|
Country bashing will result in bans from 00:20 KST onward. |
On October 09 2011 21:50 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 15:43 totii wrote:On October 09 2011 12:41 Milkis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. Milkis, you brought me out of lurking here. Something about your post bothered me, so I did a little research: (at http://seoul.usembassy.gov/p_june13acc.html)You said Korean law enforcement can't do anything about GIs The Korean judicial system does have primary jurisdiction in the vast majority of criminal cases involving USFK personnel. In 2001, for example, 82% of all offenses committed by USFK personnel in Korea were subject to Korean jurisdiction. Compare that with Korean military, whose soldiers are 100% exempt from civil courts, in Korea and in any other country they are stationed. Additionally, in that website it actually lays out the facts of the case you specifically mentioned: the two soldiers were charged with criminal negligence, which is the most they could prove in two trials. Public apologies came from every level of the chain of command, including the president. Perhaps this still isn't justice to you, but it is the arrangement the South Korean government has agreed on. In the end, none of this excuses any rape. However, you should still refrain from posting hearsay. This is only my second post because I would rather just lurk than flame people over nothing. People respect you and I'd hate for them to just accept your post as truth. TL;DR - + Show Spoiler + Ah, I see. My impression, and impression of most of the Koreans are quite different regarding this.
I can second what Milkis stated regarding US troops running over two girls then basically getting away with it. Happened some time ago - I think a couple years back. Of course, you could say Korean media may have exaggerated the event. However, that doesn't change the fact that this isn't the first time it's happened and no matter the punishment (to the soldiers), the public relations damage has been done.
Hopefully this will be the last time we hear about these kinds of disturbing news.
|
You can't deny that many countries "need" USA protection, but you can't label USA as the saint protector of the world because of that.
If USA troops are stationed in a country, USA has some kind of interest on that, they aren't there just to "protect" that nation.
This is applicable to every nation in the world, but obviously USA is the highlight since it is, undeniable, the most powerful (army wise) nation in the world.
|
A truly unfortunate event. It is distressing to hear about such horrible things happening because of foolish people not considering the consequences of their actions. I really hate it when things like this happen, but it can surely not always be avoided. I just wish that justice will be served, and that the affected parties will be effectively counseled.
|
If thailand were happen to be next to north korea, I would want us troop to station in my country aswell. However, i wouldn,t let a rapist get away with it too.
|
It's a shame that people like this make the army look bad (worse?) but I can definitely see how things like this happen, for example if I look around on facebook the people who went into the army straight out of high school often have "interesting" personalities, usually quite ignorant and chaotic. Meanwhile the guys I know at college in the ROTC program are incredibly nice and smart and actually care about what the army stands for, and it sucks they have to go into their job with stuff like this hanging over them.
|
On October 09 2011 19:57 Paperplane wrote:
What the hell? I had no idea America has so many soldiers in korea and japan etc.
How can they justify stationing armed forces in those countries? WW II doesn't really count anymore.
Well we station troops in Japan because of the treaty that ended WW2 keeps Japan from having a substantial Military(much like the restrictions on Germany post WW1). So we are in Japan to "defend" them. And in the case of Korea it is justified by the crazy ass North Koreans. While the north is unlikely to invade even if the US didn't station troops there they act as a deterrent. Also these bases offer very important strategic positioning in the Pacific. The US would be hard pressed to give upthose bases, and given that they have Veto power in the UN I doubt any global sanctions would force them out of those countries.
|
On October 10 2011 02:16 rhmiller907 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 19:57 Paperplane wrote:
What the hell? I had no idea America has so many soldiers in korea and japan etc.
How can they justify stationing armed forces in those countries? WW II doesn't really count anymore. Well we station troops in Japan because of the treaty that ended WW2 keeps Japan from having a substantial Military(much like the restrictions on Germany post WW1). So we are in Japan to "defend" them. And in the case of Korea it is justified by the crazy ass North Koreans. While the north is unlikely to invade even if the US didn't station troops there they act as a deterrent. Also these bases offer very important strategic positioning in the Pacific. The US would be hard pressed to give upthose bases, and given that they have Veto power in the UN I doubt any global sanctions would force them out of those countries.
And what about Germany?
