Korea, the US, and two innocent little girls.

[Future Man]

OS -

quote:
My apologies. Made an assumption.

Hahahaha! No really Ev, here's a good one too!:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion Thanks for your posts, datan. Since they consist of little more than patriot apologetics, I'll stick with the verdict of negligant homicide. You haven't presented any evidence which might prove otherwise.


that's really odd, considering I'm not an American. You should read some of my American-bashing posts

Hahahahahahahha!!

Absolute nonsense! Where's the "hatred", OS? Come on, I want to see proof. It's time to justify your paranoia.

You want me to look it up? Just give the challenge.

Top of Form 1
Bottom of Form 1
I haveve taken my information from (a) the Beeb, and (b) the posts of others on this thread. So if I "have no idea", then neither does anybody else

Um, yeah. The "Beeb"

 

[Future Man]

Example #1:

TamTam -

quote:
I find it very interesting to talk with american people...

>

So do I.

These primitive cultures are always fascinating.

Just an honest "observation" Ev?

 

[fin]

"They are soveriegn countries and can kick us out any time they choose."

I have been convinced that the soldiers may have been innocent. However, this statment is false. If the US has interests in a country the country will not be able to force them out. Think of Cuba. Castro has tried to get the US to move ever since comming to power.

 

[Future Man]

I have been convinced that the soldiers may have been innocent. However, this statment is false. If the US has interests in a country the country will not be able to force them out. Think of Cuba. Castro has tried to get the US to move ever since comming to power.

I don't think that is within the same circumstances. Do you want the US out of Cuba?

 

[fin]

"I don't think that is within the same circumstances. Do you want the US out of Cuba?"

My point exactly. The US doesn't want to leave so they dont. And yes, I think the US should get out of Cuba.

 

[kiwimac]

I have read this thread with interest.

Evan & I are regulars on other boards. I have to say that rarely have I seen him act out of prejudice or blind following of an idea. He is a thinker & likes to ponder deeply what he is talking about.

Frankly folks, perhaps the kids should not have been on that road but its their country!, if the US, as a foreign power, is going to conduct either LF or DF exercises in another country then they should be **** careful!

There is another point. In an accident involving a pedestrian and a vehicle the driver of the vehicle is always presumed to have been negligent, why? because they are driving a multi-ton lump of metal at speed. Frankly, had I been there, the first thing I would have done is to have physically moved the kids into safety.

Kiwimac

 

[Future Man]

Evan & I are regulars on other boards. I have to say that rarely have I seen him act out of prejudice or blind following of an idea. He is a thinker & likes to ponder deeply what he is talking about.

And you were just recently banned from Theology Online for the second time after posing under a new identity. When asked prior to this if you were in fact 'Kiwimac' you outright lied and denied such.

I wouldn't expect different in this case.

Therefore your "opinion" about Ev's character doesn't amount to much, now does it?

 

[Future Man]

My point exactly. The US doesn't want to leave so they dont. And yes, I think the US should get out of Cuba.

So how would rather the situation be held? Would you ignore Cuba entirely? Would you merely go about handling them in a different manner?

 

[kiwimac]

Originally posted by Future Man
And you were just recently banned from Theology Online for the second time after posing under a new identity. When asked prior to this if you were in fact 'Kiwimac' you outright lied and denied such.

I wouldn't expect different in this case.

Therefore your "opinion" about Ev's character doesn't amount to much, now does it?

 

There are a couple of points I would make in response to this post.

First, what does this have to do with my points in regard to the US involvement in S. Korea?

Second, are you aware of WHY I was banned from TOL?, If not, keep your yap shut!, If you want to know why, I'll tell you but otherwise just slope off, child.

Third, the person banned for "being me" was my wife, why was she banned? Because she uses the same computer as I do. she has the same ISP. A mere identical ISP is NOT equivalent to sameness of identity. And if the Mods at TOL had half a brain between them they would have checked to be certain that it WAS INDEED ME, they did not, they assumed and so my wife was banned.

Fourth, Your ad hominem attack against me is thus shown for what it is, intellectual dishonesty of the first water. Rather than actually reply to the content of my post, you chose to attack me.

Kiwimac

 

[Future Man]

There are a couple of points I would make in response to this post.

First, what does this have to do with my points in regard to the US involvement in S. Korea?

Nothing. It has to do with your defense of Evangelions opinion as "unbiased" which is precisely what I posted a response to. So why did you ask?

Second, are you aware of WHY I was banned from TOL?

Because you were Kiwimac in Te's clothing?

, If not, keep your yap shut!, If you want to know why, I'll tell you but otherwise just slope off, child.

I'll do as I please.

