| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you oppose or support the grand canal plans? |
| Strongly oppose. |
|
47% |
[ 17 ] |
| Tentatively oppose but need more information |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| Neutral |
|
22% |
[ 8 ] |
| Tentatively support but need more information |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| Strongly support |
|
13% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 36 |
|
| Author |
Message |
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
safeblad
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: Do you support the Grand Canal? |
 |
|
| kiwiduncan wrote: |
You may have noticed by now that I'm personally pretty opposed to the plans |
yes i think that has been noticed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Best idea for a long time....the "canal" rocks!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hanson
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Do you support the Grand Canal? |
|
|
| safeblad wrote: |
| kiwiduncan wrote: |
You may have noticed by now that I'm personally pretty opposed to the plans |
yes i think that has been noticed |
Yeah, I think I've heard this record before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: Do you support the Grand Canal? |
|
|
That's hilarious. "South Korea's new President Lee Myung Bak plans to build a canal from Busan to Seoul. Critics believe this economically dubious project will destroy two major rivers, threaten two thirds of Korea's drinking water and increase the risk of flooding - they are obviously wrong and the plan is great!!!" Was that written by Spliff or something?
"Instead of taking three weeks to sail around the peninsula, now it will take two weeks. But there is a high chance that this economically infeasible project will contaminate most of our drinking water, and the entire peninsula could sink beneath the ocean, but the canal will be pretty so it's worth the risk!!!^^"
Nobody's really saying this will sink the entire peninsula, but I would welcome it. This project is going to make the Ryugyong Hotel look like a seven-star resort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the pro-canal group was set up by Anyangoldboy. Whoever it was must have spent a bit of time setting up a new facebook ID, establishing the group, copying and pasting all the photos from the anti-group and then rewriting all the captions.
Don't forget to tick the boxes too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm happy to just sit back and watch the whole crap-fest unfold. It'll be a laugh.
Korea is already an over-crowded, polluted, not particuarly interesting geographical area. Who cares if they mess it up some more? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CeleryMan
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just got back from Beijing. I can understand the urgency behind the Grand Canal. This country needs all the PR it can get, canal, breakdancers, Hallyu, whatever. In a decade unless FDI triples, SK will become irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
I'm happy to just sit back and watch the whole crap-fest unfold. It'll be a laugh.
Korea is already an over-crowded, polluted, not particuarly interesting geographical area. Who cares if they mess it up some more? |
It's not just about Korea. The fact that this absurd plan may go ahead is an unfortunate indicator of the relative apathy, materialism and environmental ignorance of mainstream Korean society. And this same apathetic and materialistic Korean mainstream society has an impact well beyond Korea's borders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saxiif
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: Seongnam
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Monumentally idiotic. How hard is it use freight train or the ocean. All that expense just to cut 1/3 off the travel time seems like a ridiculous waste of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I'd like to see more info on it.
Everything from actual construction cost projections, to projected benifits.
For some reason, I don't think I'm getting the full story from either side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Saxiif wrote: |
| Monumentally idiotic. How hard is it use freight train or the ocean. All that expense just to cut 1/3 off the travel time seems like a ridiculous waste of money. |
Just to clarify, my 2 weeks/3 weeks thing was just random numbers. It would probably take much less time both ways.
Incidentally, Lee Myungbag hired some "experts" to explain to everyone why the canal was a great idea. One reporter asked "Wouldn't it just be faster to send freight by train?"
And the expert answered "No, the canal is faster--just send your freight a day early." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Personally, I'd like to see more info on it.
Everything from actual construction cost projections, to projected benifits.
For some reason, I don't think I'm getting the full story from either side. |
Fair enough. I'd like to be more informed myself, so if anyone knows of any more pro-canal information please post it. Everything I've seen and read so far has me strongly opposed to the plan, but I'm willing to accept that both the pro side and the con side are probably exagerating the pros and cons respectively.
There's not much information in English but I've searched out what I could and posted it up on the anti-canal thread. I've also read and/or translated some of the Korean stuff but there will certainly be subtle nuances in the articles that I am not picking up.
The latest projection I saw about the overall cost is 50 billion US dollars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mi Yum mi
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hell ya I'm for it. I'm gonna get a jetski and let the good times roll! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So it's over $50 billion US, it might devastate the freshwater supply, and it's only fast if you send your freight a day early. Seriously what are the arguments for the canal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
