Who can name what and where is this church?

Here are this year’s current Korea Finder Leader’s Board:

Mark-5

Peekstr – 1

James – 1

Note that who ever totals the most points at the end of the year, I will purchase for them a Korea related book or DVD of their choice using the proceeds I have accumulated by people purchasing books from Amazon.com on my website.

Like the new marriage policy, I like the new battle buddy policy as well:

A revised 2nd Infantry Division “battle buddy” policy keeps the off-post system voluntary but spells out responsibilities and potential punishments.

The policy of leaving post with at least one other person remains “highly encouraged but not mandatory,” a phrase bolded and underlined in the policy letter signed by 2nd ID commander Maj. Gen. James Coggin and issued Friday.

However, commanders O-5 and above have the authority to impose mandatory battle-buddy restrictions on soldiers as they deem necessary.

If a commander does impose a mandatory battle-buddy policy, a soldier’s failure to look after a buddy “may be considered a dereliction of duty if the soldier knowingly or negligently fails to make reasonable efforts to intervene,” according to the policy.

But soldiers must not intervene if doing so would cause “increased danger” to others, the policy says.

The policy “doesn’t mean that (a soldier) will interfere with what ROK/U.S. law enforcement is doing,” said 2nd ID Staff Judge Advocate Lt. Col. Walt Hudson in a response to an e-mail query.

I have never been a fan of the mandatory battle buddy policy that has been used before in 2ID.  It should be encouraged but not mandatory which is what this policy is doing.  Here are some examples of why I don’t like mandatory enforcement.  What if you have a boy/girlfriend on another camp and want to meet he/she somewhere for a date, but you can’t leave your camp without a battle buddy.  Another example is that if you had a Korean boy/girlfriend, to go on a date you would have to have your battle buddy with you the whole time.  Another reason to not make it mandatory is that it give supervisors leverage on soldiers.  If a soldier is behaving poorly supervisors can counsel and recommend to the commander that the soldier should have a mandatory battle buddy. 

Now the punitive nature of the dereliction of duty for a soldier not keeping a battle buddy out of trouble will be interesting to see enforced.  I understand the spirit of it but I have to wonder about the practicality. 

Overall though, with all the other restrictions on 2ID soldiers at least they don’t need a battle buddy anymore. 

Nomad, Marmot, and OFK (especially funny) have great postings on President Roh’s number one fan.

Another reason why I would never drink Korean water:

Uranium levels 54.6 times the U.S. standard were found in water supplies in a village near Icheon, about 25 miles northeast of Osan Air Base, according to a South Korean government environmental report.

South Korea’s Ministry of Environment said it was not ready last week to release its full uranium survey of 93 sites in South Korea, but it issued a news release on its findings.

“None of the nationwide locations included where U.S. military installations are positioned,” Yoon Jung-gi of the National Institute of Environment Research told Stripes.

Uranium levels measured 1,640 micrograms per liter in Janpyeong-ri village near Icheon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Web site mandates that safe drinking water remain under 30 micrograms of uranium per liter. South Korea does not have its own standard.

“Most drinking water sources have very low levels of radioactive contaminants (“radionuclides”), most of which are naturally occurring, although contamination of drinking water sources from human-made nuclear materials can also occur,” the EPA says on its Web site.

Exposure to high levels of uranium can be toxic to the liver, according to the EPA.

When a man from Janpyeong-ri had his hair tested by U.S.-based Trace Elements last year, the laboratory found uranium levels 302 times the safe level, according to South Korean media reports.

It isn’t just uranium in the drinking water that is contaminating people as well:

Meanwhile, a survey of elementary school students released last month showed 2.42 parts per billion of mercury in their blood, compared to 0.34 ppb in the United States, according to the survey.

The survey did not indicate reasons for the higher levels. Mercury can affect neurological development in fetuses and young children, according to the EPA.

This news makes the claims about polluted USFK military bases seem pretty hollow.  Once again I ask, where is Green Korea?

