|
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 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
sr posted
| Quote: |
| The ROK military is the backbone of defense of S. Korea. |
sr also posted
| Quote: |
| Just because you say that, doesn't make it true in the present context. |
There you have it--claim made; claim debunked. The blind rabbit is still running in circles.
sr posted
| Quote: |
| If it was reported once, you can be sure that it happened 10 unreported times. |
By my math that means 20 SK soldiers fired on 20 other SK soldiers by mistake.
sr continued to post
| Quote: |
| take former Defense Secretary Robert F. Gates who praised 2MB in his memoir "Duty" and mentioned that SOUTH Korea had to be restrained from the US from launching retaliatory strikes following Yeongpyeong because the US wanted stability. Sure doesn't sound like some sort of weak and ineffectual army to me. |
Maybe he restrained them because he knew they'd botch it. Maybe he restrained them because any response would have been so late in coming that the NK forces had moved where they couldn't be reliably targeted. Just because they wanted to retaliate doesn't mean they would been successful. Sure doesn't sound like much of an argument to me.
When are you going to quit carrying water for this bunch of amateurs, Gunga Din? |
Atwood, do you have any facts to back up your claims besides a friendly fire incident and a bunch of maybes?
If a friendly fire incident is all it takes for you to declare an army as a bunch of amateurs, then doesnt that mean the US Army or the Russian Army or the British army are a bunch of amateurs? After all theyve had friendly fire incidents too. And those were against people in another uniform/non uniform.
Or maybe your criteria is a moronic one. |
Do you have any facts to back up your claims besides you taught some SK army officers and they told you so? Can you point to any actual combat victories or achievements?
And of course it's not just the friendly fire incidents that leads one to question the professionalism of SK soldiers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
3DR
Joined: 24 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
More stuff to give you confidence in the system here...
http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2992415&cloc=joongangdaily|home|top
| Quote: |
Although Yoo was the nation’s most wanted fugitive, with 1.3 million police officers mobilized at various times in the manhunt and an unprecedented 500 million won ($486,500) reward offered for information about him, his body lay in a field just 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) from a villa he owned, enough time for most of its flesh to rot or be eaten by animals.
An extensive manhunt for Yoo was conducted in the area on May 25 because Yoo was suspected to be hiding in his villa in Suncheon.
It took nearly six weeks for local police to identify Yoo after his corpse was discovered on June 12. The DNA match was made Monday. |
|
6 weeks, damn...
The pathologist was quoted as saying, he hadnt realised the the body was that of Yoon, as it looked smaller than the image on the wanted poster. 
No shit Sherlock. |
Total incompetence. I just don't understand it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Do you have any facts to back up your claims besides you taught some SK army officers and they told you so? Can you point to any actual combat victories or achievements?
And of course it's not just the friendly fire incidents that leads one to question the professionalism of SK soldiers. |
There's South Korea's combat record in the Vietnam War. In the book 'Storm on the Horizon' about the Battle of Khafji, a major friendly fire incident for the U.S. Army btw, the author described S. Korea as having a truly professional military.
As far as recent engagements, most have been Nork style probing actions that you cant draw too firm a conclusion about. Yeonpyeong 1 and 2, and Daecheong didnt exactly feature front line combatants for either side. YP 1 and Daecheong were clear ROK victories, YP 2 was indecisive. Then of course you had Cheonan. Which wasnt really a battle but could be termed a Nork victory I guess. If course youd have to say the US Navy was defeated in its last battle when the USS Cole was hit if tgats your criteria. And theres the various pirate actions that both navies have dealt with, but thise are more like policing.
The ROKAF has had no major actions recently, which I think is quite telling. NK seems unwilling to contest them in the air.
Anyways atwood, where is your evidence and what reasons do you have for supporting it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
sr posted
| Quote: |
| The ROK military is the backbone of defense of S. Korea. |
sr also posted
| Quote: |
| Just because you say that, doesn't make it true in the present context. |
There you have it--claim made; claim debunked. The blind rabbit is still running in circles.
sr posted
| Quote: |
| If it was reported once, you can be sure that it happened 10 unreported times. |
By my math that means 20 SK soldiers fired on 20 other SK soldiers by mistake.
sr continued to post
| Quote: |
| take former Defense Secretary Robert F. Gates who praised 2MB in his memoir "Duty" and mentioned that SOUTH Korea had to be restrained from the US from launching retaliatory strikes following Yeongpyeong because the US wanted stability. Sure doesn't sound like some sort of weak and ineffectual army to me. |
Maybe he restrained them because he knew they'd botch it. Maybe he restrained them because any response would have been so late in coming that the NK forces had moved where they couldn't be reliably targeted. Just because they wanted to retaliate doesn't mean they would been successful. Sure doesn't sound like much of an argument to me.