EDIT: Germany is supposed to have a modern army so it can fight in Afghanistan, yet the US don't deem them competent to take care of their own territory so they need an additional 50000 US troops stationed there?
|
On October 10 2011 02:16 rhmiller907 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 19:57 Paperplane wrote:
What the hell? I had no idea America has so many soldiers in korea and japan etc.
How can they justify stationing armed forces in those countries? WW II doesn't really count anymore. Well we station troops in Japan because of the treaty that ended WW2 keeps Japan from having a substantial Military(much like the restrictions on Germany post WW1). So we are in Japan to "defend" them. And in the case of Korea it is justified by the crazy ass North Koreans. While the north is unlikely to invade even if the US didn't station troops there they act as a deterrent. Also these bases offer very important strategic positioning in the Pacific. The US would be hard pressed to give upthose bases, and given that they have Veto power in the UN I doubt any global sanctions would force them out of those countries.
No.
Such a resolution would never even get anywhere near the UN, let a UNSC resolution.
If a host country (like Uzbekistan) says "get out", the US leaves. No UN crap, no lawsuits, no nothing. That is a fact. All the other bullshit in this thread about people saying otherwise are plain wrong.
If the South Korean government told the US in explicit terms that American soldiers are to leave Korean soil, the Americans would pack their bags. Same goes for Japan, and same goes for Germany. Naturally, it wouldn't be very polite, but the end result would be the same. If the Koreans, Germans, or Japanese really want US soldiers gone, they can gladly introduce measures into their various popular assemblies to get that done with enough popular support.
All this talk about American imperialism based on American military bases around the world is foolish. Pretty shitty "empire" when you have to pack your bags and leave any time a corrupt, piss poor country (like Uzbekistan) tells you to go.
|
On October 10 2011 02:44 psheldr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 02:16 rhmiller907 wrote:On October 09 2011 19:57 Paperplane wrote:
What the hell? I had no idea America has so many soldiers in korea and japan etc.
How can they justify stationing armed forces in those countries? WW II doesn't really count anymore. Well we station troops in Japan because of the treaty that ended WW2 keeps Japan from having a substantial Military(much like the restrictions on Germany post WW1). So we are in Japan to "defend" them. And in the case of Korea it is justified by the crazy ass North Koreans. While the north is unlikely to invade even if the US didn't station troops there they act as a deterrent. Also these bases offer very important strategic positioning in the Pacific. The US would be hard pressed to give upthose bases, and given that they have Veto power in the UN I doubt any global sanctions would force them out of those countries. And what about Germany?
We have a large base there that we send major injuries from the Middle East conflicts too. Also many long range bombing missions are flown out of there. It is also a pit stop on the way to the middle east.
Most of these bases come out of WW2 agreements. Although many are outdated and most likely unnecessary I doubt the US government would be willing to give up anything that has an sort of potential strategic impact. The only way would be if Americas economy just totally tanked and we simply couldn't afford them.
|
What about germany XD
Obviously a divided germany after WWII had nothing to do with it...
On October 10 2011 02:49 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 02:16 rhmiller907 wrote:On October 09 2011 19:57 Paperplane wrote:
What the hell? I had no idea America has so many soldiers in korea and japan etc.
How can they justify stationing armed forces in those countries? WW II doesn't really count anymore. Well we station troops in Japan because of the treaty that ended WW2 keeps Japan from having a substantial Military(much like the restrictions on Germany post WW1). So we are in Japan to "defend" them. And in the case of Korea it is justified by the crazy ass North Koreans. While the north is unlikely to invade even if the US didn't station troops there they act as a deterrent. Also these bases offer very important strategic positioning in the Pacific. The US would be hard pressed to give upthose bases, and given that they have Veto power in the UN I doubt any global sanctions would force them out of those countries. No. Such a resolution would never even get anywhere near the UN, let a UNSC resolution. If a host country (like Uzbekistan) says "get out", the US leaves. No UN crap, no lawsuits, no nothing. That is a fact. All the other bullshit in this thread about people saying otherwise are plain wrong. If the South Korean government told the US in explicit terms that American soldiers are to leave Korean soil, the Americans would pack their bags. Same goes for Japan, and same goes for Germany. Naturally, it wouldn't be very polite, but the end result would be the same. If the Koreans, Germans, or Japanese really want US soldiers gone, they can gladly introduce measures into their various popular assemblies to get that done with enough popular support. All this talk about American imperialism based on American military bases around the world is foolish. Pretty shitty "empire" when you have to pack your bags and leave any time a corrupt, piss poor country (like Uzbekistan) tells you to go.