Today news came out that pollution in Asia is changing Pacific Ocean weather patterns:

Pollution from Asia is helping generate stronger storms over the North Pacific, according to new research. Changes in the North Pacific storm track could have an impact on weather across the Northern Hemisphere. Satellite measurements have shown an increase in tiny particles generated from coal burning in China and India in recent decades, researchers report in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

If Asian countries like China and India are causing so much pollution than why aren’t environmentalists demanding they implement the Kyoto Protocol?  It is because they are considered "developing nations" and are exempt from the protocol.  This is the fundamental weakness of the Kyoto Protocol because it picks and chooses who would have to cut emissions.  If the threat of global warming is so great than why isn’t everyone required to cut green house gas emissions? 

So how does global warming and the Kyoto Protocol effect Korea?  Fortunately for Korea, not much because they are considered a "developing country":

For the time being, Korea is freed from concerns over the impact of the climate pact on the economy as it is categorized as a developing country.

The Kyoto Protocol requires only industrialized economies to accept obligations to cut emissions of carbon dioxide to an average 5.2 percent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, as “a first step.’’

I always find it humorous that Korea is considered a developing nation.  Korea is not a developing nation.  Korea has hosted the Olympics, the World Cup, and a APEC summit to form a short list of the many international events they have hosted.  A developing nation would not be able to host such events or have the world’s 11th largest economy. The developing nation tag is just something the Korean government uses as political cover to avoid having to implement the Kyoto Protocol. 

So what effect would the Kyoto Protocol have on Korea?:

However, many industrialized countries are expected to suggest Korea should adopt similar obligations beyond 2012 as Korea is one of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations and the 9^th biggest green gas producing country in the world.

If Korea has to comply with the climate pact, the report warned it would probably lose its competitiveness against China and India, both of which refused to accept the protocol, especially in the manufacturing sectors.

“The costs facing Korea from policies to reduce its emissions to meet any Kyoto target would exacerbate the stiff competitiveness challenge it already faces with China and India, which will never accept a binding Kyoto target,’’ the report concluded.

Korea shares the same position as the United States that economic growth shouldn’t be sacrificed unless all economic competitors share that same sacrifice.  Take a look at Japan the name sake of the Kyoto Protocol.  Japan is an industrial and manufacturing nation that has tried to do everything possible to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol and reduce greenhouse emissions, but Japan has not been able to do and has actually increased overall greenhouse gases:

The Kyoto Protocol entered into force in February last year, more than seven years after it was adopted at the third Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP3, in the ancient Japanese capital in late 1997. Under the protocol, industrialized countries must reduce their emissions of several greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels during the first commitment period of 2008-12. The protocol sets separate gas-reduction targets for individual industrialized countries — 6% in Japan’s case.

Despite its firm commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, however, Japan’s emissions have actually risen by 8% from 1990.

Resource-poor Japan, which imports almost all of its oil, has made strenuous energy-saving efforts and technological innovation since the two oil crises of the 1970s. The country is now the most energy-efficient in the industrialized world and faces great difficulties making further dents in greenhouse-gas emissions through domestic measures alone, such as further energy-saving efforts and carbon "sink" plantation projects.

This example of Japan is what I have always found hypocritical about the Kyoto Protocol.  The economy of a nation like Switzerland is based around non-polluting industries, which make implementing the protocol easy for them compared to a manufacturing nation like Japan.  However, what if the protocol forced nations who signed the agreement to not purchase any products from countries that did not implement or meet the standards of the protocol?

That would leave countries like Switzerland without the products that they rely on manufacturing nations to provide for them.  I think these nations would not have signed the agreement under those circumstances and at the very least would have to resume manufacturing within their own countries to produce these products increasing emissions in their own country.  By keeping the agreement the way it is now these same countries can play the holier than thou card while still enjoying all the benefits of buying cheap goods from "developing nations".  How is an agreement like this considered caring about the environment?

