Originally Posted by Fox

Those lists are pretty interesting but I agree to the people that think Israel should be in the lists. Well-trained soldiers, and pilots.

I read your comment, and i find it very interesting to read as i was reading it,I realy felt This mindless war drags on and on,Too slow the nights, too fast the dawns,Too cold the rains, too hot the day, Across wet fields, cruel bullets play.Through angry skies swift warplanes shriek,
Through steaming hot desert tired men creep,Patrol…now probe…now full contact! Air-Strikes! Artillery Strikes! Medivac! A year of wounded, screaming men,The haunting gape of a dead man's grin
With that startled look of half-surprise Eternally mirrored in lifeless eyes.
A booby-traps "snap" and sudden roar! Instant death and bloody gore!
The slap and whine of bullets singing……the haunting sounds of songs come "War". .And I agree with you Israel should be on the list.

Originally Posted by weed

Have to agree with Israel being on the list. What about the EU's Eurocorps? With a single currency, no borders, and trying to ratify a constitution, Europe is on it's way to becoming the United States of Europe. That could make for quite the military machine. May sound a bit fanciful now, but the makings are there. Just some food for thought.

http://www.eurocorps.net/home/

Often it is easy to overlook the significance of a much publicized event, so when the European Union expanded its membership to include ten new members, bringing the total to twenty-five, this long-anticipated event seemed almost anticlimactic. Yet, in reality, this was an epochal event in European history, for what began as a former coal and steel trading arrangement had grown from a common market into a globally powerful international community.This enlargement not only increased the population of the EU, making it larger than that of the United States, but with its increased membership it now has more trade than the United States, is richer in GDP than the U.nited States, And the European Union has more votes on the Security Council and on every other International body than does the United States.Step by step, the architects of the European Union have not only dismantled the barriers to the free movement of people and goods, but they have gradually turned this new Europe into an entity determined to be a superpower Europe,that is According to what i know.

South Korean boys will go to no end to avoid serving in their own country's military for just two years.

Yeah, I'm pretty critical about that. But we should also blame the government and feminist groups for that too.

Here's a good response to that.

http://kin.naver.com/open100/r_entry...b=YXJteSBld2hh

Recently both your editorial writer and a female contributor to In My View expressed utter dismay and disbelief that Korean veterans have gotten so angry over the constitutional court's decision to strike down a policy to award bonus points to the test scores of former soldiers who apply for low-level government jobs.

최근에 코리아 헤럴드지의 사설기자와 코리아 헤럴드지의 "나의 의견"란에 글을 투고한 한 여자는 그들이 쓴 글을 통해, 하위직 국가공무원을 지원하는 제대군인에게 공무원시험에서 가산점을 부여하는 제도를 폐지하라는 헌법재판소의 판결에 대해 한국 남성들이 격분하고 있는것에 대해 강한 불신과 경멸을 나타냈다.


The anger of these men makes perfect sense to me. Korean men must give 26 months of their young lives to an army that neither pays them for their efforts or offers them anything in the way of comfort or perks. Military service in Korea, according the hundreds of Korean men I have spoken to, is a tedious period of social and physical deprivation. And it is dangerous. Every year scores of young Korean men are killed while performing tasks such as serving in flood rescue operations and fighting off rabid demonstrators on the streets of Seoul. Yet these fallen heroes receive no tribute. No monuments are erected in their honor. Their deaths are footnotes in the news.

한국남성들(군필자들)의 분노는 나로서는 대단히 일리가 있는것이라고 생각한다. 한국남자들은 그들의 군복무에대한 보상이 거의 주어지지 않는 군대에 가서 26개월이라는 젊은 청춘의 시기를 바쳐야 한다. 내가 지금껏 이야기 해본 수백명의 한국남자들의 말에 의하면 한국에서의 군복무는 사회생활의 기회는 물론이고 신체의 자유마저 박탈당하는 것을 의미하며 또한 매우 위험하다. 매년 수십명의 젊은 군인들이 수해구조작업이나 서울 시내에서 벌어지는 격렬한 데모를 막다가 목숨을 잃고 있다. 그러나 이들 전사한 영웅들은 어떠한 보상도 받지 못한다. 그들을 기념해서 기념비가 세워지지도 않는다. 그들의 죽음은 뉴스에서는 각주정도에 불과하다[역주:뉴스에서도 중요하게 다뤄지지않는다는 의미 ]


What makes the front pages of newspapers and the top stories in TV news shows in their stead? Feature stories about young women at elite officer training academies and their "bravery" in being women trying to make it in the Korean military.

