Some people have no clue. Regards a quote from a South Korean human rights advocate.. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 03:27 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun23.html

Quote:

In S. Korea, Grief Mixes With Anger
Close U.S. Ties Blamed For Troop Deployment
By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 24, 2004; Page A18

SEOUL, June 23 -- The thump of a Buddhist monk's drum echoed through the neon-laced avenues of central Seoul. The sound was a solemn soundtrack for hundreds of South Koreans offering sticks of traditional incense in protest and remembrance on Wednesday, a day after the beheading in Iraq of their countryman, Kim Sun Il.

But in a nation where most citizens are opposed to the government's involvement in Iraq, the anger was directed not only at the extremists who decapitated Kim, 33, a translator known mostly for his religious devotion and gentle manners. It also was focused on the long-standing U.S.-South Korean alliance, which many see at the core of the tragedy and which is polarizing this country of 48 million in a manner unseen since the Korean War.

Kim's captors executed him on Tuesday after the South Korean government rejected their demands to pull out of the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. The reaction to his death appears to further delineate a national schism between those in favor and those against the half-century-old friendship with the United States, while generating a fresh wave of anti-American sentiment.

"This was not our war. We are there out of responsibility to our alliance with the United States," said Park Eun Joo, 28, a human rights activist, who was weeping by an incense pyre and holding a sign demanding "South Korean Troops Out of Iraq."

"But the truth is the Iraqi people don't want us there -- it is that simple," she said. "Yes, I blame the militants for what happened. But I also blame George Bush for pressuring South Koreans to go against our will. Now, an innocent South Korean is dead."

Nearby on the sidewalk, however, Kim Bit Nari, 18, shouted at the protesters. "Sometimes a Korean has to die for his country!" she said. A music major at a local university, Kim expressed strong support for good relations with the United States: "Look, South Korea is a weak country; we just can't protect ourselves alone in this world."

South Korea dispatched 660 medical and engineering troops to Iraq last year, acting on a U.S. request. After months of delay, the Seoul government last week firmed up plans to send its main contingent of 3,000 troops -- a mobilization that will make the South Koreans the largest foreign force in Iraq after the United States and Britain.

Unlike other allies involved in Iraq, South Korea's leaders have not focused on the war in moral terms. Rather, the nation's participation has been pitched to a largely skeptical populace as a necessary evil. If South Korea sends troops to Iraq, the government has argued, the Bush administration is likely to moderate its position in dealing with North Korea. While the United States has taken a hard line on North Korea's illicit nuclear program, South Korean officials are aiming at rapprochement with Kim Jong Il's government in Pyongyang.

Many South Koreans still emphasize the importance of the U.S. alliance, forged in repelling the 1950 invasion from the North. Opponents of President Roh Moo Hyun view a warming to Pyongyang, and rising anti-Americanism here, as dangerous for the long-term security of South Korea.

South Koreans appeared in a state of shock over Kim's death. The news arrived at about 2 a.m., meaning the nation woke up to newspapers blaring headlines of false hope that his execution had been stayed. That hope was based on rumors circulating Tuesday that Kim's captors, a group said to be linked to al Qaeda, had delayed killing him.

As Roh stuck by his pledge to dispatch troops, lawmakers were demanding that the government clarify its handling of Kim's kidnapping. Statements by Kim's South Korean employers in Iraq -- which supplied food and clothing to the U.S. military -- indicated that U.S. authorities may have been aware of the kidnapping before South Korea's announcement last Friday that it would deploy its main contingent of troops in August.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that Kim apparently was kidnapped at the end of May, rather than on June 17, as initially reported. The North American bureau of the Foreign Ministry, according to the semi-official Yonhap News Agency, learned about the kidnapping from CNN. Al-Jazeera, the Arabic satellite television channel, first broadcast a tape of the hostage on Sunday. [On Thursday, Roh ordered a full investigation into the case in response to new disclosures, the Reuters news agency reported.]

A bipartisan group of 50 South Korean lawmakers signed a petition on Wednesday calling for the government to "halt and reconsider the additional dispatch" of troops. Experts said the measure was unlikely to muster immediate support in the National Assembly, but legislators are set to vote in September on extending the deployment beyond this year.