From the Chosun:

In a faraway country, surrounded by desert in all directions, the South Korean soldiers hung the poster to express their longing for their families back home. "We’re often stressed here,” a senior officer said. “It’s an ascetic life in the desert" — just as monks meditate deep in the mountains to seek after religious truth. Daiman officers are racking their brains to prevent combat stress-related accidents.

Combat stress is a mental condition soldiers start to suffer around three months after they are dispatched to combat zones. They feel depressed and lose their temper easily over mere trifles, resulting in firearms-related accidents. This kind of stress is the biggest concern for senior officers with troops stationed overseas. The condition is common among the 2,500 South Korean soldiers stationed in eight areas, including Daiman, Irbil in northern Iraq, and the Dongui Medical Unit and the Dasan Engineering Unit in Afghanistan, where Sgt. Yoon Jang-ho was last week killed in a bomb attack.

Combat stress from making toilets?  First of all, if the soldiers feel like their monks in the mountains meditating, that just shows they have to much time on their hands.  When I was in Iraq I was constantly busy on missions, patrols, guard duty, meetings, etc.  I had no time to be a monk and meditate and treasured what little sleep I was able to get. 

Let me also remind everyone that in Irbil where the ROK Army contingent is stationed is not a combat zone.  It is located in Iraqi Kurdistan.  Kurdistan is where the US soldiers go for R&R.  There is a hotel on a lake up in Kurdistan where US soldiers can go to chill out for a few days before going back to their units.  So basically the Korean combat zone is the US military R&R zone.  The Daiman unit mentioned in the article is in Kuwait which also is not a combat zone.  Really the only ROK Army unit in a combat zone is the engineers and medics at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, which was proven with the casualty of SSG Yoon Chang-ho this past week. 

If the Korean government would let the soldiers deployed abroad, who all volunteered to be there, act like soldiers, they probably wouldn’t be "depressed and losing their temper easily" or thinking they are monks up in the mountains with "combat stress".  I have said this since the day the Zaytun unit was first deployed, if Korea isn’t going to allow the soldiers to be soldiers because the government does not have the political will to accept casualties, than don’t send them.  The proud ROK Army deserves better than appear to be a window dressing Army.

Can someone please tell me where is Green Korea on this?:

A bill that would allow seven national parks to be developed without concern for the environment is under consideration in the National Assembly, triggering a dispute among government offices, civic groups and lawmakers.

According to the Ministry of Environment, the Assembly’s Construction and Transportation Committee is likely to endorse the bill, which applies mainly to the development of the south and east coast, on Monday.

The bill would make studies on the environmental effects of construction in these areas non-binding.

The seven areas to be affected are Mt. Chiri, Hallyo, Wolchul, Kaya, Tokyu and Naejang national parks.

Kim Seok-joon, a lawmaker in the committee evaluating the bill, said the measure is essential to develop the eastern and southern part of the country.

He said that the government was only concentrating on the west coast, but the bill would also bring attention to other parts of the country.

For those that don’t know the word "development" in Korea is actually code word for allowing the building of even more apartments.  Korea’s national parks are quite beautiful and I’m willing to bet the developers want to build apartments on the national park land because they can charge higher fees to sell the apartments because of views of the parks.  I have to wonder the next time I go to Kayasan if I’m going to see an apartment complex next to Haeinsa temple? 

I find it interesting that Green Korea protested harder about a minor issue like the 2000 water dumping incident than about the "development" of seven national parks with more on the way.  How come Green Korea isn’t protesting the government and rioting in front of Cheongwadae like they do when they are protesting USFK?  I think it is safe to say we know the answer to that one.

OFK has the latest on the failures of the US State Department to aid North Korean refugees in China.  The US Consulate in Shenyang’s actions directly led to six North Korean refugees being captured and returned to at best a life in gulag in North Korea.

