|
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 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
| 2. Learn context. The poster I quoted was saying that Koreans love the US due to thankfulness over the help they gave in the Korean war. In my opinion and experience this is only the older generation's sentiment. |
I think your post was relevant to the discussion, and I'd even go so far to say that the older generation doesn't exactly have warm and fuzzy feelings towards the States, at least not across the board. Whatever the US did for the ROK is heavily balanced by their tacit participation in the massacres that occurred in Jeju and Gwangju. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
New Balance
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| 3,500 people protesting the FTA doesn't mean the 50 million other people feel the same way. The majority of the public support the FTA and has so since the beginning. |
This is interesting. Where do you get your 3,500 figure? From what I can see the number is closer to 10,000 and higher. Of course the conservative newspapers will downplay the numbers if they even report these protests. These were even on days when it was during close to sub-freezing weather which I chickened out at attending. Also, the reports of the protests often paint the picture that the majority of protestors are farmers, but if you actually go to the protests, you will see that a wide range of ages and professionals are joining in. Of course there are many people who are ignorant to the real reasons why the FTA was railroaded by the GNP and will pine their hopes that the FTA will help Korea.
It seems like many people are playing arm-chair economists and political scientists on these boards without actually studying the KORUSA FTA agreements.
Take this for example.
"일본 경제 학자-
한국에서 미국으로 수출되는 자동차에 대해 2.5%의 관세가 철폐됩니다만,
소위 빅3 즉 GM, 크라이슬러, 포드 그들이 �한국 자동차에 대한 수입이 우리에겐 버겁다 어떻게 좀 해 달라�고하면 관세 부활이 가능합니다.
하지만 한국측에서는 빅3를 위해서 그들이 통과하지 못하는 배기가스 규제를 철폐했습니다.
그런데 미국차의 수출 때문에 현대 자동차가 어려워졌을 경우에는 관세, 규제의 부활이 불가능합니다."
Basically this is saying that the 2.5% tax on Korean auto imports will be abolished, but if US automobile manufacturers feel that domestic sales are hurt, they can re-instate the 2.5% tax at their discretion. On the other hand, US tariff barriers will be loosened in Korea, but Korea has no power to reinstate previous barriers. Now, do you think this is fair? This is only one of many.
Have you heard of BBK? Erica Kim? Do you really think 2MB is an honest man? The rabbit hole goes much deeper if you decide to look. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| New Balance wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| 3,500 people protesting the FTA doesn't mean the 50 million other people feel the same way. The majority of the public support the FTA and has so since the beginning. |
This is interesting. Where do you get your 3,500 figure? From what I can see the number is closer to 10,000 and higher. Of course the conservative newspapers will downplay the numbers if they even report these protests. |
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/27/c_122340390.htm
Police said 2000 protesters, maybe 3500 is a closer estimate. I extremely doubt there were 10,000 people.
Even if there were 100,000 people, that is still a very small percentage of the population. Polls done have shown the majority of Koreans support the FTA. It is well known that the only people protesting the FTA were leftist wacko's and young Koreans who read on the internet that the FTA meant the Korean healthcare system was going to go the way of the US's.
I don't know what kind of liberal pro-roh nutjobs you guys meet, but most of the Koreans I'VE met have a positive opinion about the US and Americans. Now, don't go off in the extremes and assume that when I say "positive" it means they are head over heels in love with America and the US. Most Koreans don't hate USA or Americans.
You ask most Koreans about the beef protests, they will tell you it had more to do with the WAY President Lee pushed the deal through than it was "anti-American".
I've met a few crazy Koreans also. I had this one guy, 30 years old, Yonsei Graduate with an MBA, tell me that the USA manufactured the entire North/South Korea conflict and manipulates it purely to exploit South Korea through arms/military sales.
Unlike some others, I am smart enough to realize that 1 person's crazy ramblings do not make for the opinions of 50 million people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| New Balance wrote: |
| .Have you heard of BBK? Erica Kim? Do you really think 2MB is an honest man? The rabbit hole goes much deeper if you decide to look. |
Ever hear of that coward, Noh? The one who killed himself to avoid an investigation? How about his "simple farmer brother" who got boxes of cash? What about the "fun slot machine" scandal?
Oh, could it be that the Left has tons of little rabbit holes too??
You've obviously been hooked by the Hanky's line... Lucky you. But don't believe everything the Leftists say.
Let me ask you this...which administration brought this FTA deal together? Which lawmaker went to the US to get Kyopo support in lobbying it there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
New Balance
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/27/c_122340390.htm
Police said 2000 protesters, maybe 3500 is a closer estimate. I extremely doubt there were 10,000 people.