"If the U.S. kept information from us because they feared the information might have a negative effect on the dispatch, then that was cowardice," said Song Young Gil, a legislator from the Uri Party allied to Roh. "No matter what the reasons were, it is nonsense that they expect us to be the third largest allied country to send troops, when they cannot provide trust to an ally nation. The U.S. has totally lost its credibility by this behavior in the eyes of the Korean public."

Special correspondent Joohee Cho contributed to this report.

"This was not our war. We are there out of responsibility to our alliance with the Unite States."

Well genius, the same thing could have been said about the invasion of South Korea by the North 50 years ago. When you ally with somone you take the good and the bad it's a trade off. How many US citizens have been killed fighting for allied causes? Who will this man blame should the North Koreans take over the South again? Will it fall on themselves or will it be the US's fault then too? I have no doubt that it will be the latter.

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 03:52 AM

Well, that's true. Korea wasn't our war. If we had kept our nose out of it in the first place we wouldn't have driven the North Koreans to the communists. The Korean conflict started out as an independence drive, then after us superpowers got involved and split everyone up it became one of reunification.

I believe that Korea would be unified and maybe just slightly socialist (like europe) at most if we had all kept our hands out of that pot.

apeman · 06-24-2004, 03:57 AM

i think Iraq is probably better off than it was before the war - generally. however i also think a lot of Iraqis are very pissed off with their current living conditions. it was quite civilized before, albeit with a crazy dictator.

people aren't always going to be grateful for US intervention I'm afraid

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Well, that's true. Korea wasn't our war. If we had kept our nose out of it in the first place we wouldn't have driven the North Koreans to the communists. The Korean conflict started out as an independence drive, then after us superpowers got involved and split everyone up it became one of reunification.

I believe that Korea would be unified and maybe just slightly socialist (like europe) at most if we had all kept our hands out of that pot.

As I remember it, the North was getting support from the Communists before they invaded the South. The plan was to get the US and China to fight with Russia (Stalin) remaining outside of it all.

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
i think Iraq is probably better off than it was before the war - generally. however i also think a lot of Iraqis are very pissed off with their current living conditions. it was quite civilized before, albeit with a crazy dictator.

people aren't always going to be grateful for US intervention I'm afraid

No doubt about that. There are people who have every right to be pissed off at the situation and Iraqi civilians are right at the top of the list but my bitch is more about people who have no concept whatsoever of international relationships and historical alliances. This guy has his current freedom precisely because of the sacrifices made by Americans. Had North Korea been allowed to take South Korea the entire country would be in the same shambles that the North finds itself in now. Instead it's a country that's growing in importance on the world stage with outstanding prospects for the future (as long as Kim Jong doesn't get too much crazier).

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 04:48 AM

I'll have to hold off on making any further comments until I refresh myself on the history. I was always bigger into Vietnam history than Korean. I'm afraid I may end up injecting some Nam timeline unintentionally.

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I'll have to hold off on making any further comments until I refresh myself on the history. I was always bigger into Vietnam history than Korean. I'm afraid I may end up injecting some Nam timeline unintentionally.

The weapons and armament used in the initial invasion were distinctly Russian. T 34 tanks were used to crush the lightly outfitted Korean army and the woefully unprepared American forces in Korea. The initial invasion was so overwhelming that there was almost no resistance from the South. Ironically it was the failure of the South to put up much resistance that allowed McArthur to make his landing at Inchon and cut the supply lines feeding the invasion. Of course this success (and McArthur's miscalculation about the Chinese entering) lead to some horrible losses (Chosin Reservoir for one). Overall it was a pretty ugly little war fought in brutal conditions.

apeman · 06-24-2004, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
This guy has his current freedom precisely because of the sacrifices made by Americans. Had North Korea been allowed to take South Korea the entire country would be in the same shambles that the North finds itself in now. Instead it's a country that's growing in importance on the world stage with outstanding prospects for the future (as long as Kim Jong doesn't get too much crazier).

yes, I think I'd rather live in South Korea than North Korea now you mention it.

the bizarre thing is that Kim Il Jong is supposed to be well into cowboy films - how crazy is that?

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
yes, I think I'd rather live in South Korea than North Korea now you mention it.

the bizarre thing is that Kim Il Jong is supposed to be well into cowboy films - how crazy is that?

He is definitely out there. And what's with those Elvis like glasses he always wears? I just don't get it. I guess I'll never be able to grow up to be a dictator. I'm just not quirky enough.

