Did the SK government waive the right to litigate the “accident” of the most recent 2 SK girls that were ran over in a training exercise in 2002?
There was quite a large and vocal protest by the SK populace to have the individuals tried in the SK legal system.
Do you believe that this 2002 incident ranks as high as the UN recent ruling about historical sites that span PRC, NK, and SK?[/quote]
From this and other posts on Forumosa, I see that you really are the connoisseur of all things anti-USA. Is that still allowed under the new Homeland security laws? Methinks you are a borderline enemy of the state, no? Aren’t you glad you don’t live in the PRC so that you can be an enemy of your own state and still not be imprisoned?
“For the very reason that we oppose aggression by others, we also oppose committing acts of aggression against others ourselves… The Chinese nation also opposes imperialists committing acts of aggression against other countries… Therefore we must sympathise with the independent liberation movements of other nation states. We must thus not only support the anti-Japanese movements of Korea and Taiwan as well as the Nations of the Balkans and of Africa against German-Italian aggression, but we must also sympathise with the national liberation movements of India, South East Asia and others.”[/quote]
Cool. However, it’s moot.
Zhou En Lai’s CCP successors did not survive in the current CCP regime. His thought died with him (unfortunately). Thus, anything he said, promoted, does not have any merit or standing in the current CCP doctrine. He’s not referred to. It’s doctrinal death.
That’s the whole reason why Deng Xiaoping and now Jiang Zemin try so hard to establish their “thought” into the CCP doctrine so that they will last way past their deaths and allow their “cliques” to survive and thrive.
Typical dynastic political intrigue… in the 21st century.
So my point was that this document doesn’t mean anything to the current PRC government. They don’t give a toss what they promised in the past. PRC ideology changes to suit their present needs.
The wider point (outside of this thread) is more significant. The statements of Mao and Zhou, are historical indications that, contrary to contemporary PRC ideology, Taiwan has not always been thought of as an inseparable part fo China. Seeing as the PRC’s main argument in favour of unification seems to be a mindless and unreasoned repitition of the slogan “Taiwan is an inseperable part of Chiense territory”, the fact that they only decided this after WW2 is very relevant.
Did the SK government waive the right to litigate the “accident” of the most recent 2 SK girls that were ran over in a training exercise in 2002?
There was quite a large and vocal protest by the SK populace to have the individuals tried in the SK legal system.
[/quote]
If you really want to talk about the tank/schoolchildren incident or the issue of prostitution in Korea as it relates to the US military or the issue of the stunted development of the “keejichon” (military towns) in the ROK, etc. I’ll oblige, but frankly, you’re going have to do a little more on your part. (Warning: the anti-USFK sites are not where you want to do your research, trust me on this.)
You made the following statement:
“USA military personnel raping and killing SK civilians with impunity outside SK legal system.”
I believe I have satisfactorily refuted your claim. A summary of sorts of what I said in my previous post:
ROK has jurisdiction over all US SOFA civilians.
ROK has first right to exercise jurisdiction over all US military personnel except in two limited areas:
Incidents during the performance of official duty
US offender committing an offense against the US or a US SOFA person
USFK crimes for 2002
37,000 USFK service members
Committed 392 crimes
More than 55% were traffic accidents
Zero murder, manslaughter, rape or arson
ROK had jurisdictional rights in 300 cases
ROK elected to retain jurisdiction in 20 cases
But what about the specific case I’m referring to. The one that caused the mass protest and might have been a key event in getting Roh into office.
Throwing out statistics to my inquiry, instead of providing realpolitik of the case in terms of did SK relinquish rights to arbitrate the case, seems to be avoiding the question.
SK is really outside my interest at this time, so my inquiry are genuine and not an attempt of entrapment for debating points.
[quote]It has been revealed that Taiwan’s Chinese Language Education Center under its Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission (OCOA) has taught Chinese people across the world that Korea was a Chinese colony on the grounds that it used Chinese characters in the past.
According to the cyber-diplomacy group Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK) on Sunday, in introducing Korea to overseas Chinese and foreigners in OCOA’s website, the center said, “It is natural that Korea has been affected by China since it was once a colony of China. Historical evidence proves it,” adding, “Koreans traditionally used the sound and meaning of Chinese characters in making their names and places’ names. Although Korea officially abolished the use of Chinese characters, there are many similarities between the pronunciation of Korean and Chinese.”[/quote]
I didn’t see anything like that on the website of the OCAC (not “OCOA”). But it could be there somewhere, copied from some fossilized work.
