PDA

View Full Version : US soldiers need to leave S. Korea ASAP!


peter2002
Dec 12, 2002, 10:57 AM
http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/editorial/images/54/3762754/SEL107121203.jpeg Photo : South Korean customers shop under an anti-U.S. banner at Yongsan electronic appliance shop in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Dec.12, 2002. Anti-Americanism is sweeping South Korea as the two U.S. Army soldiers, whose mine-clearing vehicle struck and killed two South Korean girls in June, left South Korea last month after being acquitted. SOFA stands for Status of Forces Agreement between South Korea and the United States. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?eeid=3762754&eetype=article&render=y&enlarged=y

____________________________________________________________________________

This goes both ways. No service to Koreans in the USA too. Hyundaia, Kia, or Daewoo cars and electronics should be boycotted. That will show them who is boss.

The USA can't continue to give these countries a free lunch. The USA is broke and the gravy train is over to the bashers. We don't have foreign nations operating a base in the USA, so why should be over there? We can't police the whole world.

Peter :mad:

macktheknife
Dec 12, 2002, 12:04 PM
You have the same gripe Pat Buchanan had concerning the stationing of US troops in Korea and Japan. Remember why the US is in Korea and Japan to begin with. The US is not there to protect the Koreans and Japanese per se as much as they were there to contain the Soviets during the Cold War. In exchange for some protection under the US military umbrella, Korea and Japan effectively surrendered a degree of their sovereignty to the US. In case you didn't know, Japan is already underwriting the US presence in their country, and I would be surprised if the Koreans aren't already doing the same thing.

The US is not out in Korea out of the goodness of its heart. The US obtained some military and geopolitical flexibility in exchange for providing some nominal protection for the Koreans.

Right now, the Koreans are rightly upset: similiar incidents have occurred many times before where a US soldier injures or kills a Korean and goes unpunished. How would we feel if a Korean soldier ran over an American in Chicago and is tried and found innocent by a Korean court? I'd doubt Americans would feel very happy about that too.

In any case, incidents like this unnecessarily damages America's prestige. We should train these soldiers to act more responsibly in other countries and not be so arrogant when they commit a crime.

MisterBlack
Dec 12, 2002, 05:44 PM
We should just start taking over all the little weak nations until the UN tries to stop us, and then accuse them of being terrorists.

synergy
Dec 12, 2002, 06:55 PM
Boycotts seldom work. Even over in South Korea same thing, it won't work but for a few people. Everyone else will consume as usual.
As well you call for a boycott of Daewoo here in the US. Well GM bought most if not all of the Daewoo car manufacturing parts. So by boycotting them, you hurt GM. So is Daewoo Korean or American? Or what?

While the South Koreans may whine about what happened I don't know what happened. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe the soldiers went of course and were the ones at fault. Who knows. Neither do most of the protesters. The US Military just does not go roving where ever and whenever it pleases. They know all to well the high cost of an incident like this and make sure to know what they are doing.
Back to the South Koreans whining, they do that now. Well they just need look across the border to see how the North Koreans are ramping up their nuclear program again. As well they are selling missile technology to anyone willing to pay. The North does not care and is more than happy to run across the border to kick the living spit out of the South. The US presence is what prevents that. North Koreans will start to whip up the fervor even more and as a result the South will have to look to the US for help. Heck US bases in South Korea will become ghost towns when/if the Iraq war starts up.

In the end, for the little guy it does not matter a whole lot and there is not a whole lot he can do. The little guy in the us gave up the chance to do something about it when he stopped voting long while back.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 12, 2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife [/i]

Right now, the Koreans are rightly upset: similiar incidents have occurred many times before where a US soldier injures or kills a Korean and goes unpunished. How would we feel if a Korean soldier ran over an American in Chicago and is tried and found innocent by a Korean court? I'd doubt Americans would feel very happy about that too.


