South Korea

[Mr Farrius]

In an attempt to win the favor of the U.S. South Korea has shamelessly left one of its own citizens to be beheaded with a knife. What are they doing? The government's decision to leave one of their own to die in a foreign country has bred mistrust and anger from the whole nation. I for one, would not feel safe as a Korean citizen in Iraq, or anywhere dangerous for that matter, since my government seems to care more about winning the favor of a powerful country than my life. Btw, anyone notice how the majority of the population in GB, U.S. and SK all oppose the war in Iraq? In other words, very very few actually support it.

[takeanumber]

The South Koreans got North Korea breathing down their necks.

Worse, most Americans see the violent protests of South Koreans against the US, and that has damaged support for keeping those troops there.

So, yeh.

It's sad that he got beheaded.

But I must admit, we can't blink in the face of that kind of terror.

Because then, where would it end.

Would they demand the end of democracy in the US, or they'll cut off so and so's head?

Would they demand the nuclear bombing of Israel, or they'll cut off so and so's head?

Would the demand the mass conversion of the free West to repressive Islam, or they'll cut off some woman's head?

It doesn't end with them.

The fundamental conflict here is that the West wants to continue to exist, and those extremist muslims oppose the West's ongoing existance.

[Mr Farrius]

When the cause is worthy, when there appears to be a near end, then it seems more reasonable to give all to support. That's not the case in Iraq. A myriad of government officials have stated that the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. The South Koreans, are just going to be wasting troops, simply because the government needs the backing of the U.S., which I find pretty demoralizing for both the troops and the people of that country. Now South Korea is about to bring Asia into the conflict and soon the Muslim world will grow to despise them as well.

[Argus]

In an attempt to win the favor of the U.S. South Korea has shamelessly left one of its own citizens to be beheaded with a knife. What are they doing?

It's called standing up to terrorists. Clearly that's beyond you. The South Koreans, however, don't sit comfortably in the shadow of the Americans. They have the insane North Koreans sitting across their border. They can't afford to be seen as snivelling weaklings who will bow down and give in to anyone who points a gun to the head of one of their citizens.

As an aside, I would *love* to see some magical geographical switcheroo and find our border is no longer with the Americans, but with the North Koreans. I'd love to see the squealing terror from all those rabid anti-Americans - most of whom are anti-military, as well, as they realize what bad neighbours are really like.

[takeanumber]

I'd love to see the squealing terror from all those rabid anti-Americans

Such sweet prose.

[Mr Farrius]

I'd like to see both of you go to Iraq right now, get kidnapped, and watch your country turn your back on you, while you get your head cut off with a knife. The attempt by South Koreans to win more support for the U.S. is unnecessary. The U.S. will make sure Korea isn't run by communists, regardless of what the South Koreans do, as long as they stay democratic.

[Stoker]

I'd like to see both of you go to Iraq right now, get kidnapped, and watch your country turn your back on you, while you get your head cut off with a knife. The attempt by South Koreans to win more support for the U.S. is unnecessary. The U.S. will make sure Korea isn't run by communists, regardless of what the South Koreans do, as long as they stay democratic.

So you expect the United States to defend South Korea? Alot of people also expect the United States to defend Canada........My question, if we expect the United States to defend us, why are there those that one would call "anti-American" within Canada? Isn't that akin to biting the hand that feeds you?

[Mr Farrius]

No. I'm not saying that the U.S. should be expected to protect South Korea. It will, but only because of geostrategic reasons.

Surely you realize that not everyone in any nation will succumb to the power that another holds over them. I'd rather live in a country that is influenced by only itself and not any other, rather than one that depends so heavily on the protection and aid of another. Yes, some will "bite the hand that feeds them," like me. We want no foreign government to control us in anyway.

Anyways, going back to the topic. South Korea is not standing strong in the face of terror. Rather, it is terrorized by the North so they want American support. To sacrifice their own people to do so, is very disappointing.

