Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
No doubt there was little in the way of reconstruction for the South in the post war but that has little to do with the argument. They remained secure on the backs of the US government and military.
|
I don't think it was exactly a process of reconstruction that was the only thing limiting freedoms in South Korea, but power of chaebols (corporate congmelorates) that saw it efficient to keep the striking workers and trade unions at bay. Something that can be seen in China nowadays. I don't think there were really that much to reconstruct anyway as Korea was a rather underdeveloped country and surely not fully recovered from the japanese occupation. But I agree, maybe it directly isn't on-topic - but I just wished to point out that Korean war wasn't one of these imported-democracy projects.
And if I'm not mistaken, south koreans are pretty fed up with the US troops stationed there because all those rapings and everything...
My main point was just that there is only so much things one can justify with the phrase "you owe us, we saved you from the communists/fascists/etc.". Do all countries once saved by the US troops lose their right to sovereignty? 
Quote:
|
As for the dig about South Korea's economic prowess, they show quite a bit of promise and are light years ahead of their Northern brethren in virtually every standard.
|
I didn't compare them to their northern neighbours - most countries in the world are far better off than poor North Koreans. You might be right that South isn't doing so bad right now, but what I meant is that the days of economical supergrowth (read: cheap labour) are over.