이들의 죽음에 관한 뉴스 대신에 신문의 일면이나 텔레비젼 뉴스의 주요 뉴스로 나오는 것은 무엇인가? 바로 사관학교에 다니는 젊은 여자들, 그리고 여자의 몸으로서 한국군대에서 성공하기 위해 노력하는 그들의 용기에 관한 것들을 특집으로 다룬 이야기다.


Always in these pieces, which seem to dominate the media now every Veteran's Day the same way the several dozen American nurses who served in the Vietnam war now own that holiday in America, there is some feminist expert holding forth on the natural right of women to get the top prestige jobs in the military. It never ceases to amaze me how the expert never mentions requiring women to share in the hardships of the rank and file. The only conclusion to be drawn from such blatant omissions is that Korea's feminists believe that the dangerous and thankless service of Korea's half a million grunts is "men's work."

요즘들어 미국에서도 베트남전쟁때 복무했던 수십명의 미국 간호사들이 매년 이와 비슷한방식으로 국군의 날 방송매체를 독차지하는데, 몇몇 여성운동전문가들은 여성들도 군대에서 최고 신망있는 자리를 차지할 수 있는 천부적인 권리가 있다고 주장한다. 그런데 한국에서는 여성운동 전문가라는 사람들이 어째서 한국남자들만이 지고 있는 군복무의 힘든 부분을 여자들이 덜어줘야 한다고 주장하지 않는지 아무리 생각해도 놀랍기만 하다. 여성들이 남자들이 지고있는 군복무의 힘든 짐을 덜어줘야 한다고 주장 하지 않고있는(당연히 주장해야함에도 불구하고) 여성운동가의 뻔뻔스러움으로부터 도출해 낼수 있는 유일한 결론은 한국의 페미니스트들은 한국의 5백만명이 넘는 예비역과 현역들이 맡고 있는 위험하고 감사의 말조차 듣지 못하는 군복무는 "남자가 해야 하는 일"이라고 생각한다는 것이다.


In her In My View piece, Sohn Jung-min displayed classic feminist reasoning: Men should not be compensated, Sohn claimed, for their military service because women have such hard lives already. Sohn even went so far as to say that the government should compensate women for doing housework and having babies, but should not give men a single won for their 26 months of military service.

"나의 의견"란에 글을 투고한 손정민이라는 여자는 전형적인 페미니스트식 추론을 보여주고 있다. 손정민은 한국여성들이 이 사회에서 매우 힘들고 험난한 삶을 살아가고 있기때문에 남자들에게 군복무에 대한 보상을 해주어서는 안된다고 주장한다. 손정민은 심지어는 정부에서 여자들의 가사일,출산에 대한 보상까지 해주어야 한다고 주장하면서 남자들의 26개월의 군복무에 대해서는 일체의 보상을 해주어서는 안된다(10원짜리 하나도 줘서는 안된다)고 주장한다. [*역주:음..여기서 욕나올려구 하네여]


Does this make sense to anyone with a brain not poisoned by radical
feminism? Does the government force women to have babies? Who benefits more from having a baby, the woman who becomes a mother or the government? Yet, how many young men would go through 26-months of unpaid military hell if the law didn't force them to.

