|
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 |
Gollywog
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Debussy's brain
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Now I've seen everything. I am speechless.
What I'd like to know is what did Oh Young-jin, assistant managing editor, and the Korea Times do to get the truth to the Korean people about the falsehoods being spread in Korea about American beef?
Did the Korea Times ever report that there was no truth to the accusations of rampant mad cow disease in the United States? Or, more to the point, that there is, was, and never has been an outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States?
Did the Korea Times in its reporting bother to contact any scientific expert in the United States to respond to the false allegations, even once?
Did Assistant Managing Editor Oh Young-jin demand unbiased reporting from Korea Times reporters?
Or did the Korea Times just report the baseless allegations by Koreans as though they were the gospel truth.
Anyone who followed this journalistic fiasco knows the answer.
Korea is not America's friend. Korea hates the United States. Why does the United States owe Korea ANY favors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea |
Do you think that Bush kept troops here as a favor to South Koreans? That is, simply because he felt like doing something nice for South Korea?
| Quote: |
| his keeping the pressure on North Korea's nuclear weapons program |
So, the US regards itself as having no strategic interest in containing the Nork's nuclear program? Their stance on that issue is just the equivalent of a boy scout helping a little old lady accross the street?
Your comments here remind me of those Canadians who say things like "Canadian foreign-policy, unlike that of the US, is not about pursuing selfish interests, but is rather motivated by idealistic concerns about the third world blah blah blah north-south partneship blah blah blah Pearsonian whatever blah blah blah". And of course, you know what I think about that line of rhetoric. |
Hey OTOH, does Korea benefit from us or not? If so then it's as close to a favor as Koreans have a right to expect. I think that's what Gopher meant, and it's certainly what I mean. NOBODY does "favors" in international relations. It's awefully arrogant of Koreans to believe they deserve any. |
I certainly agree that Korean benefits from US military arrangements on the peninsula. But I do take excpetion to the use of the word "favor", because that misstates the motivations behind US American involvement. I do not think it is simply an issue of semantics.
| Quote: |
Lets put it this way the US spends between 3 and 20 billion dollars a year keeping US forces in Korea .
Do land locked troops in Korea give the US the most bang for the buck? Do they really provide the US with substantial military utility? Which would scare China , North Korea, Russia or Iran more? More F-22s or land locked troops in Korea?
If the US is out to threaten others keeping US forces in Korea isn't a very efficient way of doing so. |
None of this explains why US troops were kept here even during the darkest days of he Iraq War, when the US army was lowering standards and conscripting street thugs and geezers. Surely, if the troops are just here on a charity run, they would have been shipped out to the Sunni triangle some time in the past few years.
The "Bring 'em home!!" crowd on Daves are kind of the mirror image of Korean nationalists:
The nationalists scream about "the American occupation of Korea", but never stop to ask themselves why their own governments continue to keep the US troops here.
The "Bring 'em home!!" boys holler about Korean ingratitude for American favors, but never stop to ask themselves why the American government continues to keep the troops here.
The hard truth, of course, is that the policy geeks in DC really don't give a rat's ass if some no-name GIs get the occasional soju bottle chucked at their heads, as long as US policy objectives in the region are fulfilled. Just as the policy geeks in Seoul really don't care about wounded Korean pride, as long as Korean taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for the full cost of their defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
One more thing...
| Quote: |
| Since the 1950's every time the US has mentioned troop reduction on the peninsula, Korean politicians wet themselves. |
When Jimmy Carter wanted to withdraw troops in the late 70s, his proposal was opposed not only by Park Chung Hee, but also by everyone in the foreign-policy contingent of his administration, incuding Brzezinski. (They basically had to work their way around the policy.)
This is discussed in Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Analogy time. Lets say you have a rare form of cancer. You go to a brilliant doctor. He is the only doctor in the world who can cure you. He takes great care of you, cures you, and saves your life.
Do you then tell the doctor to go eff himself because 1) he doesnt really care about you anyway 2) he just became a doctor to get rich and get a pretty wife. |
Well, this analogy assumes that the people who are protesting against the US troops are also the people who are asking them to stay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've LONG been under the impression that the ONLY reason that SOUTH KOREA is what it is today is because of basic Cold War politics. The very fact that the U.S. feels compelled to pump godless amounts of money to make South Korea look and be successful versus the failure of North Korea and the socialist/communist world.
There is a strong part of me that just feels like 'f-it', let's demand our troops get out of there even stronger than koreans demand they leave. If South Koreans really want us to leave, they can fight it out with North Korea on their own over who is going to 'rule' the Pensinsula and start afresh with a new quasi-existance.
Fortunately or unfortunately, whoever the REAL people are behind the scenes who can make that happen, are too smart to let it fall to complete disrepair like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoExplode
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ingrates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really see what the problem with the article is. Basically the writer is praising Mrs. Stephens due to her time in the Peace Corps and her roots here. So she doesn't like the last schmuck. What's wrong with that?