Even if there were 100,000 people, that is still a very small percentage of the population. Polls done have shown the majority of Koreans support the FTA. It is well known that the only people protesting the FTA were leftist wacko's and young Koreans who read on the internet that the FTA meant the Korean healthcare system was going to go the way of the US's.
Unlike some others, I am smart enough to realize that 1 person's crazy ramblings do not make for the opinions of 50 million people. |
It seems as you are a man who does a thorough research. Can you show this poll? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
liveinkorea316
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: South Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Picking up on what some posters have said about why it is the KORUS FTA that has drawn the greatest number of protests, no doubt part of that is due to a certain strain of anti-American feeling found in Korean society.
I'm not in contact with any anti-KORUS FTA protestors, but another reason why the this FTA has drawn more protests could be because the USA has used South Korea's military dependence to extract significant concessions in the negotiations. For example, before negotiations could even start the USA insisted on the Korean government suspending regulation of pharmaceutical pricing, relaxing emissions regulations on American cars, relaxing controls on foreign content in cinemas, and of course allowing the importation of US beef.
As to whether the majority of Koreans support the FTA or not, I really don't see how it matters. After all, a majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and that was a dreadful decision. The Korean people are being sold this FTA with the carrot of cheap consumer prices (and whether cheap prices will be passed on to the consumer remains to be seen), while the ability of the government they elected to advocate on their behalf, or unions to do so, is eroded by the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. It is just part of an ongoing neoliberalisation of the Korean economy which has lead to and increased gap between rich and poor and a much more precarious job market thanks to 'labor flexibility', and which is perpetrated by elites seeking to line their own pockets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woden
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
Picking up on what some posters have said about why it is the KORUS FTA that has drawn the greatest number of protests, no doubt part of that is due to a certain strain of anti-American feeling found in Korean society.
I'm not in contact with any anti-KORUS FTA protestors, but another reason why the this FTA has drawn more protests could be because the USA has used South Korea's military dependence to extract significant concessions in the negotiations. For example, before negotiations could even start the USA insisted on the Korean government suspending regulation of pharmaceutical pricing, relaxing emissions regulations on American cars, relaxing controls on foreign content in cinemas, and of course allowing the importation of US beef.
As to whether the majority of Koreans support the FTA or not, I really don't see how it matters. After all, a majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and that was a dreadful decision. The Korean people are being sold this FTA with the carrot of cheap consumer prices (and whether cheap prices will be passed on to the consumer remains to be seen), while the ability of the government they elected to advocate on their behalf, or unions to do so, is eroded by the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. It is just part of an ongoing neoliberalisation of the Korean economy which has lead to and increased gap between rich and poor and a much more precarious job market thanks to 'labor flexibility', and which is perpetrated by elites seeking to line their own pockets. |
I think this is an absolutely crucial point that is being missed by many of the pro-FTA group. Koreans see this as an erosion of sovereignty and the ability to govern themselves. Cheaper commodities are almost irrelevant to people who take this line. FTAs are about weakening the strength of nation states and strengthening the power of corporations and the legal systems that advocate on their behalf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Woden wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
Picking up on what some posters have said about why it is the KORUS FTA that has drawn the greatest number of protests, no doubt part of that is due to a certain strain of anti-American feeling found in Korean society.
I'm not in contact with any anti-KORUS FTA protestors, but another reason why the this FTA has drawn more protests could be because the USA has used South Korea's military dependence to extract significant concessions in the negotiations. For example, before negotiations could even start the USA insisted on the Korean government suspending regulation of pharmaceutical pricing, relaxing emissions regulations on American cars, relaxing controls on foreign content in cinemas, and of course allowing the importation of US beef.
As to whether the majority of Koreans support the FTA or not, I really don't see how it matters. After all, a majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and that was a dreadful decision. The Korean people are being sold this FTA with the carrot of cheap consumer prices (and whether cheap prices will be passed on to the consumer remains to be seen), while the ability of the government they elected to advocate on their behalf, or unions to do so, is eroded by the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. It is just part of an ongoing neoliberalisation of the Korean economy which has lead to and increased gap between rich and poor and a much more precarious job market thanks to 'labor flexibility', and which is perpetrated by elites seeking to line their own pockets. |
I think this is an absolutely crucial point that is being missed by many of the pro-FTA group. Koreans see this as an erosion of sovereignty and the ability to govern themselves. Cheaper commodities are almost irrelevant to people who take this line. FTAs are about weakening the strength of nation states and strengthening the power of corporations and the legal systems that advocate on their behalf. |
It seems like an FTA would be small potatoes compared to having a foreign military presence in your capital city. How sovereign is any nation that can't protect itself?