I posed the question earlier if the XK2 tank was next generation defense or a potential money maker? Well the answer to this question is emerging:

Turkey is considering purchasing South Korea’s new amphibious main battle tank unveiled last week for its next-generation tank procurement project, a military source said yesterday.

However, the Korean Main Battle Tank called XK2 is not the only option on the market. The French Army’s Leclerc is also a consideration, the source said on condition of anonymity.

“Chances are very high that South Korea could win the bid because Turkey’s Army and military officials trust our defense technologies more than those of France, the source was quoted as saying by the Yonhap News Agency in Seoul.

An official at the state-run Agency for the Defense Development (ADD), the main developer of the XK2, confirmed Seoul’s full-fledged efforts to export the tank to Turkey and other countries.

I would be surprised if the XK2 is not exported to Turkey because Turkey has already fielded the Korean K9 SPS system and France has been pushing to keep Turkey out of the European Union so why would they buy tanks from France?

HT: Commenter

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but the NY Times has now joined the astroturfing campaign to create a perception that there is a “growing” movement in the military to oppose the war in Iraq. If you haven’t read about the astroturfing campaign then you really need to read my prior posting on Exposing the GI Fifth Column, before reading any further because you probably won’t understand half the things I’m about to talk about.

In this NY Times column they continue the media campaign to create an image of this “growing” anti-war movement in the military:

In a small but growing sign of dissent, a group of active-duty military personnel and reservists, including many who have served in Iraq, is denouncing the war and asking Congress for the prompt withdrawal of troops.

The service members, who number more than 1,600, have sent an Appeal for Redress to their Congressional representatives, a form of protest permitted by military rules. Most of those who signed the appeal, at www.appealforredress.org, are enlisted soldiers in the Army, from the lowest to the highest ranks.

(…)

The protest, which was started in October by two active-duty service members and is sponsored by three antiwar groups, initially drew 65 signatures, growing to more than 1,300 by February. This week, after the CBS News program 60 Minutes reported on the appeal, about 300 more active-duty soldiers joined the campaign, said Petty Officer Third Class Jonathan Hutto of the Navy, a co-founder of the group behind the appeal.

Look who has popped up again our man Jonathan Hutto. Notice no mention in the NY Times column about Hutto’s past Amnesty International and anti-war activities prior to enlisting. Also notice no mention was made of the fact that a real grassroots effort to counter the Appeal for Redress fifth column by the milblogs, Appeal for Courage, has nearly equaled their petition. Appeal for Courage has only been active for two weeks and does not have access to big money, the largest liberal public relations firm, 200 newspapers, CBS, Yahoo, and now the NY Times backing it like Appeal for Redress has. Plus Appeal for Redress has been active since last October. The real “growing” movement is Appeal for Courage which is something that will never grace the pages of the NY Times.

Now let’s take a look at who else is mentioned in the article:

There is a sense of betrayal, said Specialist Linsay Burnett, 26, who recently returned from Iraq with the First Brigade combat team of the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. The division is readying for its third deployment.

These soldiers stand up to fight, to protect their country, but we are now on the fifth reason as to why it is we are in Iraq, added Specialist Burnett, who has served as a public affairs specialist and as a military journalist focusing primarily on the infantry. How many reasons are we going to come up with for keeping us over there?

A new name, Specialist Linsay Burnett, so who exactly is this person that is able to get quoted in the NY Times? Via great work from Blackfive we now know exactly who Linsay Burnett really is:

With the exception of this year’s freshman class, odds are good that everyone else on campus has already met or at least seen senior Linsay Rousseau Burnett. Between her role as Student Assembly president, her numerous on-campus activities and her various off-campus responsibilities, Linsay has become one of the College’s most recognizable students.

Linsay has worked with the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and the Student Environmental Activist Coalition since her freshman year and credits part of her devotion to these causes to the influence of her parents.