As far as the arguments of the 'leave now' crowd, no one's really paying attention to them. They're kinda like social conservatives in the USA; you pay them lip service, then ignore them when the rubber meets the road.
Everybody here knows the peninsula can't reunify without foreign support, otherwise the place will erupt into a civil war and refugee hellhole. Maybe that hasn't dawned on the protesters and the common folk when they go apeshit over the latest US foul-up, but they're not calling the shots.
Speaking of the local's opinion, local blogger RJKoeleher did an interesting post as to why the S.Koreans complain so much about the presence of US forces in public, but clamour for their stay in private.
He says it's called "the Han". Can't find the exact article, but it has to do with those masks that have the deep smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
I've LONG been under the impression that the ONLY reason that SOUTH KOREA is what it is today is because of basic Cold War politics. The very fact that the U.S. feels compelled to pump godless amounts of money to make South Korea look and be successful versus the failure of North Korea and the socialist/communist world.
There is a strong part of me that just feels like 'f-it', let's demand our troops get out of there even stronger than koreans demand they leave. If South Koreans really want us to leave, they can fight it out with North Korea on their own over who is going to 'rule' the Pensinsula and start afresh with a new quasi-existance.
Fortunately or unfortunately, whoever the REAL people are behind the scenes who can make that happen, are too smart to let it fall to complete disrepair like that. |
Amen.
If our troops are ever pulled out, and they probably will if the economy deteriorates badly enough, I hope Ms. Oh reflects on what she wrote in this article on her first day of basic training. I get pissed about the tax dollars being taken from my people and given to both Korea and Israel, but at least the Israelis act like mature grown-ups. The Israeli women go through boot camp. Maybe that is what is needed for some of these spoiled brats in Korea like Ms. Oh to grow out of their adult toddler phase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
wylies99:
Thanks for posting this op-ed piece. I never bother to access the KT online anymore so I would have missed this gem.
Ah, where to begin...
First, a general comment about the tone of many op-eds in Korean newspapers: they lack in decorum and sense of polite engagement with the foreign reader compared to those in China, Hong Kong, or Japan. But then this comes at no surprise to me.
Case in point:
| Quote: |
| ...his drum work, hyped by the Korean media and revered by the larger audience who didn't have a chance to listen, was mediocre |
Whether it's accurate or not is beside the point; you'd never see such petty comments put to print in a major English newspaper in any other Asian country.
Editor Oh Young-jin also sniped:
| Quote: |
| The point is made plain, considering the all-male lineage of her predecessors |
As if this isn't a problem in Korean society. 
| Quote: |
| Alexander Vershbow, whom she succeeded, was known to hold a great amount of disdain for Korea and was quite open about it. |
Gee, can't imagine why. I didn't know this was the case. If it's indeed true, well, bully for him. I wish they'd enumerate instances of his offenses so I could have a good laugh--at their (not his) expense.
| Quote: |
| reunion tugged the heartstrings of Koreans |
Translation: We love you only if you love our language first.
| Quote: |
| helped Koreans put behind them remnants of their inferiority complex |
First off, that's your problem, Editor. Second, I think what remains is more than a "remnant."
| Quote: |
| With Ambassador Stephens in place, the ``April beef crisis'' could have been handled differently. |
Oh, really, how so? She would have kow-towed to Korea's double-standard fare trade position?
Gimme a break. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentX wrote: |
ISpeaking of the local's opinion, local blogger RJKoeleher did an interesting post as to why the S.Koreans complain so much about the presence of US forces in public, but clamour for their stay in private.
He says it's called "the Han". |
Thanks for expanding my Korean vocabulary from two words to three.
Ne = Yes
Ani = No
Han = the behavior of two-faced adult babies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
There is a strong part of me that just feels like 'f-it', let's demand our troops get out of there even stronger than koreans demand they leave. |
The troops are a very minor thing, really. If the Koreans want to be treated like adults then they no longer require wildly preferential access to the American market. They can find another place to ship their products. The Korean story would be over. Immediately, finally and absolutely over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the Other Hand wrote: |
| But I do take excpetion to the use of the word "favor", because that misstates the motivations behind US American involvement. |
Those motivations include service to the South Koreans' security needs, On the Other Hand. American motivations are complex and multifaceted. Ignoring the altruistic side of those motivations remains the left's problem and MO.
| On the Other Hand wrote: |
| ...when the US army was lowering standards and conscripting street thugs and geezers. |
I always thought you above this kind of sleezy hyperbole. The Army waived some but not all felonies -- felony car theft, for example, but not murder or drug-dealing. Surely you must know this.
| On the Other Hand wrote: |
| Surely, if the troops are just here on a charity run... |
And I do not believe that Leslie and I have reduced American commitments to South Korean security to purely "a charity run."
| On the Other Hand wrote: |
| The "Bring 'em home!!" boys holler about Korean ingratitude for American favors, but never stop to ask themselves why the American government continues to keep the troops here. |
Do you think that I do not understand America's East-Asia security policy, On the Other Hand? Or that this represents my position on why we should withdraw American forces from South Korea?
