dumpsters for the Red Army. You can admire and salute those losers, but I'm not going to.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Every single one you referred to was a police action fought against a non-uniformed enemy. The conventional wars against Saddam, which is likely how a conflict resulting around a North Korean invasion would resolve itself, is completely different. |
The NVA fought in uniform. Whenever I hear Vietnam veterans of either side talk about it, they always refer to it as a war. The only people I ever hear refer to it as police action are people who weren't in the thick of it or anywhere close.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Maybe if it had won military by annexing North Vietnam, it would have lost the Cold War in the long-run. |
Steelrails, the US and South Korea couldn't even hang onto South Vietnam.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Nope, go back and reread everything. |
I did. You were talking about Bush's strategy being a success because al Qaeda didn't get a 1000 year Caliphate. Al Qaeda wasn't going to ever get a Caliphate no matter what Bush did or didn't do. I hear they control Fallujah now, however.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Then why do you speak of it as sucha derisive thing? Why "foreign ladies" and not "foreign soldiers"? YOU were the one who injected gender into this and assigning them an inferior place. |
Why do I call my uncle Uncle Ben instead of Cpt. Klein? Probably because he's my uncle and his name is Benjamin. The foreign ladies are foreign and they're ladies.
I certainly don't think they're inferior. To me, those gals have more courage than you, me, and any and every other male south of the 38th who teaches at Ding Ding Dang Academy or works at Samsung while the ladies boldly protect us.
But I see the humor in it. My mom always worked multiple jobs while my dad always worked only one job, and for only nine months out of the year. He would always brag to everyone about the situation. He would laugh about it. And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I think it's hilarious we get up each morning and stroll to Maple Bear Academy or Wonderland in our corduroys, bowties, pocket protectors, and eyeglasses with tape in the middle while those ladies put on fatigues. But maybe some men get defensive and feel emasculated about ladies wearing the pants and protecting them, instead of getting a chuckle out of it.
I sleep well knowing those ladies will hold the line long enough for me to boogie down to Busan for a ride to Japan. When we meet at the docks in Busan, I'll buy you a beer.
| atwood wrote: |
| So you admit that they are being relied on. Why not just stop there? |
Exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No it wasn't. That's so delusional. Most of the countryside was out of control and it certainly had no control of Hanoi, Haiphong, or any other place up north. The Saigon regime didn't even have control of itself. They had to fall in line to Washington or end up like a capo getting whacked out by the mob boss. Look at what happened to President Ngo Dinh Diem. |
I poorly phrased that, I meant all of S. Vietnam was considered the domain of the Saigon regime.
Of course they didn't exercise functional control over large swaths, including themselves, but the U.S. was there to support the S. Vietnamese government, not to act as its own independent nation.
| Quote: |
| No, by that logic, we should never get ourselves into fights we're not going to win. All of those German soldiers who stormed into the USSR were responsible for Germany being reduced to rubble and the females of eastern Germany being reduced to cum dumpsters for the Red Army. You can admire and salute those losers, but I'm not going to. |
So your approach to military science is "Because any element of it was used by the losing side, ergo it must be ineffective and of no value".
That is brilliant logic there. Germany relied upon jets for its final air defense, while we were deploying mainly piston-engine aircraft. Ergo, in the next war we should rely on overwhelming numbers of piston-engine aircraft and forgoe jet development. That is the logical conclusion of your statement.
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, the US and South Korea couldn't even hang onto South Vietnam. |
The U.S. and S. Korea had largely withdrawn following the Paris Peace Accords of 1972. As of 1973 there were 50 American soldiers and S. Vietnam was still independent. N. Vietnam didn't launch its full-scale invasion until 1975.
