On October 09 2011 12:28 Euronyme wrote: What I don't understand is why the soldiers have to physically be there. It's not like modern technology doesn't allow you to travel there in a heartbeat anyway if a full out war would break out.
I'm not being critical of it or anything, I'd just like someone with some insight to answere it for me, because the NK threat seems irrelevant. Or are they all sailors and pilots for ships and aircraft carriers docked there?
How are you supposed to run an empire without the long outreaching arms of "democracy"?
I am very sorry for the young girl who was abused by US servicemen. May they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a civilian court.
On October 09 2011 12:28 Euronyme wrote: What I don't understand is why the soldiers have to physically be there. It's not like modern technology doesn't allow you to travel there in a heartbeat anyway if a full out war would break out.
I'm not being critical of it or anything, I'd just like someone with some insight to answere it for me, because the NK threat seems irrelevant. Or are they all sailors and pilots for ships and aircraft carriers docked there?
Edit: The armed forces in a foreign country will always be representatives for the nation. I don't quite understand what benefit they are for either country considering they sooner or later are bound to do something stupid, and that'll just negatively affect relations.
This is what i want to see. Some practical reflection on the whole thing. I don't like the knee-jerk reaction of 'oh if you are critical about US foreign basis you must be anti-american, not having a sound argument or missusing current events for political benefit. Just having critical (that doesn't mean think badly of it, it means to examine it in a lot of ways) thoughts/discussions is worth a lot imho.
EDIT: i wrote this before the polemic image. I'm not condoning that!
On October 09 2011 12:28 Euronyme wrote: What I don't understand is why the soldiers have to physically be there. It's not like modern technology doesn't allow you to travel there in a heartbeat anyway if a full out war would break out.
I'm not being critical of it or anything, I'd just like someone with some insight to answere it for me, because the NK threat seems irrelevant. Or are they all sailors and pilots for ships and aircraft carriers docked there?
Edit: The armed forces in a foreign country will always be representatives for the nation. I don't quite understand what benefit they are for either country considering they sooner or later are bound to do something stupid, and that'll just negatively affect relations.
Having a military base there says that if you fuck with SK, you're fucking with USA too.
American soldiers would die if SK was attacked, and that's the point of having our soldiers there.
Okay I read the first four or so pages, and I think most of you guys don't know why.
It's not *just* the fact that two GIs did something terrible. It's the fact that they're not going to get punished for it. Most of the anti american sentiment comes from the fact that GIs go around breaking rules like it's nothing and they get away with it because the Korean law enforcement can't do anything about it.
In fact, from what I know, the two GIs who ran over two school girls with a vehicle weren't even punished they were just restationed (oh apparently, they ran them over twice, from what I remember from the incident).
That is why there's anti american sentiments. The fact that these GIs will likely get away with it because Korean law enforcement wont be able to get them but America will likely cover it up.
On October 09 2011 10:38 domovoi wrote: People's reactions to this story are quite odd. Do American GI's rape at a higher rate than Koreans? Other Americans? Other foreigners? I am quite certain that every day someone gets raped in Korea by a Korean, and yet these alleged rapes have stirred up a lot of emotions.
If these soldiers did it, then I hope they receive their due punishment. But it sadly says a lot about humans that we instinctly turn it into a tribalistic thing.
Military stationed overseas reps the country itself. Sure, if they recruit the way they do now there will be rapists and scumbags and everybody else, there is no way around it. But generally it should be an elite group of people that are trustworthy enough to not rape population given the chance. Obviously something seems very strange to you when you are comparing professional soldiers to some of the mentally challenged locals.
On October 09 2011 12:41 Milkis wrote: Okay I read the first four or so pages, and I think most of you guys don't know why.
It's not *just* the fact that two GIs did something terrible. It's the fact that they're not going to get punished for it. Most of the anti american sentiment comes from the fact that GIs go around breaking rules like it's nothing and they get away with it because the Korean law enforcement can't do anything about it.
In fact, from what I know, the two GIs who ran over two school girls with a vehicle weren't even punished they were just restationed (oh apparently, they ran them over twice, from what I remember from the incident).
That is why there's anti american sentiments. The fact that these GIs will likely get away with it because Korean law enforcement wont be able to get them but America will likely cover it up.
That's exactly right. Here's a recent example of a circumstance where outrageous grievances were committed by an army member in Afghanistan where he killed a young 15 year old boy for "sport", admitted to murdering that young boy for sport, then took pictures that got released worldwide of him posing next to the boys body.
On October 09 2011 12:41 Milkis wrote: Okay I read the first four or so pages, and I think most of you guys don't know why.
It's not *just* the fact that two GIs did something terrible. It's the fact that they're not going to get punished for it. Most of the anti american sentiment comes from the fact that GIs go around breaking rules like it's nothing and they get away with it because the Korean law enforcement can't do anything about it.
In fact, from what I know, the two GIs who ran over two school girls with a vehicle weren't even punished they were just restationed (oh apparently, they ran them over twice, from what I remember from the incident).
That is why there's anti american sentiments. The fact that these GIs will likely get away with it because Korean law enforcement wont be able to get them but America will likely cover it up.