but then you can't distract people from other issues that actually matter to most people in everyday life, not everyone has Mexicans/Muslims to blame, a policy on blaming the foreigners has always been popular in democracies, sad but true to an extent.
|
This is a terrible thing to happen but trust me those soldiers will get whats coming to them. A friend of mine is a marine and he once told me that if one of them ever willingly hurt an innocent that they better as hell get kicked out because they would make them pay.
|
On October 10 2011 00:49 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 00:18 Muki wrote:On October 09 2011 23:08 weekendracer wrote:On October 09 2011 05:58 Fus wrote:
So, this is US military. US should just shut down 7/8 of their military and do something useful with the money, like making free healthcare for everyone. Why does America think they have to control the world? Why does the US stick it's nose everywhere? Because the rest of the world wants us there and we've taken over the role of protector of everyone else. I don't agree with it, but it IS the current situation until it can be altered. Wow that's one of the most ignorant statements I've read lately. The same could be said about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union during and after WW2 then. Of course the US is no tyrant, no no, hahaha we all know that. In fact, the USA are what saved us (Europe) from Nazi Germany. Disgusting comparison.
Actually the Russians (Soviets back then) held the line virtually alone against the Wermacht/ Nazi push before D-Day (US/GBR 2nd front) ). However you could be correct if you are speaking about Western Europe in that USA saved most of Western Europe from becoming part of the Communist block.
|
On October 09 2011 21:00 djmeat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 18:48 AutomatonOmega wrote:
Great job making Americans look even more like idiots than they were already, soldiers. I didn't even think it was possible. Point well proven. You are quite the moron.
And you, sir, are a ragamuffin.
|
To those who say that this is an isolated case, and is not important whether or not Americans did it because anyone can rape.
A lesson in psychology/sociology:
1. American guy enters Korean progaming BW team - chance
Koreans winning 100% of BW WCG since time immemorial - not chance
2. Black guy winning a surfing contest - chance
99% of NBA players in history being black - definitely not chance
3. Non-American guy winning governorship in America - chance
All but one of US Presidents being black - most definitely not chance.
By chance here I mean an event that can be isolated and is statistically improbable. Not chance are events that happen by design, with the conditions actually structured in certain ways to make things happen as they do.
Going back to the US Soldiers. Certainly there is a chance that it could have been done by a French soldier, or a Taliban rebel. But these abuses by the US Army is not isolated. They are not something you can say that happens without being related to the conditions that envelope them. Throughout history, US soldiers have conducted abuses (rape mostly, but there is also torture, but that's another story) in all their military bases outside USA. It happened/happens in KOrea, In Japan, in Vietnam, in Philipines, etc. Is this a rare coincidence? Without overwhelming statistics, it's easy to think so. But reality tells us otherwise. As Milkis said, the worse thing is that these US soldiers has and will always get away with it with a mere slap in the wrist (being decommissioned or reassigned) because part of the bilateral agreement is the jurisdiction to these soldiers conducts, which is US, and not host country. Does this therefore tolerate, even encourage a certain degree of disregard for the law among US military in foreign countries? The record state for themselves.
But having said this, it is still in the level of investigation, and the soldiers are still "suspect" and not criminals, so we should treat this situation as such.
|
On October 10 2011 04:35 SojuTerran wrote:
To those who say that this is an isolated case, and is not important whether or not Americans did it because anyone can rape.
A lesson in psychology/sociology:
1. American guy enters Korean progaming BW team - chance
Koreans winning 100% of BW WCG since time immemorial - not chance
2. Black guy winning a surfing contest - chance
99% of NBA players in history being black - definitely not chance
3. Non-American guy winning governorship in America - chance
All but one of US Presidents being black - most definitely not chance.
By chance here I mean an event that can be isolated and is statistically improbable. Not chance are events that happen by design, with the conditions actually structured in certain ways to make things happen as they do.