It seems Beijing has agreed not to lay claim to Koguryo. I guess Beijing didn`t anticipate how this issue would unite the ruling and opposition parties in Seoul.
It just find it ironic that Korea, an independent nation of China, would be up in arms about territory in the PRC of an ancient kingdom.
The people in Taiwan, wanting to be an independent nation of China, would be up in arms if the PRC tried to make any historical connect to Taiwan through an ancient historical kingdom.
But what about the specific case I’m referring to. The one that caused the mass protest and might have been a key event in getting Roh into office.
Throwing out statistics to my inquiry, instead of providing realpolitik of the case in terms of did SK relinquish rights to arbitrate the case, seems to be avoiding the question.
SK is really outside my interest at this time, so my inquiry are genuine and not an attempt of entrapment for debating points.[/quote]
the tank accident is EXACTLY why the sofa exists. the drivers were found guilty of negligent homocide. what would be the point of trying them in a sk court? the calls for a trial were a political movement trying to leverage the tragic event into an anti-us platform.
seriously, why would the us want to hand over 2 servicemen who made a mistake and were punnished just so they can become political scapegoats in the sk political arena?
please explain why YOU think sk should have been given custody of 2 us servicemen who had a tragic accident while on official duty. do you think it was premeditated? do you think the they ran over the girls on purpose? i’m guessing that’s why you put the word accident in quotes.
If we agree that sofa and SK judicial system would have found them guilt. What case is there not to try them in the SK judicial system.
It would have been politically better for the USA to do that to repair relationship with SK. But instead we gave the SK a reason to elect an openly anti-USA president into office.
For an openly anti-USA president, he sure was quick to want to commit Korean troops to Iraq even with massive protests from the people. I think he ran more on a pro-Korean reform platform than explicitly anti-American.
huh? how is a public show trial of us soldiers fanning anti-us resentment “repairing” the relationship? how does seeing us soldiers tried in a sk court make koreans LESS likely to elect an anti-us president?
please explain why you put the word accident in quotes. do you not think it was an accident? do you believe they ran over the girls on purpose?
My position is that it doesn’t matter where the soldiers were tried. The results would have been the same. USA pressuring of SK legal system is the same as trying the individuals in SOFA. So whether the unfortunately death was an accident or pre-mediated is beside the point.
But by trying them in the SK courts. You give the perception of being sympathetic to the SK people. Then you wouldn’t end up with the less experience politician that is basically fighting his own impeachment while trying to settle things in NK and USA.
The SK political system is even more partisan and corrupt than Taiwan, if you can believe that such a thing can exist.
there was no pressuring of the sk legal system. by law, those us soldiers should have been tried by the us and they were.
you still haven’t explained why you originally put the word accident in quotes. are you avoiding my question or just thinking up a way to cover your ass for your knee-jerk anti-us bias?
[quote=“Taichungmafia”]It seems Beijing has agreed not to lay claim to Koguryo.[/quote]It would be my guess that they are not abandoning this claim, just putting it on the back burner for a while. Note that they will not retract the offending statements from the website in question, just asked the Koreans not to make noise about it…
I put in quotes because I don’t know exactly what they were charged with. Vehicular Manslaughter, Homicide, Murder, Negligence, DWI etc. The list is “endless” with the types of legally defined “accidents” and associated punishments.
Craps there was no legal reason to hold a recount on Taiwan either. But when you have a mass protest in a democracy, its usually good from perception management point of view, to at least toss a bone to the masses. The SK masses didn’t even get a bone for their troubles is all I’m suggesting.
hsiadogah,
What’s the offending statement? They have no official statement on the website if I read the news correct. Isn’t this the case of the SK trying to impose a statement on the PRC on the matter.
It would be like a ROC website with no Dutch information on it. Then one day the Netherlands stalls on the delivery of our USA submarines until the ROC has an official website proclaiming Taiwan as a colony of the Dutch and how great it was to be a Dutch colony. Not to mention that the Netherlands have shown signs of pursue an expanist policy in Asia, starting with past Taiwan colonial claims.
Wouldn’t it be prudent to not make a statement in this type of environment.