It is a bit of a double standard since when it happened in the Washington, DC in 97 the Russian Diplomat got sentenced. But the diplomat was drunk and the brouhaha that followed concerning his diplomatic immunity was fierce. Anyone remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/30/georgia.diplomat

D

macktheknife
Dec 12, 2002, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


It is a bit of a double standard since when it happened in the Washington, DC in 97 the Russian Diplomat got sentenced. But the diplomat was drunk and the brouhaha that followed concerning his diplomatic immunity was fierce. Anyone remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/30/georgia.diplomat

D

Actually, I do remember the incident. If we ask citizens of other countries to abide by our law when they're on our soil, is it too much to ask the same of US servicemen who are stationed abroad?

kylos
Dec 12, 2002, 10:01 PM
The difference: the Georgian diplomat was drunk, we have no info on the details of the South Korea case. If indeed the soldiers were at fault so that they would receive manslaughter charges in the U.S. then I would say the Army abused the SOFA and the calls for a better agreement are well founded. But jumping to conclusions before you know what even happened is stupid.

Now does anybody know the specifics of the incident.

sparkleytone
Dec 13, 2002, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by MisterBlack
We should just start taking over all the little weak nations until the UN tries to stop us, and then accuse them of being terrorists.

hahahaha

good one.

Kethoticus
Dec 13, 2002, 02:12 AM
We should just start taking over all the little weak nations until the UN tries to stop us, and then accuse them of being terrorists.

Facetious, but true. Iraq is a weak victim of the true world terrorists, the United States of America. All those reports of Saddam's brutalities? Propaganda concocted by an administration bent on wiping out all of the dark-skinned peoples of the world and taking control of their oil fields. The US, under right-wing leadership, can do nothing right. We need someone honorable, like Clinton, again. I don't know why others can't see this.

madoka
Dec 13, 2002, 05:29 AM
1. They were on a road that by U.S. regulations was too narrow to drive that armored vehicle. Legally they weren't supposed to be there.

2. They were on a road known to be frequented by pedistrians.

3. They were ordered to act as if under fire, thus making them more hurried.

4. They were operating with little sleep.

One of the soldiers in that convoy wrote a letter explaining what happened and he felt the true person responsible for the accident is really the CO, who ordered the men to drive up that road, even though he was informed of all the problems involved. The U.S. seems that it wants to cover this up as much as possible, which is why the Koreans are so pissed.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 13, 2002, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
Propaganda concocted by an administration bent on wiping out all of the dark-skinned peoples of the world and taking control of their oil fields. The US, under right-wing leadership, can do nothing right. We need someone honorable, like Clinton, again.

gag, ack! Honorable, like Clinton? Using big words to validate the point of your own personal vue and frustration doesn't work here. If you're bent on propagating this drivel, try and back it up with a fact or two, otherwise its just a bunch of idle speculation and conspiracy theorizing.

D

Backtothemac
Dec 13, 2002, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus


Facetious, but true. Iraq is a weak victim of the true world terrorists, the United States of America. All those reports of Saddam's brutalities? Propaganda concocted by an administration bent on wiping out all of the dark-skinned peoples of the world and taking control of their oil fields. The US, under right-wing leadership, can do nothing right. We need someone honorable, like Clinton, again. I don't know why others can't see this.

You know, either your tougne is so far in your cheak that it is ripping, or you are just a bit on the special side.

Man, how can you call his leadership honorable? He was a lot of things, and did the man do some good things? Sure, but was he honorable? That is a very, very bold statement. So, I suppose that the Iraq generals that have defected hear are all liars? I suppose the video of the gassed Kurds are lies? I suppose 9/11 never happened right.

Sheesh. Get a grip man.

Kethoticus
Dec 13, 2002, 09:34 AM
Sheesh. Get a grip man.

Ha! It's called "SAR-CAS-M".

Backtothemac
Dec 13, 2002, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus


Ha! It's called "SAR-CAS-M".