Has there been any history of GIs getting punished by the law for their transgressions? Be it US military law or by the local jurisdiction. It's kind of strange how these soldiers were never accountable for any of their actions.
I am very sorry for the young girl who was abused by US servicemen. May they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a civilian court.
lol they would be so lucky for it just be civllian court. They will first get nailed under UCMJ (which is harsher, wtf is a jury?) then more fun in the civilian court. Double whammy.
On October 09 2011 12:28 Euronyme wrote: What I don't understand is why the soldiers have to physically be there. It's not like modern technology doesn't allow you to travel there in a heartbeat anyway if a full out war would break out.
I'm not being critical of it or anything, I'd just like someone with some insight to answere it for me, because the NK threat seems irrelevant. Or are they all sailors and pilots for ships and aircraft carriers docked there?
Edit: The armed forces in a foreign country will always be representatives for the nation. I don't quite understand what benefit they are for either country considering they sooner or later are bound to do something stupid, and that'll just negatively affect relations.
Having a military base there says that if you fuck with SK, you're fucking with USA too.
American soldiers would die if SK was attacked, and that's the point of having our soldiers there.
Isn't the US military going to help South Korea if the North attacks anyway? If so what's the difference between attacking after some of your own soldiers died, and attacking to defend your ally even if you didn't have casualties after the first attack of the North?
As an american, I say hand them over to the South Koreans and let their justice system deal with it. We shouldn't be sheltering these guys, it sets a horrible example. Also gives off a vibe of disrepect and arrogance: if they rape american teenage girls they go to jail for a long time.
On October 09 2011 13:14 zEnVy wrote: As an american, I say hand them over to the South Koreans and let their justice system deal with it. We shouldn't be sheltering these guys, it sets a horrible example and appears as if Americans condone the rape of teenage girls as long as it's somebody elses' daughter.
Not going to happen. Any crimes committed by American soldiers are handled by the military. It always has been like this and probably always will.
On October 09 2011 13:14 zEnVy wrote: As an american, I say hand them over to the South Koreans and let their justice system deal with it. We shouldn't be sheltering these guys, it sets a horrible example and appears as if Americans condone the rape of teenage girls as long as it's somebody elses' daughter.
Not going to happen. Any crimes committed by American soldiers are handled by the military. It always has been like this and probably always will.
Never said it was going to happen, just saying it SHOULD happen.
On October 09 2011 12:41 Milkis wrote: Okay I read the first four or so pages, and I think most of you guys don't know why.
It's not *just* the fact that two GIs did something terrible. It's the fact that they're not going to get punished for it. Most of the anti american sentiment comes from the fact that GIs go around breaking rules like it's nothing and they get away with it because the Korean law enforcement can't do anything about it.
In fact, from what I know, the two GIs who ran over two school girls with a vehicle weren't even punished they were just restationed (oh apparently, they ran them over twice, from what I remember from the incident).
That is why there's anti american sentiments. The fact that these GIs will likely get away with it because Korean law enforcement wont be able to get them but America will likely cover it up.
Has there been any history of GIs getting punished by the law for their transgressions? Be it US military law or by the local jurisdiction. It's kind of strange how these soldiers were never accountable for any of their actions.
That's hard to tell, since I'm sure there are cases that are "silent" that never gets to the public. However, for any incident that became public and caused an outrage, they definitely got a much weaker punishment that they would have from the Korean courts, or even US civilian courts.
On October 09 2011 13:41 ShadeR wrote: The US will leave if S.Korea wants them to.
S Korea already asked US to leave 10 years ago. US firmly said no. Today's korean government administration hasn't asked US to leave because of increased north korean threats and china's pushy diplomacy.
With 30,000 soldiers there, some rapes will occur.
So you're okay with US soldiers committing crimes in other countries because "boys will be boys?"
You're saying "US soldiers", which almost implies that these men's actions were condoned by the US military.
If you took 30,000 korean men at random, they probably commit just as many, if not more, rapes than the US soldiers do. To use these rapes to fuel anti-American sentiments is pretty ridiculous.
There's a good reason why a lot of the world doesn't like the US a whole lot. Their military personnel have a history of doing whatever they feel like to civilians. It may be said that it's not an accurate portrayal of the US, it's just the people in question. But the fact is that they are in the US military, wearing the flag on their uniforms, stationed overseas representing the US so whatever they do is going to reflect upon their country.
On October 09 2011 06:06 APurpleCow wrote: To be honest, I don't really see what the big deal is...
With 30,000 soldiers there, some rapes will occur.
So what you're saying is because the US has x% of rape in it's own borders, it's up to their citizens worldwide to keep up this % wherever they happen to be? Somehow I think you're trying to justify these rapes.
On October 09 2011 13:41 ShadeR wrote: The US will leave if S.Korea wants them to.
S Korea already asked US to leave 10 years ago. US firmly said no. Today's korean government administration hasn't asked US to leave because of increased north korean threats and china's pushy diplomacy.
Politics shouldn't be getting in the way of what has allegedly happened. It doesn't matter if it was in the middle of a war, soldiers raping civilians, teenagers at that, is not excusable.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/neocon.png)