Third, the person banned for "being me" was my wife why was she banned? Because she uses the same computer as I do. she has the same ISP. A mere identical ISP is NOT the same as sameness of identity. And if the Mods at TOL had half a brain between them they would have checked to be certain that it WAS INDEED ME, they did not, they assumed and so my wife was banned.

Pretty strange you say this as it was ME that asked you. On most forums when you are banned it is your *computer* that is banned or in other words your IP. I'm pretty sure TOL implements this practice. And even if it was otherwise, this means you had to register for a new email account. Is this what you did?

I'm also very interested in knowing WHAT motivated the TOL moderators to check out your IP? That answer should be interesting.

Fourth, Your ad hominem attack against me is thus shown for what it is, intellectual dishonesty of the first water. Rather than actually reply to the content of my post, you chose to attack me.

What "content"? Your post was hardly relevent to the thread topic. Are you saying that if the motorists were NOT American that it would no longer be a case of negligent homicide? Ludicrus. The thread's subject matter has already been discussed about as much as it can go. I agree with the honest opinion and the amount of info sourced from other than just the BBC, and reject the obviously biased view.

I'm not going to waste time trying to convince someone with an obvious underlying motive [..and I didn't say it was you].

 

[Future Man]

Kiwimac,

Go ahead and accept my apologies in advance until I verify TOL's policy on banning in regards to IP numbers. If I'm wrong, I'll simply assume it was your wife and leave it at that.

God bless you Km--FM

 

[kiwimac]

Future man,

My comment was that I have spent time around Evan, online & I know him to be a person who takes quite extraordinary care to ensure his reports are unbiased.

I was banned from TOL, for calling the moderator out for being biased. I will happily post that conversation. if you really want me to.

My wife uses my computer, that means her IP and mine are exactly the same. She signed into TOL, how she could do it is beyond me, I assume that they simply banned my username rather than my IP but the fact of the matter is it was MY WIFE they banned believing her to be me. It would have been easy enough to ask but, NO, they simply banned & I have no doubt implied it was me to all and sundry.

They checked out the IP because my lady got angry enough to tell some folk that she was leaving because of their anti-christian behaviour, this, apparently, was what go the IP checked.

As for the soldiers being American, it is only peripherally inmportant what nation they were from, had they been Brits, or Aussies or Kiwis or Hottentots my point would have been the same. They were the ones in the vehicle, they were the ones who were aware of the visibility shortcomings of that vehicle, NOT the civilians. Therefore they should have taken extraordinary care where there were civilians.

Oh & I'd be interested in knowing WHY Annette (Te Rongopai) could sign on to TOL. If it is mail address related that might explain it, as her email address is very different from mine. Though she & I do share a couple of  email accounts, they are under my name, & they should have triggered the ban if she used one of those. So I assume she used one of hers & that the software didn't put two & two together.

Kiwimac

 

[eldermike]

Please use PM's for private conversations. Do not use ****, to replace bad language. Please, do not keep this personal conversation going in the forum.

Read all the rules......

Thanks for understanding.

 

[fin]

"how would rather the situation be held? Would you ignore Cuba entirely? Would you merely go about handling them in a different manner?"

This is really not relevant. Cuba is an impovereshed country that wishes that the US would respect its rights as a nation and leave. Korea may be in a similar situation, I do not know. If, as Evangelion said, Korea wants us to leave I do not believe that the US would take their opinions into account. The US invades many countries in times of war and refuses to leave in times of peace. This refusal is part of the reason so many people hate the US. Even bin Laden uses the US occupation as an excuse for his terroristic attacks.

It is very likely that the Koreans are not just protesting the death of two children. They are using this incident as a reason to show their hatred for the US occupation. The Koreans want justice, not just for the children but also for their nation.

 

[datan]

repeat after me: "the US isn't occupying Korea". They can kick them out anytime they want.

 

[fin]

"repeat after me: "the US isn't occupying Korea". They can kick them out anytime they want."

Great argument. Maybe if you repeat it enough it will come true. You might also try putting it in all caps. Changing the color is another option, although I've gotten mixed results with this method. I have found it depends on which color used. Blue is good, and red sometimes works. If you really want it to come true use red, white, and blue. I am not sure why, but these three colors give a patriotic feeling that cannot be defeated with logic and simple facts.

 

[John MacNeil]

[dd]Having that trial in the military court is provisionally and perceptionally equivalent to having no trial at all. The U.S. is notorious for not prosecuting military atrocities and so the belief is that they will whitewash any trial they can in order to preserve what they think of as their image. When Lt. William Calley and his outfit went into My lai, in Vietnam, and systematically murdered over 600 women, children, and old people, the only officer, indeed the only soldier, who went to trial and did any time for it was Lt. Calley. He got one year confined to a barracks complex for it. It was a given that the U.S. murdered millions of civilians in Vietnam, but since the killings at My Lai were photographically documented, they could not avoid having a show trial in that case.