Pacifier · 06-24-2004, 06:17 AM

ah it's "we helped you once, now you have to support every mistake we make" again

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pacifier
ah it's "we helped you once, now you have to support every mistake we make" again

That "once" has lasted for 50 years and is unlikely to decrease significantly in the near future. But I'm sure you're right we are completely out of our minds to expect any payback in support for our efforts. Their contribution of 600 or so support staff (ramping up to 3000) is more than equivalent payback to US efforts in support of their nation over the last 5 decades.

apeman · 06-24-2004, 07:57 AM

that's true

pehaps pacifier is referring to the D-Day anniversary, it was easy to get the impression that some Americans thought that all Europeans have to agree with everything George W Bush does because the Allied army liberated Europe.

Zeld2.0 · 06-24-2004, 08:55 AM

I'll give a few things from history books on the Cold War and other things (including Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger and We Now Know by John Lewis Gaddis)

North Korea's leader Kim Il Sung planned the invasion of South Korea by himself. He went to Stalin for authorization. Stalin, the head honcho of course, said okay but the Soviet Union would NOT intervene should the U.S. intervene. He authorized it only after Kim Il Sung reassured him that the U.S. would not get involved.

Kim then went to Mao in China for authorization also. Mao was not fully in support of Kim for he also feared American intervention. He was afraid America would use that as a screen for invading the rest of China and taking it back from the communists as they had failed a year earlier to support the Nationalists. Reluctantly, he also agreed based on the promise that America would not intervene and that Stalin had given approval to Kim.

In essence, Kim used Stalin and Mao to authorize an invasion on the premise that the U.S. would not intervene. He had good reason to believe that was true given that the majority of Americans did not even know there was a place called Korea. Furthermore, months earlier, Secretary of State Dean Acheson in a poorly worded speech left out Korea from the defensive perimeter in the Pacific. This led Kim to believe that the U.S. would stay out of its affairs.

Unfortunately for him, Truman and others were very passionate about containing communism by now after seeing events unfold in Czechoslovakia and Berlin and felt this was part of a global conspiracy for the spread of communism. They went to the UN and they overwhelmingly voted to support action against N. Korea.

---

Now refering to the original post - if they don't care, then who cares anyways? They can believe as they will as we will believe as we will. People have different opinions and ultimately its what the governments and officials do. If their people all vote against the war, what can you do? They're a democracy that we helped built and if thats how it is, then so be it.

Pacifier · 06-24-2004, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
pehaps pacifier is referring to the D-Day anniversary, it was easy to get the impression that some Americans thought that all Europeans have to agree with everything George W Bush does because the Allied army liberated Europe.

sort of, I'm still pissed by those "axis of weasel" remarks. A lot of Americans seem to think that "we europeans" should help them whatever they do.
And It seems that is a very common point of view in America. A couple of friends in Bosnia and Kosovo have noticed the same attitude.

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
I'll give a few things from history books on the Cold War and other things (including Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger and We Now Know by John Lewis Gaddis)

North Korea's leader Kim Il Sung planned the invasion of South Korea by himself. He went to Stalin for authorization. Stalin, the head honcho of course, said okay but the Soviet Union would NOT intervene should the U.S. intervene. He authorized it only after Kim Il Sung reassured him that the U.S. would not get involved.

Kim then went to Mao in China for authorization also. Mao was not fully in support of Kim for he also feared American intervention. He was afraid America would use that as a screen for invading the rest of China and taking it back from the communists as they had failed a year earlier to support the Nationalists. Reluctantly, he also agreed based on the promise that America would not intervene and that Stalin had given approval to Kim.

In essence, Kim used Stalin and Mao to authorize an invasion on the premise that the U.S. would not intervene. He had good reason to believe that was true given that the majority of Americans did not even know there was a place called Korea. Furthermore, months earlier, Secretary of State Dean Acheson in a poorly worded speech left out Korea from the defensive perimeter in the Pacific. This led Kim to believe that the U.S. would stay out of its affairs.

Unfortunately for him, Truman and others were very passionate about containing communism by now after seeing events unfold in Czechoslovakia and Berlin and felt this was part of a global conspiracy for the spread of communism. They went to the UN and they overwhelmingly voted to support action against N. Korea.

---

Now refering to the original post - if they don't care, then who cares anyways? They can believe as they will as we will believe as we will. People have different opinions and ultimately its what the governments and officials do. If their people all vote against the war, what can you do? They're a democracy that we helped built and if thats how it is, then so be it.