Going back to the US Soldiers. Certainly there is a chance that it could have been done by a French soldier, or a Taliban rebel. But these abuses by the US Army is not isolated. They are not something you can say that happens without being related to the conditions that envelope them. Throughout history, US soldiers have conducted abuses (rape mostly, but there is also torture, but that's another story) in all their military bases outside USA. It happened/happens in KOrea, In Japan, in Vietnam, in Philipines, etc. Is this a rare coincidence? Without overwhelming statistics, it's easy to think so. But reality tells us otherwise. As Milkis said, the worse thing is that these US soldiers has and will always get away with it with a mere slap in the wrist (being decommissioned or reassigned) because part of the bilateral agreement is the jurisdiction to these soldiers conducts, which is US, and not host country. Does this therefore tolerate, even encourage a certain degree of disregard for the law among US military in foreign countries? The record state for themselves.
But having said this, it is still in the level of investigation, and the soldiers are still "suspect" and not criminals, so we should treat this situation as such.
I'm kind of confused why you spend a good bit of your post talking about chance and statistics when you don't provide any statistics whatsoever to back up your claim. As far as you I can tell all you did is stereotype a group of people and then justify it by saying "reality tells us this." Is it a coincidence that you only have 3 posts? You might think so, but reality tells us otherwise.
|
On October 10 2011 04:35 SojuTerran wrote:
To those who say that this is an isolated case, and is not important whether or not Americans did it because anyone can rape.
A lesson in psychology/sociology:
1. American guy enters Korean progaming BW team - chance
Koreans winning 100% of BW WCG since time immemorial - not chance
2. Black guy winning a surfing contest - chance
99% of NBA players in history being black - definitely not chance
3. Non-American guy winning governorship in America - chance
All but one of US Presidents being black - most definitely not chance.
By chance here I mean an event that can be isolated and is statistically improbable. Not chance are events that happen by design, with the conditions actually structured in certain ways to make things happen as they do.
Going back to the US Soldiers. Certainly there is a chance that it could have been done by a French soldier, or a Taliban rebel. But these abuses by the US Army is not isolated. They are not something you can say that happens without being related to the conditions that envelope them. Throughout history, US soldiers have conducted abuses (rape mostly, but there is also torture, but that's another story) in all their military bases outside USA. It happened/happens in KOrea, In Japan, in Vietnam, in Philipines, etc. Is this a rare coincidence? Without overwhelming statistics, it's easy to think so. But reality tells us otherwise. As Milkis said, the worse thing is that these US soldiers has and will always get away with it with a mere slap in the wrist (being decommissioned or reassigned) because part of the bilateral agreement is the jurisdiction to these soldiers conducts, which is US, and not host country. Does this therefore tolerate, even encourage a certain degree of disregard for the law among US military in foreign countries? The record state for themselves.
But having said this, it is still in the level of investigation, and the soldiers are still "suspect" and not criminals, so we should treat this situation as such.
More hyperbole and unsupported accusations. If "the record state for themselves", then please, show us the record. See an earlier post by macil22) for an example of someone actually providing information.
|
Im not sure of the circumstances, but if they soldiers had been there long enough, it's only a matter of time until a couple of them snap for being without women for so long
|
Start withthis. Then look at the official record of US soldiers being reassigned, decommissioned, or held pending in the military court. BlackJack, Id rather have 1 post and be open to reality than have 5000+ posts and your level and quality of argumentation skills.
|
On October 10 2011 05:14 SojuTerran wrote:Start with this. Then look at the official record of US soldiers being reassigned, decommissioned, or held pending in the military court. BlackJack, Id rather have 1 post and be open to reality than have 5000+ posts and your level and quality of argumentation skills.
Clearly you have seen this record, so you can link it for us instead of a generic google search.
|
On October 10 2011 05:14 SojuTerran wrote:Start with this. Then look at the official record of US soldiers being reassigned, decommissioned, or held pending in the military court. BlackJack, Id rather have 1 post and be open to reality than have 5000+ posts and your level and quality of argumentation skills.
You aren't taking all the information into account. They alleged perpetrators were stationed in SK, they weren't on tour in an active war zone. An analogy might be trying to argue Koreans are at risk for being killed as collateral in US helicopter strikes with a reference being some statistic from the Iraq war. The psychological effects of an active war zone are doubtless different from the monotony of the garrison in Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2008/02/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg)