“I’ve always been a feminist. My parents raised me that way, and women’s issues have always been important to me,” Linsay said. “[In addition,] my parents are both environmentalists. They work for the National Park Service. Environmental issues are something we can’t ignore, although we try to, especially when there are so many things around here we could change.”

The Tidewater Labor Support Committee is another organization that Linsay has been involved in since her freshman year. She has involved herself extensively with the Living Wage campaign, although the William and Mary Union has lately taken on many of the students’ former duties.

“We’ve accomplished a lot, but we’re not done,” Linsay said. “Now we serve as a voice for the campus.”

Last year Linsay co-founded and co-directed the College branch of Amnesty International, an organization for which she has worked in the past.

“We still have a ways to go [with the organization], but there are some really good people who have taken over leadership this year who will make sure the organization grows and makes a name for itself on campus,” Linsay said.

Imagine that, another Amnesty International member suddenly enlisting into the military after the war in Iraq was already launched. Then both of them just happened to be part of the same “growing” anti-war movement in the military and coincidentally just happened to be quoted together in a NY Times column.

Let’s look further into SPC Burnett’s past like what she was doing right after 9/11:

A group of over 10 students from the College of William and Mary will fast for 56 hours beginning Nov. 7 at 9 a.m. to protest U.S. bombings in Afghanistan. Their protest is part of the “Fast for Peace,” an event taking place simultaneously at colleges nationwide.

Sophomore Amy Smith and junior Derek Bishop, the campus coordinators for the event, along with fellow protesters, will be wearing white armbands to symbolize their solidarity as they begin their liquid-only fast.

“I am outraged by the travesty that occurred on Sept. 11, and my thoughts and prayers are with all of the victims’ families,” Smith said. “However, to respond by killing people, we are committing the same crime that we abhor. As a nation, we seek peace and security, and acts of violence will never be capable of restoring security.”

During the fast, the protesters will be willing to answer questions and explain their actions and beliefs, according to Smith. Smith and Bishop heard about the fast from friends at other colleges and began researching how to involve the College.

“There are currently 10 people that will definitely be fasting, but the list is progressively growing as we get the word out,” junior Linsay Burnett, a participant of the fast, said.

Interesting, let’s dig even deeper into SPC Burnett’s past. Here you can see how on January 24, 2003, less than two months before the beginning of the Iraq War she suddenly resigns as the student assembly president and withdraws from college due to “medical circumstances”:

“Due to medical circumstances, I am withdrawing from school and cannot continue to serve as your president. However, our school needs a strong student voice now more than ever. The cabinet is completely capable of continuing its work in my absence, and this is what I hope they will be able to do. Due to our rather elusive constitution (a new one will take effect next year), it is possible that a new election will be held, a new cabinet picked and all the work from this year wasted. With this unfortunate timing, the work of the newly elected administration could not even take off before the elections in April.

Her “medical circumstances” were serious enough for her to drop out of college, but she is suddenly miraculously healed and wants to serve her country when just a few years prior after 9/11 she was protesting and fasting in response to the US bombings in Afghanistan. I guess anything is possible.

So what did she have to say while deployed in Iraq you might wonder? Well this is what she had to say in December 2005:

Ralph Nader voters are not as scarce in the Army as you might think. I’ve actually met two in previous trips to Iraq. Spc. Linsay Burnett was the third. But that was just the beginning. Burnett, a 2003 graduate of the College of William & Mary, is probably the least likely soldier I have ever met. What caught my attention was that she was reading Johnny Got His Gun, a classic antiwar novel of World War I. Then it turned out that she was a Nader supporter, vegetarian, labor organizer, founder of an Amnesty International chapter, and former war protester. Not the typical model of a modern soldier.

At the time of the initial invasion, Burnett thought it was a mistake.

“When it first happened,” she says, “I was on the streets protesting with everyone else.” She says she was supportive of the effort to remove Saddam Hussein but skeptical about how America went about it.