When are you going to quit carrying water for this bunch of amateurs, Gunga Din? |
Atwood, do you have any facts to back up your claims besides a friendly fire incident and a bunch of maybes?
If a friendly fire incident is all it takes for you to declare an army as a bunch of amateurs, then doesnt that mean the US Army or the Russian Army or the British army are a bunch of amateurs? After all theyve had friendly fire incidents too. And those were against people in another uniform/non uniform.
Or maybe your criteria is a moronic one. |
Steelrails, please stop calling the shooting incident with the Korean military friendly fire, it wasn't. Friendly fire is when you accidentally engage your own troops, while engaged with an enemy. In the case of firing on your own troops, with no enemy present, it's called negligent or malicious discharge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| If you truly believed the ROKArmy was that incompetant, you wouldnt be here. |
I've spent most of my life in places like the USA, France, South Korea, Germany, and Japan and it isn't because our militaries have reputations for winning. I absolutely do not want to go to Afghanistan despite their ability to win wars, even against both modern superpowers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3DR
Joined: 24 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| If you truly believed the ROKArmy was that incompetant, you wouldnt be here. |
I've spent most of my life in places like the USA, France, South Korea, Germany, and Japan and it isn't because our militaries have reputations for winning. I absolutely do not want to go to Afghanistan despite their ability to win wars, even against both modern superpowers. |
USA, France, Germany, and Japan don't have a 60 year war still going on with someone threatening to kill you every year with nukes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
Do you have any facts to back up your claims besides you taught some SK army officers and they told you so? Can you point to any actual combat victories or achievements?
And of course it's not just the friendly fire incidents that leads one to question the professionalism of SK soldiers. |
There's South Korea's combat record in the Vietnam War. In the book 'Storm on the Horizon' about the Battle of Khafji, a major friendly fire incident for the U.S. Army btw, the author described S. Korea as having a truly professional military.
As far as recent engagements, most have been Nork style probing actions that you cant draw too firm a conclusion about. Yeonpyeong 1 and 2, and Daecheong didnt exactly feature front line combatants for either side. YP 1 and Daecheong were clear ROK victories, YP 2 was indecisive. Then of course you had Cheonan. Which wasnt really a battle but could be termed a Nork victory I guess. If course youd have to say the US Navy was defeated in its last battle when the USS Cole was hit if tgats your criteria. And theres the various pirate actions that both navies have dealt with, but thise are more like policing.
The ROKAF has had no major actions recently, which I think is quite telling. NK seems unwilling to contest them in the air.
Anyways atwood, where is your evidence and what reasons do you have for supporting it? |
Yet you insist on drawing conclusions.
My reasons are evident. They respond quite poorly to any situation that requires quick action and thinking on one's feet.
Don't forget the "accidental" discharge of his rifle by the Blue House guard. It wasn't accidental; he was just unaware the gun was loaded. So he started playing soldier and OOPS! That's what I mean by amateurs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hokie21
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I feel like if given the opportunity, SR would attend a M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) meeting and tell them, " Stop whining! Not every drunk driver has killed someone!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 3DR wrote: |
| USA, France, Germany, and Japan don't have a 60 year war still going on with someone threatening to kill you every year with nukes. |
If the war was actually still going on, you and I wouldn't be living and working in Korea. We'd be someplace else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, please stop calling the shooting incident with the Korean military friendly fire, it wasn't. Friendly fire is when you accidentally engage your own troops, while engaged with an enemy. In the case of firing on your own troops, with no enemy present, it's called negligent or malicious discharge. |
There was a soldier who had gone nuts and killed 5 other soldiers and was off in the wilderness. I think he more that qualifies as an enemy. He certainly was in the area, and the troops are certainly engaged in pursuing that enemy.
Anyways, I called it friendly fire because that's what atwood called it. I wasn't about to play semantics with him.
| Quote: |
| I've spent most of my life in places like the USA, France, South Korea, Germany, and Japan and it isn't because our militaries have reputations for winning. I absolutely do not want to go to Afghanistan despite their ability to win wars, even against both modern superpowers. |
This again. If you cannot tell the difference between an insurgency and a war and how vastly different those are handled you are UNQUALIFIED to discuss military matters.