While the plan was not his, Stalin armed and trained the Korean troops and gave the go ahead. If that's not being involved I don't know what is.

As for your last bit, my problem was with people who don't have a clue about history or what the term ally means constantly talking out their asses and being given national or international exposure for their ignorant views. I never said anything about him not having the right to believe what he believes. Just as you point out that he has a right to express opinions so do I. If you don't like the topic feel free to avoid it.

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 09:58 AM

I guess you have to be pragmatic. The axiom "What have you done for me lately" Is apt. It's like pro ball. You renew a players contract based on what they can offer you in the future, not for any big accomplishments they did for you in the past, no matter how underpaid they might have been at the time. Anything else and you reveal your own gullibleness.

To the average South Koreans they don't see much value in renewing our contract. They don't want to have to back us up in bull like Iraq and they have made some progress in normalizing relations with North Korea in recent years. It seems they want to take the lead for themselves now and no longer want to be directed by Big Brother America.

I'm all for that. Let them run things themselves. I'm tired of being in everyone elses business. Pull out and save some money.

Zeld2.0 · 06-24-2004, 11:08 AM

Stalin certainly gave North Korea the equipment - there is no doubt given what they were using. Then again, he gave all allies of his weapons.

But I don't see the issue with that or the topic at hand.

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Stalin certainly gave North Korea the equipment - there is no doubt given what they were using. Then again, he gave all allies of his weapons.

But I don't see the issue with that or the topic at hand.

You're right that it's not on the original topic but it was brought up and I felt like responding.

As far as him giving all his allies weapons there is a big difference. The build up necessary to equip and train them was considerably more than what was given to his other allies. There was clear intent that they would be used to take over the South and the Chinese were built up similarly in case the US decided to enter the fray. There is no doubt now of intention on any of the sides only serious flaws in consideration of defense/offense in the initial attack and defense plans.

Zeld2.0 · 06-24-2004, 11:22 AM

I don't know about in case the U.S. decided to enter the fray - most new sources have pointed out that Stalin was afraid of confronting the U.S.

Mao, however, was not afraid to confront them if it boosted China's prestige. Hence, he was not afraid to enter the fray when needed. Stalin was still weak from World War II and after the U.S. showed that it wouldn't fall to his pressure in the Berlin blockade crisis, he wasn't willing to get involved militarily.

He defenitely sent advisers and equipment but he was largely trying to expand his borders without directly confronting the U.S. military.

Oh and it would defenitely be so in that China's intervention is what ultimately saved North Korea from being completely taken - not the Soviet Union. We had nearly reached the Yalu River and had taken all the major cities of N. Korea before the Chinese intervened that winter. N. Korea was in no shape to face the U.S. military and when the U.S. intervened, they were toast.

Anyways I'd recommend a few books but I can only think up one that sticks out in my mind right now and that's "We Now Know" by John Lewis Gaddis a professor at Yale. The book uses sources released after the Cold War so it is fairly recent and will provide a better look in than most sources before the end of the Cold War.

When I get back home I can provide excerpts.

Lebell · 06-24-2004, 02:17 PM

Sigh,

More revisionist history.

BigGov · 06-24-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pacifier
sort of, I'm still pissed by those "axis of weasel" remarks. A lot of Americans seem to think that "we europeans" should help them whatever they do.
And It seems that is a very common point of view in America. A couple of friends in Bosnia and Kosovo have noticed the same attitude.

Please stop assuming that what a small group says is the opinion of the large majority. Thank you

The United States is off on it's own, Bush rushed off so not everyone can expect support from everyone. The reasons are still somewhat fuzzy. Most people over here aren't shocked we're the only ones over there. Most don't feel all of Europe should automatically jump in because we played a very large part in winning World War II.

boatin · 06-24-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Sigh,

More revisionist history.

sigh,

more drive-by commentary with no point.

What is revisionist? What is not? What are your opinions on the original post?

I read these boards because sometimes I learn something. I don't profess to have all the answers, or even any, but I do know I learn more from people posting their opinions (left/right/crazy) than from people that post 'reaction' shots. Particularly ones that aren't even directed.