Not exactly facing the bulk of American forces when they attacked.
| Quote: |
| I did. You were talking about Bush's strategy being a success because al Qaeda didn't get a 1000 year Caliphate. |
No, go back and read again. Come back with quotes. Well to save you the time, I will-
| Quote: |
For what its worth, George Bush did achieve his strategic objectives- Saddam was removed and Iraq's potential to deploy weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated, broader democratic movements have started to take place in the Middle East. Unfortunately the devil is in the details as those movements sometimes involve unsavory elements. That and the easily projected, often mentioned, but ignored push by Al-Qaeda into sub-Saharan Africa.
All the major strategic objectives of other groups have been rather stymied. None of the three major ethnic groups in Iraq has been able to achieve their objectives. The Kurds still lack a fully independent state. The Shia have yet to assert complete and total control over the country, and the Sunnis have been unable to retain their role at the head. Iran, between Kurds, Syria, Iraq, and the US, has too many gophers to hit and can't make a strong play on any of them without bringing the house down on them. Turkey has been unable to capitalize and broaden its sphere in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda? No sign of that 1000 year Caliphite anytime soon.
|
Nice try.
| Quote: |
Why do I call my uncle Uncle Ben instead of Cpt. Klein? Probably because he's my uncle and his name is Benjamin. The foreign ladies are foreign and they're ladies.
|
Funny, never once seen you refer to any other military personnel as "foreign men" or "German men" or "Vietnamese men". No one is buying your BS that you hold female soldiers in high esteem.
| Quote: |
But maybe some men get defensive and feel emasculated about ladies wearing the pants and protecting them, instead of getting a chuckle out of it.
|
Dude, you spoke about them in misogynist terms, and you were implying that the nation of Korea is somehow emasculated by their presence.
| Quote: |
| So you admit that they are being relied on. Why not just stop there? |
Because they aren't.
Korean men are relied upon to defend the DMZ, far more than American men or American women.
Go and thank a Korean male military soldier for your safety. They are the ones that are right along the DMZ and getting shelled or torpedoed. They are the ones that enable YOU EZE to work and some Kindygarten.
You owe your safety to Korean men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Although some women have been killed in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan..the numbers remain small. |
Don't let Steelrails find out a small number of deaths mean the soldiers were nothing. After all, South Korean deaths in Vietnam were a very, very small percentage of the millions of deaths during the war. You're strongly implying his heroes were just a big bunch of nothing.
I noticed you edited and took out your bolded part about women serving as nurses which attempted to emphasize how meaningless medical staff is during wars. Good decision, since we only have to look at the American Civil War, where 2 out of 3 of the soldiers who died were killed by sickness, to know how critically important medical soldiers are. As if combat wounds weren't a major enough issue by itself.
. |
I never said that a small number of deaths mean nothing. You miss the point however is which that officially women are not allowed to serve in combat (Iraq/Afghanistan notwithstanding and when Congress found out they started asking some tough questions) so in all likelihood they won't be doing much in the way of keeping SR (or anyone else safe)
| Quote: |
| The new rules keep in place a ban on women serving in the infantry, in combat tank units and in Special Operations commando units. |
I took out the bolded part because the link for that one is already included in the first article I posted. And no it was not emphasizing how meaningless medical staff is/was during wars. It simply pointed out that when women get killed in a combat situation they were/are more likely to be support/medical staff then soldiers.
And SR is right. It is Korean men that make up the bulk of the forces here facing down the DPRK.
And going by your logic we could criticize both Canada and America for using "foreign ladies" to keep them safe.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d
| Quote: |
| Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| That is brilliant logic there. Germany relied upon jets for its final air defense, while we were deploying mainly piston-engine aircraft. Ergo, in the next war we should rely on overwhelming numbers of piston-engine aircraft and forgoe jet development. That is the logical conclusion of your statement. |
The jets didn't lose the war. The Germans did. I'm not blaming the jets, I'm blaming the Germans for their loss while you're talking about how well they defended their country when it got conquered and pillaged.
| Steelrails wrote: |
The U.S. and S. Korea had largely withdrawn following the Paris Peace Accords of 1972. As of 1973 there were 50 American soldiers and S. Vietnam was still independent. N. Vietnam didn't launch its full-scale invasion until 1975.