급진적인 페미니즘에 오염되지 않은 정상적인 생각을 가진 사람들은 손정민의 주장이 말이 된다고 생각할까? 정부에서 여성들로 하여금 출산을 강요하고 있는가? 출산을 하므로써 누가 더 이득을 보는가? 출산을 함으로써 어머니가 되는 여자가 더 이득을 보는가? 아니면 정부가 더 이득을 보는가? 만약에 법에서 강제적으로 한국남자들에게 군복무 의무를 부과하지 않고 있다면, 과연 얼마나 많은 젊은이들이 월급도 받지 못하는 26개월의 군복무를 할려고 하겠는가?


I am sure Sohn's absurd arguments brought cheers among all those horribly disadvantaged young women at Ehwa University who were responsible for initiating the lawsuit that killed the test bonus and subsequently destroyed the morale of the nation's fighting men.

이번 소송을 제기함으로써 군가산점 폐지와 더불어 한국 군필자들의 사기를 꺽어버린데 그 책임이 있는, 자칭 자신들이 이사회에서 엄청난 불이익을 받고 있다고 주장하는 이화여대생들은 손정민이라는 여자의 터무니없는 주장에 분명 환호성을 질렀을거라 생각한다.


But how is it that some pampered Ewha princess with her cell phone and European vacations has the gall to claim that some working class young man fresh out of getting bottles and rocks thrown at his skull for 26 months of riot police duty is more "privileged" than she in this society? Feminism would really be good for some laughs if hadn't ruined the ability to reason in so many.

그러나, 부유한 집에서 애지중지 자라서 휴대폰을 들고 학교에 다니며 유럽여행이나 다니는 일부이화여대생들이 어떻게 뻔뻔스럽게도 26개월간 자신의 머리를 향해 날아오는 화염병과 돌멩이를 피해야하는 힘든 전투경찰로서의 군복무를 마치고 갓 제대한 빈곤계층의 젊은이들보고 이들이 이 사회에서 자신들보다 더 많은 특권을 가지고 있다고 주장하는가? [역주: 이글 쓴 미국인은 아마 전투경찰을 관심을 갖고 지켜봤나보군요. 일반군인들의 군복무야 외국인으로서 알기가 쉽지 않겠죠? 전투경찰이야 항상 사회에 노출되어있으니..]


What truly amazes me in this whole affair is that Korean men have not been more militant in their response to the court's decision to strip away the lone benefit of their service. The Herald editorial writers were shocked that a website got hacked; I am surprised there hasn't been a full-scale revolt of the armed forces.

이번 사태를 지켜보면서 나를 정말로 놀라게 한것은 자신들의 군복무에 대한 유일한 혜택마저 뺏아가버린 헌재의 결정에 대한 한국남자들의 반응이 그리 호전적이지 않다는것이었다. 헤럴드 신문의 사설기자가 웹사이트가 해킹당한데에 충격을 받았다고 했는데, 나는 오히려 대한민국 군대에서 대규모의 반동이 없었다는게 놀랍다.


What are these men risking their lives for? A constitution and a nation that doesn't forbid the use of young able-bodied men as slave labor (young soldiers are called out to save the land of wealthy farmers in the rainy season), but absolutely forbids the awarding of 3 to 5 percent in extra points for veterans on a test for the lowest possible positions in the government because it offends the sensibilities of Ewha princesses? Moreover, what is the big deal about an extra three to five percent in points on a test. It seems to me that such a miniscule gap could easily be closed with a little bit of extra study. Oh, I forgot, feminism is not about giving women a chance to prove themselves; it is about giving women things because they are women.

한국에서 군복무하는 남자들은 누구를 위해 목숨을 거는가? 헌법을 위해서? 아니면 국가의 말단 하위직 공무원시험에 제대군인들에게 몇점의 가산점을 주는제도를 이화여대생들의 감정을 상하게 한다는 이유로 폐지시키는 정부를 위해서인가? 시험에서 3에서 5퍼센트의 가산점을 주는게 뭐가 그리 대단하단 말인가? 내생각으로는 이러한 작은 차이는 공부에 약간만 더 노력을 투자한다면 쉽게 극복할 수 있을 것이라 생각된다. 아참, 내가 깜박했군. 페미니즘이란게 여자들이 자신들의 능력을 증명할 수 있도록 여자들에게 기회를 달라고 주장하는게 아니지?, 페미니즘은 단지 자신들이 여자라는 이유만으로 자기들에게 뭐든지 그냥 달라고 말하는거지. [역주: 최근 그런 생각이 팍팍 들고있음]


Were feminism worth the paper its manifestos are printed on, . Korea's women would be fighting to require that all women be drafted as well as men to serve the nation for 26 months. But don't anyone hold his or her breath on that one. The Ehwa princesses would absolutely die if they had to wear nothing but green for two years, and the Korean courts, no doubt, would be sensitive to their pain.