[dd]Since the perception exists that the U.S. is not interested in justice insofar as it's military crimes are concerned, it should have conducted the trial in a civilian court because it was civilians who were killed and Korea is not in an active state of war.

[dd]Unless the girls ran out in front of the vehicle that ran over them, then they are not at fault. If the vehicle was first in line of the convoy, then it is at fault no matter what the environmental conditions were at the time. If the vehicle that ran over the girls swerved off the road for any reason other than a broken track, or some such critical malfunction, causing the vehicle to suddenly veer away from it's preferred line of travel, then the soldiers are guilty of negligent homicide. Radio communication, working or non-working, is no reason for a defence unless the vehicle is actively taking fire from an enemy position.

 

[datan]

Unless the girls ran out in front of the vehicle that ran over them, then they are not at fault. If the vehicle was first in line of the convoy, then it is at fault no matter what the environmental conditions were at the time. If the vehicle that ran over the girls swerved off the road for any reason other than a broken track, or some such critical malfunction, causing the vehicle to suddenly veer away from it's preferred line of travel, then the soldiers are guilty of negligent homicide. Radio communication, working or non-working, is no reason for a defence unless the vehicle is actively taking fire from an enemy position. [/B]

Why were they walking on the road, then, instead of on the pavement? The highway was barely wide enough for the armoured vehicles, yet the girls were walking on the road. Like I've said before, an armoured vehicle (let alone a whole convoy of them) is much more visible to a pedestrian (or two of them) than a pedestrian is to an armoured vehicle. There is no way that the girls didn't know there were armoured vehicles around (one convoy was going in one direction, another in the other direction). Armoured vehicles do not sneak up on people. Yet they still chose to walk on the road. I believe that they share at least some responsibility for their own deaths. It's the same thing as you trying to cross a busy highway and a car hit you. Whose fault is it?

 

[datan]

Originally posted by fin
"repeat after me: "the US isn't occupying Korea". They can kick them out anytime they want."

Great argument. Maybe if you repeat it enough it will come true. You might also try putting it in all caps. Changing the color is another option, although I've gotten mixed results with this method. I have found it depends on which color used. Blue is good, and red sometimes works. If you really want it to come true use red, white, and blue. I am not sure why, but these three colors give a patriotic feeling that cannot be defeated with logic and simple facts.

The US's stay in Korea is governed by a status of forces agreement. Did the US have a SOFA with Berlin or Tokyo after WWII? Instead of making senseless references to colours, why don't you try to debate this point? Patriotic feelings? Funny, my country's flag isn't red, white, and blue (you got two of them right though)

 

 

[John MacNeil]

[dd]The fact of whether there was a paved sidewalk beside the dirt road, or not, is irrelevant to the apportioning of guilt for whoever was responsible for those two young girls deaths. According to the report I'll list below, the road is a two lane road without a sidewalk and without shoulders.

www.workers.org/ww/2002/southkorea0801.php

[dd]The road is the only thoroughfare in the area and the South Korean people use it all the time. The report says that the army vehicle drove off the road and drove over the girls. It also says that the vehicle was too wide for the lane it was travelling in. Whenever a too wide vehicle is in transit on a road that it is too wide for, then it requires pilot vehicles and extra caution by the operators.

[dd]The fact that the operator's field of view was restricted by the purposeful design of the equipment is no defence. All heavy equipment can utilize mirrors, or cameras, to cover the blind spots. The army purposely requires restricted visibility for the drivers of some of their heavy equipment so that the operators will not get scared and drive away from danger or choose their own direction of travel which might conflict with the commanding officer's choice.

[dd]The Korean's anger over the failure to try the soldiers responsible for the girls' deaths stems also from the fact that the U.S. army virtually never deals with crimes against Koreans, or any other non-white foreign national, perpetrated by their soldiers. The U.S. soldiers in Korea perpetrate, on average, around 600 crime a year against Koreans and the U.S. army treats that as a normal operating procedure. You can read about that here;

http://micahoffice.netian.com/chapter2e.htm

[dd]If the soldiers who go over there know that they have carte blanche to commit crimes without fear of reprisal, then they, being the type of people that the army can enlist, are going to do what they are naturally prone to do at a rate that is greater than the rate they would commit crimes in the U.S. The U.S. should have laws and guidelines for their troops that are stationed in a foreign nation which are far more strict than for when they are in the U.S. But the U.S. goes the opposite way and their policy actually promotes more crime because of the non-prosecuteable protection that their troops enjoy.