Not exactly facing the bulk of American forces when they attacked. |
Sugar Ray didn't have to knock out Duran. Landing enough punches to cause Duran to say, "No más, no más," and leave the ring in humiliation meant Sugar Ray was the winner. Duran didn't climb into the ring with his goal of the fight ending the way it did. Neither did the USA and South Korea. It's impossible to spin our defeat in Vietnam into some sort of military success story. There's a saying: you can't polish a turd.
| Steelrails wrote: |
For what its worth, George Bush did achieve his strategic objectives-
Al-Qaeda? No sign of that 1000 year Caliphite anytime soon.
|
Again, al Qaeda had no chance of making a 1000 year Caliphate, with or without Bush's "strategy."
| Steelrails wrote: |
| No one is buying your BS that you hold female soldiers in high esteem. |
I hold them in higher esteem than you do. You can't even admit they're here protecting us. I'm saying they are protecting us. You're suggesting they're doing something other than the job their superior officers and the South Korean government are relying on them to do.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Dude, you spoke about them in misogynist terms, and you were implying that the nation of Korea is somehow emasculated by their presence. |
We're from different regions of the USA, so we view terminology differently, even within the same language. You're angry that I'm referring to women as "ladies," but where I'm from, the word lady is a term of respect. Whenever I hear people say, "Hello ladies," to my mother and sister, that's acceptable and appreciated.
I don't feel emasculated that women are protecting me. I feel lucky they're protecting me instead of me protecting them. You're the one that feels emasculated, as evidenced by your state of denial about them protecting you.
| Steelrails wrote: |
Because they aren't.
Korean men are relied upon to defend the DMZ, far more than American men or American women.
Go and thank a Korean male military soldier for your safety. They are the ones that are right along the DMZ and getting shelled or torpedoed. They are the ones that enable YOU EZE to work and some Kindygarten.
You owe your safety to Korean men. |
I have no problem acknowledging Korean men and Korean ladies are making a significant contribution to the national defense of South Korea. They are. I'm saying Korean men and women and foreign men and women are.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I never said that a small number of deaths mean nothing. You miss the point however is which that officially women are not allowed to serve in combat (Iraq/Afghanistan notwithstanding and when Congress found out they started asking some tough questions) so in all likelihood they won't be doing much in the way of keeping SR (or anyone else safe). |
If non-combat personnel weren't important, armies wouldn't have them.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| It simply pointed out that when women get killed in a combat situation they were/are more likely to be support/medical staff then soldiers. |
Support and medical staff are soldiers. And they're critically important.
Steelrails talks a lot about the German war effort in WWII, but one of the most pivotal moments of the war occurred when its largest army was surrounded on land at Stalingrad. Cut off from its supply line on land, a hard battle became exponentially more difficult. The Germans were still able to land planes at several airfields, offload supplies, and evacuate the severely wounded, but the Germans at Stalingrad were getting only a third of the supplies they needed. Food supply became such a problem that the Germans started eating their horses and eventually resorted to cannibalism. When it didn't seem like things could get much worse, it did. They lost their airfields at a time when they were already losing more troops to starvation and disease than from combat. As a result, around 100,000 German soldiers had to throw in the towel.
The battle also illustrates how the reliance on a small minority contingency can be critically important. The Romanians were only a very small part of the Axis force, but they were relied upon to defend each extreme end of the Axis line at the battle of Stalingrad. The Soviets overran the Romanians on both ends of the line, which resulted in the complete encirclement of the Germans. The Romanians didn't deliver, but the Germans were relying on them to hold their part of the line.
Steelrails overlooks the important contributions the Prussians made in defeating Napoleon. Another thing you're both overlooking is how disease affected Napoleon. At Waterloo, he missed significant portions of the battle because of his hemorrhoids. On top of that, he wasn't able to mount or ride his horse, which impeded his ability to lead his troops and survey the battlefield. If Napoleon would've had the medical care our troops in Korea have, he wouldn't have been as handicapped as he was during his defeat at Waterloo.