만약 페미니즘이라는게 페미니즘의 강령이 인쇄되어있는 종이만큼의 가치 라도 있다면 한국 여성들은 남성들과 똑같이 여성들에게도 26개월간 국가를 위해 복무 할수 있도록 모든 여성들 또한 징집되어야 한다고 주장하며 싸우고 있어야 할것이다. 하지만 이문제에 대해선 어느 누구도 숨을 죽이지 말라. 이화여대생들은 아마도 만약에 자기들이 군복비스무리한 색깔의 옷이라도 2년동안 입어야 된다면 분명히 모두 자살해버릴 것이다. 그리고 헌법재판소 역시 이번에도 틀림없이 이들의 고통에는 민감하게 반응 할 것이다

Conscription & Drafts kill the military and make a poor quality armed force.

Ymanchun, excellent post mate, thanks for putting that information up. It confirms what my students and their parents tell me as well.

Harold C. Hutchison could not tell shite from shinola. Toys do not make one a power. You need wealth (which can be acquired) and a population base (which cannot).

The possibilities in the future are; US, Japan, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, possibly (Nigeria, Brazil). Forget about the nations that now comprise Europe. Many nations can be regional "powers." but "rich" countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and the tiny princedoms of Europe do not have a population base to be world powers.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Conscription & Drafts kill the military and make a poor quality armed force.

I don't think that's necessarily true in all cases. I think the issue of conscription should be judged on case by case basis rather than as a whole personally.

The quality of the armed forces' training and service time should be taken account. But most importantly, a strong and well-established military culture and tradition in one's country is the most important factor to be taken into consideration.

That's the problem with my country. The military has never been a respected organization since the Joseon dynasty despite its importance and symbol of national pride. Especially, the mindset of the younger generation, which I find to be "unrealistic" in our case. I call it "unrealistic" because we're surrounded by powerful neighbors or enemies, and we're one of the most nationalistic people (rise in willingness to serve/enlist strongly correlates with rising nationalism) but not many people want to serve their country.

israel dose not want to be a superpower. it wishes only to exist as a sovreign state. it dose not use its (aleeged) nuclear weapons as a stick, and makes all efforts to keep its nuclear status vague. so israel dose not want to play major league politics, just survive.

I cannot ever see Israel ever becoming a "Superpower" in the accepted sense of the word.

Although they have a great military infrastructure and are thought to have a relatively powerful nuclear capability, I feel that their forces will always be fully engaged just keeping their neighbours at arms length. Their nuclear threat is very limited in it's application in the case of their close neighbours and could only be used as an absolute last resort because of the possibility of contaminating their own country with huge doses of fallout.

Israel is in the unenviable position of being like the elephant besieged by ants. Unless they make a fair peace with their neighbours they will be continually fighting them, never able to rest.

Yes, I have no doubt that Israel has the best led and equipped forces in the region and can punch well above it's weight, but with only a small population of 7 million and not being self sufficient in many types of basic materials to support their military industries they will never be a true "Superpower".

Now China,... that is a cat of a completely different colour. Although I feel that logistics are going to be a bit of a stumbling block for some time with them in anything other than local expansion. But for how long I have no idea. They are certainly a force to be reckoned with.

Conscription & Drafts kill the military and make a poor quality armed force.

There was an article in the local paper where those who were drafted in Viet Nam said getting rid of National Service was one of the biggest mistakes the federal government had made, claiming it made boys into men.