[Stoker]

No. I'm not saying that the U.S. should be expected to protect South Korea. It will, but only because of geostrategic reasons.

I'm still not clear, you are now saying the United States is expected to protect South Korea for "geostrategic" reasons........isn't that still an expectation placed on the United States?

Surely you realize that not everyone in any nation will succumb to the power that another holds over them. I'd rather live in a country that is influenced by only itself and not any other, rather than one that depends so heavily on the protection and aid of another. Yes, some will "bite the hand that feeds them," like me. We want no foreign government to control us in anyway.

I want to have an above average income without working.....but like the Rolling Stone's song states......

......We could tell the United States to go shove it, and we will start defending ourselves on our own and stop trading with "those foregin control freaks", but we will also have to pay the piper so to speak.........Do you want Canada to become a second, possably a third world nation? Who's going to pay for all the social programs

Anyways, going back to the topic. South Korea is not standing strong in the face of terror. Rather, it is terrorized by the North so they want American support. To sacrifice their own people to do so, is very disappointing.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe, just maybe, South Korea believes in the cause and they are acting on their own? Isn't the current South Korean government also "unfreindly" towards the United States?

[KrustyKidd]

I should kidnap one of Farris's family. He will give me everything I want, even mating privilages with his wife, daughter and let me drink his beer. Where do you live Farris? After I kidnap your son and get this, will you still let me do a weekly kidnapping so I can get some money as well to support myself. I mean, if you are willing to let me once, why not forever? We can be kind of like Al Queda and the Saudi family Does the child I take tommorow not mean enough to you to give me what I want this time and the next and the next? If you don't go along with it, you would be considered an uncaring animal. Slave of America.

And then, there are so many of you. People like you that would allow me to do this to. Hell, I could take over the world this way. Matter of fact, even if I couldn't there are enough of you that I would think that I could, and therefore make me keep on doing it. Damm, this is such a gig I could get going with all these idiots out here. Too bad that somebody else is doing it already.

Actually, let's save me the trouble. Instead of doing anything illegal and threatening or kidnapping anybody, why don't you all just send me money and tell your governments to stand on their heads every tuesday at three PM. Otherwise I might do something.

You have been warned.

And your little dog Toto too.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Very witty. However, Mr. Farrius could just shoot you and be done with it. Not so with Islamic radical terroists, though. They are trying to foment jihad by way of terror, and trying to coerce the west into another crusade. Only then could they get the support of Islam worldwide.

Dear Mr. Farrius,

as long as they stay democratic

What a load of bunk. They will support S Korea as long as it remains profitable to do so. Cheap goods come in to the US from S Korea and expensive weapons go out. It is what the US is good at.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

all those rabid anti-Americans - most of whom are anti-military, as well, as they realize what bad neighbours are really like.

I suggest you read the book "Good Neighbors? The US and Latin America" by Ann E Weiss, 1985.

[Stoker]

I suggest you read the book "Good Neighbors? The US and Latin America" by Ann E Weiss, 1985.

Are we latin America? Apples and Orang.....er.....Bananas..

[Mr Farrius]

Dear Mr. Farrius,

as long as they stay democratic

What a load of bunk. They will support S Korea as long as it remains profitable to do so. Cheap goods come in to the US from S Korea and expensive weapons go out. It is what the US is good at.

My mistake Lonius. Your modification is indeed correct, which will clear up Stoker's confusion. How could I have ever thought that the U.S. would care for all democratic nations simply because they were democratic.

And then, there are so many of you. People like you that would allow me to do this to.

Like Canadians KK. For instance, Stoker's reply:

but we will also have to pay the piper so to speak.........Do you want Canada to become a second, possably a third world nation? Who's going to pay for all the social programs 

We are slaves of America in an indirect way. Perhaps you would know that.

[KrustyKidd]

We are slaves of America in an indirect way. Perhaps you would know that.

No we are not. Nobody is a slave to America. You may think you are a slave because your system doesn't seem to work very well but that by no means entitiles you to 'slave' status and all the excuses for failure that go along with it.