I hope your cheek will heal soon ;)

Kethoticus
Dec 13, 2002, 10:45 AM
I hope your cheek will heal soon

Never bothered me pal, never bothered me. I'm just tired of hearing people criticize my country's foreign policies with ridiculous arguments, making it seem as if the people we're fighting are somehow the innocent victims of imperial and racist feverisms.

I DO agree that some of what the president's doing is questionable and even wrong, like NOT militarizing our Mexican border and his short-sighted environmental policies. But that our enemies are from Arab and Asian states has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with the fact that our enemies are from Arab and Asian states! Not hard to figure out, really. I mean, was anti-Aryan racism our *true* motive in WWII?? C'mon.

Now whether or not this has anything to do with oil, I don't know. I understand the conspiracy theorists and have to admit that they do raise some question marks in my head. I can only hope that they're wrong. But the idea that the US is "picking on the smaller countries and later using the excuse it's because they're terrorist states" is, in my opinion (based on what few facts any of us can truly get a hold of), idiotic. I'd love to see some hard facts to back this kind of thing up.

Oh I'm not saying the US is angelic. By no means are we. We're arrogant and sometimes too aloof to the rest of the world. That does need to change. But EVERYTHING we do is not wrong or does not have some devious ulterior motive. There is such a thing as BALANCE in one's views, and there is also such a thing as the right to defend oneself.

Backtothemac
Dec 13, 2002, 10:51 AM
Well, Keith, join me and Ovi in the political discussions. We need all the help we can get with the liberalmacrumors types around here ;)

Mr. Anderson
Dec 13, 2002, 10:54 AM
kethoticus - you need to add the apporpriate smilies to convey sarcasm sometimes - there are too many on here who really do believe some of what you posted. But thanks for clearing it up.

D

jelloshotsrule
Dec 13, 2002, 12:15 PM
having live on yongsan for 2 years... this is quite an interesting bit of news.

i remember having a dream one night that my dad was off fighting in a battle in the woods near our house. i was like 7 at the time, but i remember waking up not knowing if it was real or not. scary

i can't really say whether the people of south korea appreciates the troops really or not... but i do know that as an american there, i wasn't looked at with an evil eye (off the base i mean), but rather, felt pretty well respected.

which certainly could have been because they saw americans as rich and thus they could buy a lot of their goods. but it seemed to go beyond that.

whereas i can imagine the hostility towards american troops in places like kosovo, and some of africa and of course the middle east.

i don't know. i want to talk to my dad about it once i get home for the break. he'd have a first hand experience.

whocares
Dec 13, 2002, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus


But that our enemies are from Arab and Asian states has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with the fact that our enemies are from Arab and Asian states! Not hard to figure out, really. I mean, was anti-Aryan racism our *true* motive in WWII?? C'mon.



That's agood point. But you should also ask yourself why are these Arab/Asian states your/our "enemies"? Does maybe have something to do with your/our economical empirialistic foreign politics?
I'm not saying Saddam is a nice guy, nor am I saying that dangerous leaders should be allowed to develop mass destruction weapons. But I don't think beating the hell out "enemies" is the way to go.
Find out why there're your/our enemies in the first place...

Backtothemac
Dec 13, 2002, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by whocares


That's agood point. But you should also ask yourself why are these Arab/Asian states your/our "enemies"? Does maybe have something to do with your/our economical empirialistic foreign politics?
I'm not saying Saddam is a nice guy, nor am I saying that dangerous leaders should be allowed to develop mass destruction weapons. But I don't think beating the hell out "enemies" is the way to go.
Find out why there're your/our enemies in the first place...