Anyways, my point is that people scream about how utterly dangerous and incompetent Korea is and how the North could smoke S. Korea and all this other stuff. But if they really were that worried, they wouldn't be here. It's hyperbole- statements exaggerated for effect and to win an argument. It's not a reflection of their actual beliefs. Their actions don't match their words.
| Quote: |
My reasons are evident. They respond quite poorly to any situation that requires quick action and thinking on one's feet.
|
First many of the ROE prevent "quick action and thinking on one's feet" and instead follow specific actions because it is designed to prevent an uncontrolled escalation, not so much "win" a short, sharp incident, although ROK forces have been pushing to allow more discretion in responses and faster action.
And what is your evidence and record of it? You have this incident during the pursuit of the psycho soldier. What other incidents in regards to the Korean military do you have record of?
This is to say nothing of the naval actions I listed.
If you don't have a detailed description and record of what's going down, if you can't point to specific instances and dissect what happened, please shut up.
"My reasons are evident. They respond quite poorly to any situation..." is not evidence. It is your opinion. Bring out some evidence.
| Quote: |
| It wasn't accidental; he was just unaware the gun was loaded. So he started playing soldier and OOPS! That's what I mean by amateurs. |
So it is your criteria that any army that has a soldier engage in an accidental discharge is an amateur one?
Therefore by your logic, if ANY military has an accidental discharge, it is an amateur one, am I correct?
Would you say a military that shoots down civilian airliners (and I ain't talking about the Russians...) or accidentally bombs civilians is an amateur one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, please stop calling the shooting incident with the Korean military friendly fire, it wasn't. Friendly fire is when you accidentally engage your own troops, while engaged with an enemy. In the case of firing on your own troops, with no enemy present, it's called negligent or malicious discharge. |
There was a soldier who had gone nuts and killed 5 other soldiers and was off in the wilderness. I think he more that qualifies as an enemy. He certainly was in the area, and the troops are certainly engaged in pursuing that enemy.
Anyways, I called it friendly fire because that's what atwood called it. I wasn't about to play semantics with him. |
Actually you're the only one to use the words friendly fire, and had atwood used that term, I would have called 'em out on it too.
As for the bolded part, I'm glad you think that but that's not how the military works. To become an enemy, there has to be some sort of connection between the shooter and his working with the opposing military force, in this case North Korea. And since there is no such evidence that I'm aware of, he is nothing more than a criminal, and I'm sure he will be tried accordingly.
As for your point on quick response, that's pretty much spot on even. At least in my experience within the US military. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
byrddogs
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| actionjackson wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, please stop calling the shooting incident with the Korean military friendly fire, it wasn't. Friendly fire is when you accidentally engage your own troops, while engaged with an enemy. In the case of firing on your own troops, with no enemy present, it's called negligent or malicious discharge. |
There was a soldier who had gone nuts and killed 5 other soldiers and was off in the wilderness. I think he more that qualifies as an enemy. He certainly was in the area, and the troops are certainly engaged in pursuing that enemy.
Anyways, I called it friendly fire because that's what atwood called it. I wasn't about to play semantics with him. |
Actually you're the only one to use the words friendly fire, and had atwood used that term, I would have called 'em out on it too.
As for the bolded part, I'm glad you think that but that's not how the military works. To become an enemy, there has to be some sort of connection between the shooter and his working with the opposing military force, in this case North Korea. And since there is no such evidence that I'm aware of, he is nothing more than a criminal, and I'm sure he will be tried accordingly.
As for your point on quick response, that's pretty much spot on even. At least in my experience within the US military. |
Why let facts get in the way when you can pick apart posts and try to purport that you are the resounding expert (especially when you have proclaimed to be the expert so many times before on everything that anyone has ever mentioned)? Threads should die as a result of such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The ROK Army is made up of barely trained conscripts who just want to get the hell out. Of course it's an incompetent and amateurish. They aren't professional soldiers by definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| actionjackson wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, please stop calling the shooting incident with the Korean military friendly fire, it wasn't. Friendly fire is when you accidentally engage your own troops, while engaged with an enemy. In the case of firing on your own troops, with no enemy present, it's called negligent or malicious discharge. |
There was a soldier who had gone nuts and killed 5 other soldiers and was off in the wilderness. I think he more that qualifies as an enemy. He certainly was in the area, and the troops are certainly engaged in pursuing that enemy.
Anyways, I called it friendly fire because that's what atwood called it. I wasn't about to play semantics with him. |
Actually you're the only one to use the words friendly fire, and had atwood used that term, I would have called 'em out on it too.