When I go into the states and work, I make money. Am I a slave to America? No, I make money when I go to Montreal as well and I am by no means a slave to Quebec. if I didn't want to go and make money in America and hated them so so so bad, I wouldn't. I would go to Toronto and do my gig there. If I am a slave, it is only to my own ambition. My business smarts tell me that my ambition can be fulfilled using the opportunities that the US provides at certain times, and at others, our own (which BTW are very similar to the US's.)

If you find that you seem to be a slave then possibly you would find it better to stop using their products and inventions. Move to an area of the earth where they have not influenced (if you can find it of course.) It's an extension of sur vival of the fittest in a way. Their system works better at this time and others don't. I mean, if you like using a bycycle for transport and smoke signals to communicate with, go for it. If not, don't blame the US for making cars and cell phones, just use it and get on with your life. If your village has no work and they provide ajob, don't take it, continue to starve, if you want to work, take the opportunity and then complain about how you are a slave, one that is fed but a slave none the less.

If you wrern't a slave to the US you would be a slave to something else Lonius. A life of low tech survival, communism, bad tv shows and lots of CBC. It is always the most sucessful and popular people and things that gain infamy and envy. I was just telling my daughter the other day that not everybody will like you, no matter how nice you are, there will be those that dislike you simply because you are sucessful and popular.

You and I are talking about this on another thread (Iraq) If the US was not in Iraq then somebody else would be, Saddam. If they pulled out tommorow then there would be other violent individuals or groups vying for power and killing huge. Other than Antarctica and other unpopulated areas, there is no such thing as a vacum in politics. Given the capabilities of the US and it's wealth, I would rather be aided by them than any other force on earth. Can you imagine the fiasco if France went in there and tried to free them from Saddam? It wouldn't happen, Russia would have slaughtered them and Canada wouldn't even have made it to the outskirts of Babhdad or even crossed the border for that matter. And if any of them managed to free Iraq, nobody has the money to rebuild it except the US. I sure do like the way they treat their slaves. I'm almost thinking about culturing some Anthrax so I can get my ass 'Regime Changed' and get a new deck built by them.

[Mr Farrius]

Maybe "slave" is a bit too far. But nations that depend so heavily on the U.S. such as Canada are controlled by the U.S. There is an indirect power that the U.S. possesses over countries it aids. Surely you realize that the U.S. can politely ask a nation to do something for it, in return for all of its services, or else. Or not to do something, like how South Koreans can't develop nuclear weapons. I wonder, does the U.S. really consider South Korea an equal ally, or is it just a lower puppet?

[August1991]

Maybe "slave" is a bit too far. But nations that depend so heavily on the U.S. such as Canada are controlled by the U.S. There is an indirect power that the U.S. possesses over countries it aids. Surely you realize that the U.S. can politely ask a nation to do something for it, in return for all of its services, or else.

You make it sound as if the US is this one, big guy.

The US is 300 million people each doing their own little thing in their own way. Even the US federal government amounts to a million or so people doing all kinds of things.

I think KK earlier said he can choose to go to the US, Montreal or Toronto for his gigs. In fact, he can choose to deal with people in those places (and they will choose to deal with him).

If you are a kind of slave to the US, who exactly in the US (a name please) owns you?

You have been warned.

And your little dog Toto too.

I'm still giggling KK.

[KrustyKidd]

Thank you for the giggle August, as you know, I was quoting a character from a fictional world, one in which so many live..

Maybe "slave" is a bit too far. But nations that depend so heavily on the U.S. such as Canada are controlled by the U.S. There is an indirect power that the U.S. possesses over countries it aids

Yes. Slave is too strong a word. Pick a system you wish to work within and let us know what it is. Then pick the country that is the best at it and live with it controling the world.

Get back to me will you please.

As for the indirect power, think of it this way. You hand five bucks to a Salvation Army guy at the mall, do you not assume that it goes to the poor in some way shape of form or do you just figure that if he gets a five dollar hooker that everything is OK? I mean certain expectations are in order here. That of conforming to what the money was intended for and obligations that it be used to help in the longer run.