No matter. The American policy's objectives include, among all of its other complexities and facets, protecting South Korea's security for its own sake. That remains a favor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
OTOH-Gopher exchange...
| Quote: |
On the Other Hand wrote:
...when the US army was lowering standards and conscripting street thugs and geezers.
I always thought you above this kind of sleezy hyperbole. The Army waived some but not all felonies -- felony car theft, for example, but not murder or drug-dealing. Surely you must know this.
|
Well, even allowing that guys who rip off cars should not have their reputations sullied with the epithet "street thug"...
| Quote: |
Law enforcement officials report that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos," the Chicago Sun-Times reports, "because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up." They also note that "gang activity maybe rising among soldiers." The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities."
Last month, the Sun-Times reported that a gang member facing federal charges of murder and robbery enlisted in the Marine Corps "while he was free on bond -- and was preparing to ship out to boot camp when Marine officials recently discovered he was under indictment." While this recruit was eventually booted from the Corps, a Milwaukee police detective and Army veteran, who serves on the federal drug and gang task force that arrested the would-be Marine, noted that other "gang-bangers are going over to Iraq and sending weapons back ... gang members are getting access to military training and weapons."
|
| Quote: |
Earlier this year, it was reported that an expected transfer of 10,000 to 20,000 troops to Fort Bliss, Texas, caused FBI and local law enforcement to fear a turf war between "members of the FolkNation gang ... (and) a criminal group that is already well-established in the area, Barrio Azteca." The New York Sun wrote that, according to one FBI agent, "FolkNation, which was founded in Chicago and includes several branches using the name Gangster Disciples, has gained a foothold in the Army."
Another type of gang member has also begun to proliferate within the military, evidently thanks to lowered recruitment standards and an increasing tendency of recruiters to look the other way. In July, a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, found that because of pressing manpower concerns, "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" are now serving in the military. "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members," said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator quoted in the report.
|
| Quote: |
| In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was "a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms 'serious criminal misconduct' in their background" -- a category that included "aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats." From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent. |
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
American motivations are complex and multifaceted. Ignoring the altruistic side of those motivations remains the left's problem and MO.
|
You shouldn't confuse me with those leftists who claim that the US is uniquely self-interested in its international dealings. I think all countries are. It's just that, when this particular topic comes up on this particular message board, the "Bring 'em home now!!" crowd tends to talk about US motivations as altruistic. So my comments should be read within that context.
I am curious, though...
As an academic historian, are there any other situations where you would argue that the actions of a particular country or leader were motivated(if only partly) by alrtuism? I have to say, I am not accustomed to seeing any nation's motivations analyzed in that manner.
| Quote: |
And I do not believe that Leslie and I have reduced American commitments to South Korean security to purely "a charity run."
|
Well, in any presentation of the Bring 'Em Home Now argument, I never see any indication that the US is pursuing its own self-interest in Korea. I do, however, see a lot of statements like this...
"Why the hell are we still here defending these ungrateful flag-burning mamma's boys??!"
The fact that this question is being asked in the first place would seem to indicate to me that the person has not factored American self-interest into the equation. Otherwise, he would not have to ask.
| Quote: |
| No matter. The American policy's objectives include, among all of its other complexities and facets, protecting South Korea's security for its own sake. That remains a favor. |
I guess we're gonna disagree on the definition of a "favor" here. If I hire a security guard to guard my house, and one night he tackles a burglar, he's not doing me a favor. He's merely fulfilling his obligations per the contract that he entered into for reasons of self-interest.
http://tinyurl.com/khj8f |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Well, in any presentation of the Bring 'Em Home Now argument, I never see any indication that the US is pursuing its own self-interest in Korea. I do, however, see a lot of statements like this...
"Why the hell are we still here defending these ungrateful flag-burning mamma's boys??!"
The fact that this question is being asked in the first place would seem to indicate to me that the person has not factored American self-interest into the equation. Otherwise, he would not have to ask. |
Or they know about the self-interest and are having an entirely understandable emotional reaction. Equating the few people fuming on this message board to the Korean Left burning effigies over the 'danger' of mad cow is not warranted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I guess we're gonna disagree on the definition of a "favor" here. If I hire a security guard to guard my house, and one night he tackles a burglar, he's not doing me a favor. He's merely fulfilling his obligations per the contract that he entered into for reasons of self-interest. |
We disagree on everything here, especially the way you talk about the military like a muckraker.
Rather than go in circles on this, however, I will bow out -- but only after pointing out that your analogy, above, the one where you are the one paying the security guard to guard your house, seems to have the pay arrangements wrong, not to mention the reasons for "entering the contract..." |
|
| 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