Sorry to take off on a tangent.

oktjabr · 06-24-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2 Had North Korea been allowed to take South Korea the entire country would be in the same shambles that the North finds itself in now. Instead it's a country that's growing in importance on the world stage with outstanding prospects for the future (as long as Kim Jong doesn't get too much crazier).

Even though that I agree that living under a juche dictatorship probably is a rather shitty way of life, I can't resist the urge to note that actually after the Korean war the US led UN troops didn't exactly put up a democratic south - a fact that is surprisingly often forgotten. Also South Korea was ruled first autocratically, had little political freedoms, until the 80s. Just another proof that (successful) capitalism and democracy don't necessarily march hand in hand. Maybe Iraq will also be an economical free trade zone of Iraq ruled despotically for the next 30 years?

As for the importance of South Korea, I'm afraid it hasn't really been the same since the economical collapse of the eastern tigers.

Lebell · 06-24-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boatin
sigh,

more drive-by commentary with no point.

Just because you didn't get it, doesn't mean there wasn't a point.

Zeld2.0 · 06-24-2004, 05:26 PM

This isn't revisionist history FYI. Its the new Post-Revisionist history.

And its taking sources from opened archives after the Cold War.

If you want history written 30 years ago, be my guest. I'm using the newest sources.

Kadath · 06-24-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Just because you didn't get it, doesn't mean there wasn't a point.

Aaaannndddd...you're a jerk. Shouldn't you be setting an example? Perhaps explain your point further?

analog · 06-24-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Aaaannndddd...you're a jerk. Shouldn't you be setting an example? Perhaps explain your point further?

An example of what? If you're going to counter a person's post with a sarcastic jab, rather than an actual respect-based response aimed at obtaining real information, you shouldn't be surprised at a less than perfectly courteous rebuttal.

All boatin did was snap at him. Whether or not Lebell made a valid point is irrelevant to the lack of decorum with which boatin addressed his grievance.

If someone takes a passing shot at what you believe is a complex matter, by all means call them on it- but do so in the manner you all know this board expects.

In short, keep it civil or i'm dropping the hammer.

-analog.

hammer4all · 06-25-2004, 12:55 AM

Maybe this will help answer some questions. Here is a great summary from the National Security Archive on the lead up the Korean War. It talks about who asked who for support as well as the extent of the Soviet's help based on newly declassified documents.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b3a2.htm

apeman · 06-25-2004, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
This isn't revisionist history FYI. Its the new Post-Revisionist history.

And its taking sources from opened archives after the Cold War.

If you want history written 30 years ago, be my guest. I'm using the newest sources.

i refuse to believe anything Kissinger says, it's a principle of mine

onetime2 · 06-25-2004, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
I don't know about in case the U.S. decided to enter the fray - most new sources have pointed out that Stalin was afraid of confronting the U.S.

Mao, however, was not afraid to confront them if it boosted China's prestige. Hence, he was not afraid to enter the fray when needed. Stalin was still weak from World War II and after the U.S. showed that it wouldn't fall to his pressure in the Berlin blockade crisis, he wasn't willing to get involved militarily.

He defenitely sent advisers and equipment but he was largely trying to expand his borders without directly confronting the U.S. military.

Oh and it would defenitely be so in that China's intervention is what ultimately saved North Korea from being completely taken - not the Soviet Union. We had nearly reached the Yalu River and had taken all the major cities of N. Korea before the Chinese intervened that winter. N. Korea was in no shape to face the U.S. military and when the U.S. intervened, they were toast.

Anyways I'd recommend a few books but I can only think up one that sticks out in my mind right now and that's "We Now Know" by John Lewis Gaddis a professor at Yale. The book uses sources released after the Cold War so it is fairly recent and will provide a better look in than most sources before the end of the Cold War.

When I get back home I can provide excerpts.

You are minterpreting what I said. Nowhere did I ever say Stalin wanted to confront the US directly. I clearly stated he orchestrated the events so that China would confront the US and Russia would remain out of it. He was hoping that either the South was taken with no real confrontation with US forces or that the US would be bloodied because our armed forces were basically in a shambles just after WWII.

onetime2 · 06-25-2004, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oktjabr
Even though that I agree that living under a juche dictatorship probably is a rather shitty way of life, I can't resist the urge to note that actually after the Korean war the US led UN troops didn't exactly put up a democratic south - a fact that is surprisingly often forgotten. Also South Korea was ruled first autocratically, had little political freedoms, until the 80s. Just another proof that (successful) capitalism and democracy don't necessarily march hand in hand. Maybe Iraq will also be an economical free trade zone of Iraq ruled despotically for the next 30 years?