If Korea wants to close its doors to foreign trade, fine, as long as it doesn't expect other nations, specifically the U.S., to open its markets to Korean goods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woden
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Woden wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
Picking up on what some posters have said about why it is the KORUS FTA that has drawn the greatest number of protests, no doubt part of that is due to a certain strain of anti-American feeling found in Korean society.
I'm not in contact with any anti-KORUS FTA protestors, but another reason why the this FTA has drawn more protests could be because the USA has used South Korea's military dependence to extract significant concessions in the negotiations. For example, before negotiations could even start the USA insisted on the Korean government suspending regulation of pharmaceutical pricing, relaxing emissions regulations on American cars, relaxing controls on foreign content in cinemas, and of course allowing the importation of US beef.
As to whether the majority of Koreans support the FTA or not, I really don't see how it matters. After all, a majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and that was a dreadful decision. The Korean people are being sold this FTA with the carrot of cheap consumer prices (and whether cheap prices will be passed on to the consumer remains to be seen), while the ability of the government they elected to advocate on their behalf, or unions to do so, is eroded by the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. It is just part of an ongoing neoliberalisation of the Korean economy which has lead to and increased gap between rich and poor and a much more precarious job market thanks to 'labor flexibility', and which is perpetrated by elites seeking to line their own pockets. |
I think this is an absolutely crucial point that is being missed by many of the pro-FTA group. Koreans see this as an erosion of sovereignty and the ability to govern themselves. Cheaper commodities are almost irrelevant to people who take this line. FTAs are about weakening the strength of nation states and strengthening the power of corporations and the legal systems that advocate on their behalf. |
It seems like an FTA would be small potatoes compared to having a foreign military presence in your capital city. How sovereign is any nation that can't protect itself?
If Korea wants to close its doors to foreign trade, fine, as long as it doesn't expect other nations, specifically the U.S., to open its markets to Korean goods. |
I am not arguing their case for them, I am just putting myself in their shoes. It is a very emotional area, particularly if Koreans perceive their sovereignty being eroded. That is why we see the protests. I think the matter of lower consumer prices is irrelevant to their case. This FTA will increase corporate power and the legal systems that do their bidding. In the long run this means less power in the hands of the people (*or the corrupt politicians*).
Between a rock and a hard place comes to mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Woden wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Woden wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
Picking up on what some posters have said about why it is the KORUS FTA that has drawn the greatest number of protests, no doubt part of that is due to a certain strain of anti-American feeling found in Korean society.
I'm not in contact with any anti-KORUS FTA protestors, but another reason why the this FTA has drawn more protests could be because the USA has used South Korea's military dependence to extract significant concessions in the negotiations. For example, before negotiations could even start the USA insisted on the Korean government suspending regulation of pharmaceutical pricing, relaxing emissions regulations on American cars, relaxing controls on foreign content in cinemas, and of course allowing the importation of US beef.
As to whether the majority of Koreans support the FTA or not, I really don't see how it matters. After all, a majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and that was a dreadful decision. The Korean people are being sold this FTA with the carrot of cheap consumer prices (and whether cheap prices will be passed on to the consumer remains to be seen), while the ability of the government they elected to advocate on their behalf, or unions to do so, is eroded by the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. It is just part of an ongoing neoliberalisation of the Korean economy which has lead to and increased gap between rich and poor and a much more precarious job market thanks to 'labor flexibility', and which is perpetrated by elites seeking to line their own pockets. |
I think this is an absolutely crucial point that is being missed by many of the pro-FTA group. Koreans see this as an erosion of sovereignty and the ability to govern themselves. Cheaper commodities are almost irrelevant to people who take this line. FTAs are about weakening the strength of nation states and strengthening the power of corporations and the legal systems that advocate on their behalf. |
It seems like an FTA would be small potatoes compared to having a foreign military presence in your capital city. How sovereign is any nation that can't protect itself?
If Korea wants to close its doors to foreign trade, fine, as long as it doesn't expect other nations, specifically the U.S., to open its markets to Korean goods. |
I am not arguing their case for them, I am just putting myself in their shoes. It is a very emotional area, particularly if Koreans perceive their sovereignty being eroded. That is why we see the protests. I think the matter of lower consumer prices is irrelevant to their case. This FTA will increase corporate power and the legal systems that do their bidding. In the long run this means less power in the hands of the people (*or the corrupt politicians*).