And again, two thirds of the soldier fatalities during the American Civil War were a result of disease. Disease killed twice as many rebel soldiers than the US Army did. Disease killed twice as many US soldiers than the Confederate Army did.
Medical soldiers are very important. So are supply soldiers, unless the combat troops can go without food indefinitely. The last time I looked, they're human too. They might need also need ammo, fuel, and other supplies unless they want to kick it old school and fight on foot with sticks and stones.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And SR is right. It is Korean men that make up the bulk of the forces here facing down the DPRK. |
That's the one thing he and I agree on. We disagree on whether or not the South Korean government uses foreign women to help defend South Korea. I think it does, he thinks it doesn't.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And going by your logic we could criticize both Canada and America for using "foreign ladies" to keep them safe. |
You can criticize it. I'm not criticizing it, but at the same time if we need Canadian ladies to defend our country, we're not a superpower. I'm an American who doesn't think the USA is a superpower. Look at what happened in 2003. American men who ridicule the French and call them "surrender monkeys" begged the French to go fight our war in Iraq for us. Then, after the French refused to do that for us, we threw temper tantrums, poured French wine down our gutters, and renamed potatoes. That's not superpower behavior. Then, after all of that, we went and lost the war.
Anyway, it doesn't matter how Steelrails or I view the foreign female soldiers in South Korea. I don't want them here and he thinks they're useless. However, the South Korean government disagrees with both of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
byrddogs
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LOL @ TUM and his random links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The jets didn't lose the war. The Germans did. I'm not blaming the jets, I'm blaming the Germans for their loss while you're talking about how well they defended their country when it got conquered and pillage |
First, you are making some basic fails of logic.
Just because the Germans lost the war, doesn't mean that they didn't have any units that fought well or that they didn't do some things better than the eventual winners. For example, Team A executed well when it came to running the football, but did poorly in the passing game. Team B executed well in the passing game, but did poorly running the football. Team A won. Does that mean that Team B's quarterback is bad? Does it mean that Team B's pass plays are poorly designed?
Also, because a country wins/loses a previous war against another country, that does not mean the result will be repeated.
If Paraguay is attacked by Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, and eventually loses to sheer overwhelming force, does that mean the Paraguayans did a poor job of defending their country? At what point do overwhelming odds come into play?
| Quote: |
Neither did the USA and South Korea. It's impossible to spin our defeat in Vietnam into some sort of military success story. There's a saying: you can't polish a turd.
|
The War in Vietnam was not like a boxing match as it was fought within the larger context of the Cold War. The Cold War didn't end after Vietnam. The objective was to win The Cold War, and the Vietnam conflict was being undertaken to further that purpose.
| Quote: |
| Again, al Qaeda had no chance of making a 1000 year Caliphate, with or without Bush's "strategy." |
That is Al-Qaeda's goal. Stopping that goal was not an instrumental part of Bush's strategic objectives. Two adversaries fighting each can have varying strategic goals.
| Quote: |
| I hold them in higher esteem than you do. You can't even admit they're here protecting us. I'm saying they are protecting us. You're suggesting they're doing something other than the job their superior officers and the South Korean government are relying on them to do. |
| Quote: |
We're from different regions of the USA, so we view terminology differently, even within the same language. You're angry that I'm referring to women as "ladies," but where I'm from, the word lady is a term of respect. Whenever I hear people say, "Hello ladies," to my mother and sister, that's acceptable and appreciated.
I don't feel emasculated that women are protecting me. I feel lucky they're protecting me instead of me protecting them. You're the one that feels emasculated, as evidenced by your state of denial about them protecting you. |
I don't think anyone is buying this BS. Your comment at the start clearly implied there was something wrong with it and you clearly implied a difference in quality between male and female soldiers.