You are right, we have not rewarded them will hundreds of billions of dollars from oil revenue, and made them some of the wealthiest nations in the world. We went and stole all that oil. They hate us because their leaders don't give back anything, to their people, and then blame us for their countries economic plight. That and religion is a huge cause of the hate.

macktheknife
Dec 13, 2002, 01:01 PM
There are very few states in the world who are sworn enemies of the United States. Most other countries may resent the US for its economic and military might, but I seriously doubt they "hate" us so viscerally. In the case of Korea, even with all those protests, the Koreans still know that life is better on the Southern side of the border, due in no small part to the United States. What the Koreans and other countries in the world who host US servicemen is asking is that they be held accountable.

Remember about a year or two ago when a US military airplane flew so low that it cut the cable for this ski lift in Italy and killed several Italians? The Italians living near the area had complained constantly how the US planes were flying recklessly by flying too low. When an incident finally occurred, the US servicemen were tried and found innocent by the US despite a ton of evidence that the servicemen were indeed flying recklessly. Italians were justifiably angry. (In fact, one of the servicemen on the plane was videotaping the incident immediately destroyed the video right when the plane landed.) I won't even go into the incidents that have happened in Okinawa.

In any case, the US military is severely testing the goodwill of the countries that host our servicemen. Again, incidents like this unnecessarily damage the United States' prestige.

macktheknife
Dec 13, 2002, 01:02 PM
BTW, I was also in China in 1999 when the US accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia. The Chinese were very upset, but even they still harbored no hatred of Americans per se.

Kethoticus
Dec 13, 2002, 03:30 PM
The Chinese were very upset, but even they still harbored no hatred of Americans per se.

I dunno about that. On some Chinese chatboards, there was a LOT of anger, even hatred, of the US. One psycho was advocating that his country hit us with a few nukes.


In any case, the US military is severely testing the goodwill of the countries that host our servicemen. Again, incidents like this unnecessarily damage the United States' prestige.

I fully agree. Our nation keeps preaching human rights and human freedom, and yet we deny our host countries these things when we overprotect our servicemen. Understandably upsetting to the S Koreans and Japanese. Frankly, I'm embarassed by the way our country tries to put its own citizens above the laws of others.


Find out why there're your/our enemies in the first place...

I'm sure there are myriad reasons for this. Some are the result of lies and propaganda on the parts of their gov't, some, their religion, and others, no doubt, something we did to understandably piss them off. But to ram two jetliners into two of our skyscrapers? Unjustified. THAT is the result of fanaticism, unless there's some monstrosity committed by this gov't that no one but the extremists know about.


kethoticus - you need to add the apporpriate smilies to convey sarcasm sometimes...

Words of wisdom. I'll try to remember that in the future.


- there are too many on here who really do believe some of what you posted.

Scary, ain't it?

macktheknife
Dec 13, 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
I dunno about that. On some Chinese chatboards, there was a LOT of anger, even hatred, of the US. One psycho was advocating that his country hit us with a few nukes.

I was there when the students at Beijing University (China's Harvard, so to speak) were angrily debating on the best course of action for China to take, and had much stronger (and preposterous) words than hitting the US with nukes. In the end however, many of the students would have still given their right arm to come study in the US. They clearly destested what the US did, but they didn't hate the US itself. As for all those chat rooms and bulletin boards, we Macrumors regulars can probably agree with my observations that we talk more loudly online than in real life. :D

jelloshotsrule
Dec 13, 2002, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife

I was there when the students at Beijing University (China's Harvard, so to speak) were angrily debating on the best course of action for China to take, and had much stronger (and preposterous) words than hitting the US with nukes.

just curious.... what's stronger and bigger than hitting us with a bunch of nukes?

i figure you can't top bombing a large place out of existence.

macktheknife
Dec 13, 2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


just curious.... what's stronger and bigger than hitting us with a bunch of nukes?

i figure you can't top bombing a large place out of existence.

Nukes were definitely one of the topics discussed. One fellow (I wasn't sure if he was a student) suggested direct military action by taking out the US bases in Korea and Okinawa before moving to the West Coast. "Ah, but the East Coast," the fellow said, "let's think about what we should do with that." There was also some talk about sending the PLA to assist the Serbians (nevermind they were the agressors). Besides the US embassy getting stoned, the UK, German, French, and even the Albanian (nevermind they were the victims of ethnic cleansing) embassies were getting stoned.