As for the bolded part, I'm glad you think that but that's not how the military works. To become an enemy, there has to be some sort of connection between the shooter and his working with the opposing military force, in this case North Korea. And since there is no such evidence that I'm aware of, he is nothing more than a criminal, and I'm sure he will be tried accordingly.
As for your point on quick response, that's pretty much spot on even. At least in my experience within the US military. |
Woops. I should have said OP, not atwood.
Y
Anyways, if say the police or a SWAT team shot at each other, for brevity and familiarity's sake, we would say friendly fire.
Perhas. Should have said 'threat' instead of enemy. Anyways, you bring up a good point wghich was that the soldiers were basically being used in as much a criminal manhunt role as a military one. Drawing conclusions from this incident about their ability to repdl NORK attack seems ridiculous. OP and later atwoodclaims the military is incompetant because of one or two incidents. That quite a leap.
| Quote: |
| The ROK Army is made up of barely trained conscripts who just want to get the hell out. Of course it's an incompetent and amateurish. They aren't professional soldiers by definition. |
What unit were you in during your mandatory and what was your MOS? I know some parts of the army but arent up to snuff.
Anywas there is a qualitative difference between ROKNavy, ROKAF, ROKMC, and the army from what I've read.
As far as wanting to get out of there, I dont doubt it, but one if my friends just got out and us now applying to Yeongcheon, so I guess a few get something out it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, please stop calling the shooting incident with the Korean military friendly fire, it wasn't. Friendly fire is when you accidentally engage your own troops, while engaged with an enemy. In the case of firing on your own troops, with no enemy present, it's called negligent or malicious discharge. |
There was a soldier who had gone nuts and killed 5 other soldiers and was off in the wilderness. I think he more that qualifies as an enemy. He certainly was in the area, and the troops are certainly engaged in pursuing that enemy.
Anyways, I called it friendly fire because that's what atwood called it. I wasn't about to play semantics with him.
| Quote: |
| I've spent most of my life in places like the USA, France, South Korea, Germany, and Japan and it isn't because our militaries have reputations for winning. I absolutely do not want to go to Afghanistan despite their ability to win wars, even against both modern superpowers. |
This again. If you cannot tell the difference between an insurgency and a war and how vastly different those are handled you are UNQUALIFIED to discuss military matters.
Anyways, my point is that people scream about how utterly dangerous and incompetent Korea is and how the North could smoke S. Korea and all this other stuff. But if they really were that worried, they wouldn't be here. It's hyperbole- statements exaggerated for effect and to win an argument. It's not a reflection of their actual beliefs. Their actions don't match their words.
| Quote: |
My reasons are evident. They respond quite poorly to any situation that requires quick action and thinking on one's feet.
|
First many of the ROE prevent "quick action and thinking on one's feet" and instead follow specific actions because it is designed to prevent an uncontrolled escalation, not so much "win" a short, sharp incident, although ROK forces have been pushing to allow more discretion in responses and faster action.
And what is your evidence and record of it? You have this incident during the pursuit of the psycho soldier. What other incidents in regards to the Korean military do you have record of?
This is to say nothing of the naval actions I listed.
If you don't have a detailed description and record of what's going down, if you can't point to specific instances and dissect what happened, please shut up.
"My reasons are evident. They respond quite poorly to any situation..." is not evidence. It is your opinion. Bring out some evidence.
| Quote: |
| It wasn't accidental; he was just unaware the gun was loaded. So he started playing soldier and OOPS! That's what I mean by amateurs. |
So it is your criteria that any army that has a soldier engage in an accidental discharge is an amateur one?
Therefore by your logic, if ANY military has an accidental discharge, it is an amateur one, am I correct?
Would you say a military that shoots down civilian airliners (and I ain't talking about the Russians...) or accidentally bombs civilians is an amateur one? |
I see you're trying to all rhetorical on me with your questions and all, but my point man has reported back that it's just another smoke screen. You can't flank me, blind rabbit.
But the facts will out. First, I never posted anything about friendly fire. Second, look at how the SK has reacted to recent NK provocations--poorly. Third, look how the number of accidents seems to be escalating enough to make the papers. Fourth, as for the true number of incidents, we must employ sr's axiom" For every incident reported, there are 10 that go unreported."
And I never screamed anything, especially about the NK army easily defeating the South's. They're not going to mess with little brother as long as big brother--the US--is standing watch.  |
|
| 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