In the meantime, let me give my two cents worth. Islamic Fundementalism is not my first or last choice, Communism would be worse than genocide, socialism is great providing you live on a fifty person commune, a Dictatorship is Faboo if you are the Dictator as is an Aristocracy. What exactly is it that you wish and who is it that you wish to be the best at it. The one providing the benchmark so to speak? I mean, in a free world, some will be better at it than others, if not the US then it would be the French, or British. Should they lower their standards because the rest of the world cannot keep up? Should they not take advantage of their excellence in industry? Should they be punished for it and forced to lower their standards to make up for our deficiencies?

Thoughts please.

[Mr Farrius]

KK, I don't have any thoughts on that but Bush apparently does.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -Bush, Washington DC, July 26, 2001

The U.S. aids countries that it sees as profitable. If it doesn't benefit the U.S., the U.S. has no reason to give it any aid. Why do you think the U.S. is trying to rebuild Iraq for itself? So in the future it can say, hey, we rebuilt your country, give us some of that oil. Hence, an indirect form of control. You can still refuse to believe that, you can still go on to believe that the U.S. has solely good intentions in rebuilding Iraq, so go on. I'll just feel sorry for you because you obviously won't realize that government is a lot more clever than you think.

[KrustyKidd]

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -Bush, Washington DC, July 26, 2001

.

Yes he's right. A dictatorship would be easier. And save money, save lives yet it would not be right. That is why the US did not simply leave the Iraqi Regime intact and install a friendly Dictator. In other words, those words above are stating a simple fact that any intelligent person knows.

The U.S. aids countries that it sees as profitable. If it doesn't benefit the U.S., the U.S. has no reason to give it any aid.

Like Afganistan of course. I think rather than the negative you might look at it this way; 'The US aids all countries and tries to make them profitable.' In this way, they can stand on their own rather than require constant aid.

Why do you think the U.S. is trying to rebuild Iraq for itself?

Not a very profitable enterprise on initital inspection for sure. It will have cost over $500 billion to carry out this operation in Iraq by the time it is all over. At current oil prices, unless the US were to take ALL THE OIL and not pay anything for it then they will never see a third of what they have put out financially. So far, over 85% of oil contracts have gone to non-US agencies in Europe, Asia and Russia. Do you think that once free elections occur that the Iraqis will prefer to give oil away or sell it? Or in the event they prefer to sell it, will the US attack them again to oust the elected government and install a dictator?

So in the future it can say, hey, we rebuilt your country, give us some of that oil.

More like they will say, 'we would like to BUY some of that oil at world prices.' Then bid on it, the same as Europe, Asia and Russia.

Hence, an indirect form of control.

An indirect form of control. Reaching there Farris, reaching. I assume you work, therefore your boss has 'an indirect form of control' over you. I assume you get you kid to mow the lawn for his or her allowance and in that you 'have an indirect form of control' over them.

I know welfare agencies require certain criteria to be met before they hand out cheques. Is that 'an indirect form of control?'

You can still refuse to believe that, you can still go on to believe that the U.S. has solely good intentions in rebuilding Iraq, so go on. I'll just feel sorry for you because you obviously won't realize that government is a lot more clever than you think

A prosperous Iraq is a secure Iraq. An Iraq where there is money and happy people is less likely support terror and aggression. One has to look no further than Canada to see how we are too busy getting on with our lives to think about violence. This in turn allows America to do what they do best, make money and allow peoplel to get on wtih their lives instead of defend against active terror. NMoneywise, a secure Iraq means that a quarter million troops won't have to be continually stationed there to defend against and supress terrorists. A profitable venture for sure as I stated above with the $500 billion price tag. In that aspect, it is self centered, but also a good deal for the Iraqis and the rest of the world.

And make sure you go visit Pembroke Online as well. It's a cool site with lots to offer local people and tourists alike.