Stop lying to yourself and me.
| Quote: |
I have no problem acknowledging Korean men and Korean ladies are making a significant contribution to the national defense of South Korea. They are. I'm saying Korean men and women and foreign men and women are.
|
In fact those Korean men and ladies are making a significantly greater contribution than those American ladies and even more than yes, the American men.
The American men and women take an already quality and sufficient fighting force in the ROK military, one capable of defending itself from N. Korea, and turn it into an even better one. They are not relied upon for defense, they are assets in excellence.
| Quote: |
Support and medical staff are soldiers. And they're critically important.
Steelrails talks a lot about the German war effort in WWII, but one of the most pivotal moments of the war occurred when its largest army was surrounded on land at Stalingrad. Cut off from its supply line on land, a hard battle became exponentially more difficult. The Germans were still able to land planes at several airfields, offload supplies, and evacuate the severely wounded, but the Germans at Stalingrad were getting only a third of the supplies they needed. Food supply became such a problem that the Germans started eating their horses and eventually resorted to cannibalism. When it didn't seem like things could get much worse, it did. They lost their airfields at a time when they were already losing more troops to starvation and disease than from combat. As a result, around 100,000 German soldiers had to throw in the towel.
The battle also illustrates how the reliance on a small minority contingency can be critically important. The Romanians were only a very small part of the Axis force, but they were relied upon to defend each extreme end of the Axis line at the battle of Stalingrad. The Soviets overran the Romanians on both ends of the line, which resulted in the complete encirclement of the Germans. The Romanians didn't deliver, but the Germans were relying on them to hold their part of the line.
Steelrails overlooks the important contributions the Prussians made in defeating Napoleon. Another thing you're both overlooking is how disease affected Napoleon. At Waterloo, he missed significant portions of the battle because of his hemorrhoids. On top of that, he wasn't able to mount or ride his horse, which impeded his ability to lead his troops and survey the battlefield. If Napoleon would've had the medical care our troops in Korea have, he wouldn't have been as handicapped as he was during his defeat at Waterloo.
And again, two thirds of the soldier fatalities during the American Civil War were a result of disease. Disease killed twice as many rebel soldiers than the US Army did. Disease killed twice as many US soldiers than the Confederate Army did.
Medical soldiers are very important. So are supply soldiers, unless the combat troops can go without food indefinitely. The last time I looked, they're human too. They might need also need ammo, fuel, and other supplies unless they want to kick it old school and fight on foot with sticks and stones.
|
All of what you have said is true. Unfortunately, you said "guarding the border". Which means its not applicable in this case.
Now if at the start you had said "US Female troops perform admirably in support roles for those soldiers along the border", no one would argue with you. But by using the term "guarding", you changed the context. Support troops are not "guarding" they are "supplying" or "supporting". A C-141 does not guard US airspace. A supply ship does not guard US waters. Support troops do not guard the DMZ. That doesn't mean they aren't critical elements.
| Quote: |
| We disagree on whether or not the South Korean government uses foreign women to help defend South Korea. I think it does, he thinks it doesn't. |
On these words the argument rests. If you said "assisted" or "helped" or "cooperated", then fine. But you said "relied", implying that they were a critical element and that their removal would fundamentally alter the security situation. As I said, female uniformed personnel in Canada and the US assist the US with its border security. But they are not "relied upon".
| Quote: |
| but at the same time if we need Canadian ladies to defend our country, we're not a superpower. |
I think that's a false premise. I think that in the 21st century, with global trade and security agreements, countries with friendly histories can share and cooperate when it comes to security, and it is more efficient and practicable to do so.
It's like me saying "If the US is relying upon China to protect its maritime commerce, can it still be called a superpower?" This is a false argument. Since both countries benefit from that commerce and engage in it together, to mutual benefit they have decided to cooperate and engage sea pirates and to protect each other's shipping. This isn't a zero-sum game, something you continually apply to every historical event you've addressed. |
|
| 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