Backtothemac
Dec 14, 2002, 08:45 AM
Yes, the problem is that the Chinese do not have missiles capable of hitting the mainland. Hawaii would be vapor, but hey, the mainland would be good to go.

Kethoticus
Dec 14, 2002, 01:44 PM
As for all those chat rooms and bulletin boards, we Macrumors regulars can probably agree with my observations that we talk more loudly online than in real life.

Great point. Flaming is all too easy here. I doubt the arguments would get nearly as bad if we had to look each other in the face.


They clearly destested what the US did, but they didn't hate the US itself.

It was a freakin' ACCIDENT! I mean granted, we could always have better intelligence, but c'mon! If we REALLY wanted to hit China, we all know the CIA's capable of doing so much more to hurt them than us hitting one of its embassies.

idkew
Dec 14, 2002, 02:55 PM
all these example you guys are using are either accidents or actions of a single person, not state policy.

we aren't systematically killing kurds (iraq) or tibetans (China).

we are not promoting policies which will lead to international sanctions which will ultimately hurt and kill our citizens due to lack of food and medicine (iraq and n. korea).

we do not have a "president" who wants to act as a dictator and shoot people in the streets from his "presidential" palace (venezuela)

we do not support terrorists who fly fully loaded transatlantic jets into 100+ story business towers. (iraq, iran, saudi arabia...)

we do not put people to death without trial (nigeria, iran, iraq...)

woman are not systematically segregated against, and this is not supported by the state and our religion. (most Muslim countries)

while those incidents were bad and probably preventable, ***** happens. sorry people. there are bigger things to deal/complain about.

macktheknife
Dec 14, 2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by idkew
all these example you guys are using are either accidents or actions of a single person, not state policy.

Of course it is not the United States' policy to have its soldiers run over Korean girls or rape Japanese women in Okinawa. But does this mean that the US military shouldn't do more to prevent such incidents from happening in the future? And does this mean that the United States should continue to allow its soldiers to be above the laws of the host country?

To borrow another analogy, should we just shrug when we hear about the molestation cases in the Catholic Church? Of course, since it's not the policy of the Catholic Church to have their priests molest children, these incidents are indeed "actions of a single person." Nonetheless, does this mean the Catholic Church should continue to operate as it always does? Or should it identify some of the root causes and strive to never allow such incidents from happening in the future?

In the incident in Italy, the Italians had complained many times about how low the jets were flying. Their complaints were ignored. An incident finally occurred, and although the act was of a single person and was an accident, doesn't the United States military hold some responsibility for the incident considering how many times they've been warned? Before the Okinawan gang rape incident a few years ago, the Okinawans had long complained about how US servicemen were (and still are) responsible for alot of the crime on the island. Their pleas were ignored. Is the United States completely blameless?

while those incidents were bad and probably preventable, ***** happens. sorry people. there are bigger things to deal/complain about.

The grand strategy of the United States is to maintain a military presence around the world for commerical and geopolitical reasons. These incidents unnecesarily damage the prestige of the United States, and tests the goodwill of the host countries. Though I was born in another country, I am a proud to consider myself an American, and I think the United States has a lot to offer to the rest of the world. However, such incidents unnecessarily soils the reputation of my adopted homeland and also unnecessarily imperils its military flexibility. Maintaining a forward presence is especially important in this "War on Terrorism" that requires the United States military to respond quickly around the world.