As for the importance of South Korea, I'm afraid it hasn't really been the same since the economical collapse of the eastern tigers.

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.

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.

onetime2 · 06-25-2004, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all
Maybe this will help answer some questions. Here is a great summary from the National Security Archive on the lead up the Korean War. It talks about who asked who for support as well as the extent of the Soviet's help based on newly declassified documents.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b3a2.htm

Thanks hammer I hadn't seen that particular analysis. I've seen plenty of other similarly declassified documents but that one was particularly enlightening in terms of Stalin's fear of Mao's growing importance. It was a factor I hadn't considered very much.

This document does mesh well with others that I've seen and I think paints a fairly good picture of the hows and whys that are most likely.

oktjabr · 06-25-2004, 04:36 AM

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.

onetime2 · 06-25-2004, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oktjabr
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?

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.

South Koreans are pretty fed up with US troop presence but they are certainly pretty happy to have them there when the North rattles its sabres. But anyway, you're right about the fact that it wasn't an importation of democracy and such that we saw in Japan. I never claimed it was. I claimed that their current status as a free and sovereign nation is a direct result of the security provided by the US for the last 5 plus decades. The support, in military support and training, US military presence, favorable trading agreements with the US, etc, etc, etc is ongoing and one price that any country pays when it chooses to closely allign with another is offering support when the other country needs/wants it.

The South Korean economy is well on its way to successfully transitioning away from just being a source of cheap labor for the west. And that's a good thing. Their economy is significantly more advanced now than it has been at any time in its history. While they still have a long way to go, they have the tools they need to become a significant player in the world. At the end of 2003 South Korea had the world's 12th largest economy. That's better than Canada, Mexico, Spain, Australia and 219 other countries. I'd say that's pretty damned impressive given their relative lack of development just a few decades ago.

oktjabr · 06-25-2004, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
South Koreans are pretty fed up with US troop presence but they are certainly pretty happy to have them there when the North rattles its sabres. But anyway, you're right about the fact that it wasn't an importation of democracy and such that we saw in Japan. I never claimed it was. I claimed that their current status as a free and sovereign nation is a direct result of the security provided by the US for the last 5 plus decades.

I wasn't really arguing with you about it, I just wished to point it out. I did indeed notice that you said "current freedom" (or something similar). I just had a feeling that people often think that the South has always been democratic country opposed to the nothern dictatorship. I also agree that US troops in South Korea have been essential to prevent North Korea from attacking, even if I am very sceptical towards US motives operating in various theatres, especially during the cold war. So let us just agree that it is good that US troops have been stationed in South Korea.

Quote:

The support, in military support and training, US military presence, favorable trading agreements with the US, etc, etc, etc is ongoing and one price that any country pays when it chooses to closely allign with another is offering support when the other country needs/wants it.

Well, I partially could agree with you that alliances tend to bring duties aswell - but I'm not sure if I'm even in that case willing to accept that the will of the people in the democratic countries is "overriden" by politicians who say that "these things are too complicated to the people." If I'm not wrong, the Korean people opposed the Iraq war.

Quote:

At the end of 2003 South Korea had the world's 12th largest economy. That's better than Canada, Mexico, Spain, Australia and 219 other countries.

I'm honestly surprised to hear that they are that big. Nice to know and I have to admit that I was a bit outdated about the growth of Korean economy nowadays. Though I abhor to think what kind of prices they had to pay in freedom when they built that up. Seems that their GDP is still dragging behind western countries, but not bad really.

onetime2 · 06-25-2004, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oktjabr
Seems that their GDP is still dragging behind western countries, but not bad really.

You might also be surprised to know that it's not so much the "western" countries that dominate the list. China, Japan, and India are 3 thru 5. FWIW, North Korea is number 99 with a $22 billion economy (For reference Wal Mart had sales of $230 billion in 2003).