Between a rock and a hard place comes to mind. |
OK, but it's a big leap from improved access to markets to increased corporate power. Especially in Korea, where the chaebols already wield immense power.
I wonder if protesters reacting emotionally are thinking about "in the long run." There is plenty of belief out there, for example, that the FTA will raise prices--on pretty much everything, not just health care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woden
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Woden wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Woden wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
Picking up on what some posters have said about why it is the KORUS FTA that has drawn the greatest number of protests, no doubt part of that is due to a certain strain of anti-American feeling found in Korean society.
I'm not in contact with any anti-KORUS FTA protestors, but another reason why the this FTA has drawn more protests could be because the USA has used South Korea's military dependence to extract significant concessions in the negotiations. For example, before negotiations could even start the USA insisted on the Korean government suspending regulation of pharmaceutical pricing, relaxing emissions regulations on American cars, relaxing controls on foreign content in cinemas, and of course allowing the importation of US beef.
As to whether the majority of Koreans support the FTA or not, I really don't see how it matters. After all, a majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and that was a dreadful decision. The Korean people are being sold this FTA with the carrot of cheap consumer prices (and whether cheap prices will be passed on to the consumer remains to be seen), while the ability of the government they elected to advocate on their behalf, or unions to do so, is eroded by the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. It is just part of an ongoing neoliberalisation of the Korean economy which has lead to and increased gap between rich and poor and a much more precarious job market thanks to 'labor flexibility', and which is perpetrated by elites seeking to line their own pockets. |
I think this is an absolutely crucial point that is being missed by many of the pro-FTA group. Koreans see this as an erosion of sovereignty and the ability to govern themselves. Cheaper commodities are almost irrelevant to people who take this line. FTAs are about weakening the strength of nation states and strengthening the power of corporations and the legal systems that advocate on their behalf. |
It seems like an FTA would be small potatoes compared to having a foreign military presence in your capital city. How sovereign is any nation that can't protect itself?
If Korea wants to close its doors to foreign trade, fine, as long as it doesn't expect other nations, specifically the U.S., to open its markets to Korean goods. |
I am not arguing their case for them, I am just putting myself in their shoes. It is a very emotional area, particularly if Koreans perceive their sovereignty being eroded. That is why we see the protests. I think the matter of lower consumer prices is irrelevant to their case. This FTA will increase corporate power and the legal systems that do their bidding. In the long run this means less power in the hands of the people (*or the corrupt politicians*).
Between a rock and a hard place comes to mind. |
OK, but it's a big leap from improved access to markets to increased corporate power. Especially in Korea, where the chaebols already wield immense power.
I wonder if protesters reacting emotionally are thinking about "in the long run." There is plenty of belief out there, for example, that the FTA will raise prices--on pretty much everything, not just health care. |
I think when corporations can sue another country in a court of law to access their markets it is not a leap of faith to say that corporations have increased their legal power against the state.
Regarding your other point, I suppose the difference is that the general public here do not see the chaebol for what they are as they believe they are Korean corporations working in the Korean interest.
The rumours about rising prices clearly have a huge impact, but I believe they are a corollary of the perceived loss of control over their own markets.
I am not saying their reaction is proportional, but there is certainly a lot of truth in their fears. In the current climate I don't believe that I would support unelected corporations gaining more power over the voting public, whether rational or not.
The situation in the UK regarding the EU crisis has certain parallels. We are stuck between being accused of supporting unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, or unelected bankers in the city. Most people see Cameron's veto on the treaty as a defiant act of sovereignty, but others perceive it as wielding the national interest to the needs of the financial classes in the City of London.
It is too complicated for my mind and the only conclusion I have been able to settle on is that democracy is one of the most ingenious shams of all time.
Viva La Revoluci�n! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Woden wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Woden wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Woden wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
Picking up on what some posters have said about why it is the KORUS FTA that has drawn the greatest number of protests, no doubt part of that is due to a certain strain of anti-American feeling found in Korean society.
I'm not in contact with any anti-KORUS FTA protestors, but another reason why the this FTA has drawn more protests could be because the USA has used South Korea's military dependence to extract significant concessions in the negotiations. For example, before negotiations could even start the USA insisted on the Korean government suspending regulation of pharmaceutical pricing, relaxing emissions regulations on American cars, relaxing controls on foreign content in cinemas, and of course allowing the importation of US beef.