Look, there are always "bigger things to deal/complain about", but this doesn't mean the United States can continue to let its servicemen act in such a manner overseas. The United States needs to have its soldiers act in a responsible manner--if not for the goodwill of the host country, then at least for its pride and self-interest. What other countries do is a non sequitur with respect to this problem.

kylos
Dec 14, 2002, 09:58 PM
If we participate in enforcement assistance actions or other friendly occupations of countries, then our troops in these states need to be subject to the the laws of those states. If you don't like that, then we should get out of these countries, because if we stay we'll make enemies of friends. No matter our good intentions, the more American soldiers get off so easily, the more we'll be viewed as an imperialist monster.

macktheknife
Dec 14, 2002, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Kyle?
If we participate in enforcement assistance actions or other friendly occupations of countries, then our troops in these states need to be subject to the the laws of those states. If you don't like that, then we should get out of these countries, because if we stay we'll make enemies of friends. No matter our good intentions, the more American soldiers get off so easily, the more we'll be viewed as an imperialist monster.

Exactly. We don't need to make enemies where we don't have to. You hit the nail right on the head, man.

idkew
Dec 14, 2002, 10:38 PM
i agree with you mactheknife, i hope you did not think i was saying that the troops should be above the law.

i don't know the insides of the trials, but if these people were indeed guilty, they should have been punished according to military law.

we can not have our troops follow foreign laws. in some countries i am sure it is illegal to have sex before marriage. maybe the punishment is castration. would you support the castration of a man who innocently had consensus sex with a soon-to-be wife?

what we need is military law to be enforced. like i said, i don't know all about those incidents, but if you are guilty, you shouldn't get off.

macktheknife
Dec 15, 2002, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by idkew
i agree with you mactheknife, i hope you did not think i was saying that the troops should be above the law.

i don't know the insides of the trials, but if these people were indeed guilty, they should have been punished according to military law.

we can not have our troops follow foreign laws. in some countries i am sure it is illegal to have sex before marriage. maybe the punishment is castration. would you support the castration of a man who innocently had consensus sex with a soon-to-be wife?

what we need is military law to be enforced. like i said, i don't know all about those incidents, but if you are guilty, you shouldn't get off.

Understood. I agree--the laws of some countries may be vastly different than what Americans would consider just, and the judiciary systems of other countries may also be very weak. What if, however, the situation was reversed? Let's say country X has a base stationed in California and it is not against the laws of country X to have its soldiers sleep with 5 year-old girls/boys? And what if country X had an agreement with the US similar to the one the US has with South Korea? If such an accord did exist and a country X soldier did commit such a vile act, the soldier could--in theory--be protected by the US-country X military accord.

Wouldn't it just have been better if country X was a good guest who told its soldiers to respect the laws and customs of the US and to exercise greater supervision to prevent such incidents from occuring? Besides, South Korea is a modern industrialized nation and a firm ally of the United States. I think it's not out of the question to trust their judicial system.

Now, I agree we should protect the men and women of our armed services against unjust laws abroad. However, the incidents in Korea, Okinawa, and Italy were cases of manslaughter or rape--something a bit more universal than a cultural misunderstanding.

Sorry for the rant. ;) What distresses me is how many Americans seem to have this attitude that the rest of the world owe us something for protecting them, and that incidents like these--while certainly regrettable--is just the price of the protection of the United States. But I have already shown in this thread that it is also in the interests of the US to have its soldiers stationed abroad and that such ugly incidents threatens the position of the US and did not have to occur.

idkew
Dec 15, 2002, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife


Understood. I agree--the laws of some countries may be vastly different than what Americans would consider just, and the judiciary systems of other countries may also be very weak. What if, however, the situation was reversed? Let's say country X has a base stationed in California and it is not against the laws of country X to have its soldiers sleep with 5 year-old girls/boys? And what if country X had an agreement with the US similar to the one the US has with South Korea? If such an accord did exist and a country X soldier did commit such a vile act, the soldier could--in theory--be protected by the US-country X military accord.


well, i guess that as a parent you must keep your children away from their base.

another reason: we can not have our women soldiers in the middle east wearing "coveralls" (i don't know the correct term for COMPLETELY being covered) when they are trying to wage war. the indigenous people would prolly much rather have it that way.