Today, she supports the military’s efforts to help create a democracy in Iraq. She says she believes the United States is trying to teach the Iraqis useful things, trying to improve their organization–something near and dear to her heart. But she still wonders how feasible it will be to help make Iraq into a functioning democracy.

So how does she go from “she supports the military’s efforts to help create a democracy in Iraq” to “There is a sense of betrayal” now? Could it be she didn’t want to blow her cover in December 2005 and waited until becoming political active against the military when the Appeal for Redress was launched in October 2006?

Clearly since the leftist groups cannot get an anti-war movement within the ranks of the military started, they have instead decided to create the perception of one by using these plants from Amnesty International. I’m curious to how many more Amnesty International members are within the ranks? Some may wonder why someone would be willing to enlist if they fundamentally dislike the military.

Think about it, by enlisting like they have, it gives them for lack of a better word, “creditability”. So when they exit the military and begin to attack the military like they did prior to enlisting, it makes it more difficult for their opponents to criticize them when they served in the military. Granted they have picked the least dangerous jobs available, but they can still play the veteran card, which makes their opponents have to say every time “I respect your service to your country, but….”, just like critics of Murtha and Kerry have to do. This isn’t the first time that Burnett has been willing to go undercover for a cause she believes in:

Although all her unpaid activities might seem to be enough for any one person to handle, Linsay also has a job. She works as a bartender and a waitress at an exotic dance club; however, her job is part of the research that she is doing in order to write a Sociology Honors Thesis on the effects of globalization on sex workers.

“I’m researching how the economy effects how much they make, why they do what they do, and how seeing all that drips to this one little club,” Linsay said.

Like I have said before I don’t care if they want to speak out on something they believe in, what I don’t like is the dishonesty of the way they are doing it. I wouldn’t have a problem if they came clean and told everyone of their past and current affiliations like SPC Burnett did in the US News article. Why is SPC Burnett not coming clean on her past now in the NY Times article? Also the fundraising Appeal for Redress is doing is quasi illegal. Compare that to the Appeal for Courage site where there is no fundraising effort. I also have a problem with the financial and public relations backing the Appeal for Redress crew is getting through Fenton Communications.

If my website was being backed and promoted by Fox News, wouldn’t I have the moral responsibility to tell everyone that and put a logo or something on my site saying I’m a Fox News contributor? Why doesn’t Appeal for Redress put logos on their site of the people that are really behind them instead of using front groups? Because it goes against the carefully crafted image of a “grassroots” effort that Fenton Communications is trying to create. They are not a “grassroots” movement and are in fact part of a cleverly crafted campaign by Fenton Communications to create an image of “growing” dissent within the military.

The big question I am wondering is who came up with the idea to encourage these people to enlist? Was it Amnesty International’s idea of was it Fenton Communications’? Either way it is amazing to me the efforts these people are willing to go to in order to attack the military and in turn the Bush Administration. I wish Amnesty International would show this much dedication and resolve in combating human rights offensives and sexual slavery happening in China right now. How come they can’t get anyone to go undercover into China and speak out against them? Obviously because America is the easy target. Nothing is going to happen to these frauds that enlisted and if anything this enhances their career aspects within the liberal establishment.

Compare that to if they went undercover in China to report on human rights abuses there and were caught, they would end up in jail. That is why I have no respect for these people because the real human rights abusers they have no courage to confront while they gleefully go after the easy target, America.

Is it the same reason cowardly politicians, like Congressman Mike Honda attack Japan with their holier than thou campaigns and make excuses for China, because Japan is also an easy target. I would like to see Hutto, Burnett, and the rest of their crew try and do their undercover work in let’s say Chechnya or North Korea. I would then have some respect for them and Amnesty International. However, countries like China & North Korea Amnesty International will only continue to send naughty letters to, while the US military they will continue to send their undercover plants to back by a huge and elaborate media campaign. I could go on and on about the hypocrisy of these frauds, but just exposing their dishonesty should be enough for people to realize what their true agendas are.

You can read more over at Milblogs.