As to whether the majority of Koreans support the FTA or not, I really don't see how it matters. After all, a majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and that was a dreadful decision. The Korean people are being sold this FTA with the carrot of cheap consumer prices (and whether cheap prices will be passed on to the consumer remains to be seen), while the ability of the government they elected to advocate on their behalf, or unions to do so, is eroded by the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. It is just part of an ongoing neoliberalisation of the Korean economy which has lead to and increased gap between rich and poor and a much more precarious job market thanks to 'labor flexibility', and which is perpetrated by elites seeking to line their own pockets. |
I think this is an absolutely crucial point that is being missed by many of the pro-FTA group. Koreans see this as an erosion of sovereignty and the ability to govern themselves. Cheaper commodities are almost irrelevant to people who take this line. FTAs are about weakening the strength of nation states and strengthening the power of corporations and the legal systems that advocate on their behalf. |
It seems like an FTA would be small potatoes compared to having a foreign military presence in your capital city. How sovereign is any nation that can't protect itself?
If Korea wants to close its doors to foreign trade, fine, as long as it doesn't expect other nations, specifically the U.S., to open its markets to Korean goods. |
I am not arguing their case for them, I am just putting myself in their shoes. It is a very emotional area, particularly if Koreans perceive their sovereignty being eroded. That is why we see the protests. I think the matter of lower consumer prices is irrelevant to their case. This FTA will increase corporate power and the legal systems that do their bidding. In the long run this means less power in the hands of the people (*or the corrupt politicians*).
Between a rock and a hard place comes to mind. |
OK, but it's a big leap from improved access to markets to increased corporate power. Especially in Korea, where the chaebols already wield immense power.
I wonder if protesters reacting emotionally are thinking about "in the long run." There is plenty of belief out there, for example, that the FTA will raise prices--on pretty much everything, not just health care. |
I think when corporations can sue another country in a court of law to access their markets it is not a leap of faith to say that corporations have increased their legal power against the state.
Regarding your other point, I suppose the difference is that the general public here do not see the chaebol for what they are as they believe they are Korean corporations working in the Korean interest.
The rumours about rising prices clearly have a huge impact, but I believe they are a corollary of the perceived loss of control over their own markets.
I am not saying their reaction is proportional, but there is certainly a lot of truth in their fears. In the current climate I don't believe that I would support unelected corporations gaining more power over the voting public, whether rational or not.
The situation in the UK regarding the EU crisis has certain parallels. We are stuck between being accused of supporting unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, or unelected bankers in the city. Most people see Cameron's veto on the treaty as a defiant act of sovereignty, but others perceive it as wielding the national interest to the needs of the financial classes in the City of London.
It is too complicated for my mind and the only conclusion I have been able to settle on is that democracy is one of the most ingenious shams of all time.
Viva La Revoluci�n! |
From a corporation being able to sue a government, and obviously that's a great simplification of how trade disputes are resolved, to it having power over that nation's citizens is a great leap.
It seems contradictory on the one hand, to be arguing for the rights of "the people" and the governments that supposedly work for them and on the other to claim democracy is a sham.
If you're in favor of revolution, there're are plenty of countries to choose from these days. And then of course there's always Somalia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woden
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
From a corporation being able to sue a government, and obviously that's a great simplification of how trade disputes are resolved, to it having power over that nation's citizens is a great leap. |
Neo-liberal economics has led to a great increase in corporate power over states, which has led to a corresponding decrease in the ability of states to control their own systems of governance for their citizens. To use a non-Korean example, the privatisation of water supplies has adversely affected poor communities the world over, at the behest of corporations.
| atwood wrote: |
| It seems contradictory on the one hand, to be arguing for the rights of "the people" and the governments that supposedly work for them and on the other to claim democracy is a sham. |
Not really. I can denounce Stalinism in favour of liberal democracy, if I so wish, even if both are flawed.
| atwood wrote: |
| If you're in favor of revolution, there're are plenty of countries to choose from these days. And then of course there's always Somalia. |
That is such a nuanced argument. Thanks for your input. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| The Floating World wrote: |
| 2. Learn context. The poster I quoted was saying that Koreans love the US due to thankfulness over the help they gave in the Korean war. In my opinion and experience this is only the older generation's sentiment. |
I think your post was relevant to the discussion, and I'd even go so far to say that the older generation doesn't exactly have warm and fuzzy feelings towards the States, at least not across the board. Whatever the US did for the ROK is heavily balanced by their tacit participation in the massacres that occurred in Jeju and Gwangju. |
While I am no fan of Jimmy Carter, I do think it is highly unclear whether he had any real power to do anything about the DMZ South Korean troops being deployed against the protesters in Gwangju back in May of 1980. Also, what happened in Jeju? |
|
| 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