Here's the top 20 according to the CIA world factbook:

Quote:

1 World $ 49,000,000,000,000
2 United States $ 10,400,000,000,000
3 China $ 5,700,000,000,000
4 Japan $ 3,550,000,000,000
5 India $ 2,660,000,000,000
6 Germany $ 2,184,000,000,000
7 France $ 1,540,000,000,000
8 United Kingdom $ 1,520,000,000,000
9 Italy $ 1,438,000,000,000
10 Russia $ 1,350,000,000,000
11 Brazil $ 1,340,000,000,000
12 Korea, South $ 931,000,000,000
13 Canada $ 923,000,000,000
14 Mexico $ 900,000,000,000
15 Spain $ 828,000,000,000
16 Indonesia $ 663,000,000,000
17 Australia $ 528,000,000,000
18 Turkey $ 468,000,000,000
19 Iran $ 456,000,000,000
20 Netherlands $ 434,000,000,000

Zeld2.0 · 06-25-2004, 11:36 AM

apeman: its not kissinger's book, its gaddis - kissinger is a revisionist, gaddis is a post-revisionist

and yeah that document basically states that the war was largely n.korea's idea

mao plays a large part as well...

again i recommend Gaddis' book.. it covers a lot of htese pretty well

06-24-2004, 03:57 AM	#3 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	i think Iraq is probably better off than it was before the war - generally. however i also think a lot of Iraqis are very pissed off with their current living conditions. it was quite civilized before, albeit with a crazy dictator. people aren't always going to be grateful for US intervention I'm afraid __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-24-2004, 06:17 AM	#10 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	ah it's "we helped you once, now you have to support every mistake we make" again __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

06-24-2004, 07:57 AM	#12 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	that's true pehaps pacifier is referring to the D-Day anniversary, it was easy to get the impression that some Americans thought that all Europeans have to agree with everything George W Bush does because the Allied army liberated Europe. __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-24-2004, 08:55 AM	#13 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I'll give a few things from history books on the Cold War and other things (including Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger and We Now Know by John Lewis Gaddis) North Korea's leader Kim Il Sung planned the invasion of South Korea by himself. He went to Stalin for authorization. Stalin, the head honcho of course, said okay but the Soviet Union would NOT intervene should the U.S. intervene. He authorized it only after Kim Il Sung reassured him that the U.S. would not get involved. Kim then went to Mao in China for authorization also. Mao was not fully in support of Kim for he also feared American intervention. He was afraid America would use that as a screen for invading the rest of China and taking it back from the communists as they had failed a year earlier to support the Nationalists. Reluctantly, he also agreed based on the promise that America would not intervene and that Stalin had given approval to Kim. In essence, Kim used Stalin and Mao to authorize an invasion on the premise that the U.S. would not intervene. He had good reason to believe that was true given that the majority of Americans did not even know there was a place called Korea. Furthermore, months earlier, Secretary of State Dean Acheson in a poorly worded speech left out Korea from the defensive perimeter in the Pacific. This led Kim to believe that the U.S. would stay out of its affairs. Unfortunately for him, Truman and others were very passionate about containing communism by now after seeing events unfold in Czechoslovakia and Berlin and felt this was part of a global conspiracy for the spread of communism. They went to the UN and they overwhelmingly voted to support action against N. Korea. --- Now refering to the original post - if they don't care, then who cares anyways? They can believe as they will as we will believe as we will. People have different opinions and ultimately its what the governments and officials do. If their people all vote against the war, what can you do? They're a democracy that we helped built and if thats how it is, then so be it. Last edited by Zeld2.0; 06-24-2004 at 08:58 AM..

06-24-2004, 02:17 PM	#20 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Sigh, More revisionist history. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-24-2004, 03:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well, that's true. Korea wasn't our war. If we had kept our nose out of it in the first place we wouldn't have driven the North Koreans to the communists. The Korean conflict started out as an independence drive, then after us superpowers got involved and split everyone up it became one of reunification. I believe that Korea would be unified and maybe just slightly socialist (like europe) at most if we had all kept our hands out of that pot.

06-24-2004, 04:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'll have to hold off on making any further comments until I refresh myself on the history. I was always bigger into Vietnam history than Korean. I'm afraid I may end up injecting some Nam timeline unintentionally.

06-24-2004, 09:58 AM	#16 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I guess you have to be pragmatic. The axiom "What have you done for me lately" Is apt. It's like pro ball. You renew a players contract based on what they can offer you in the future, not for any big accomplishments they did for you in the past, no matter how underpaid they might have been at the time. Anything else and you reveal your own gullibleness. To the average South Koreans they don't see much value in renewing our contract. They don't want to have to back us up in bull like Iraq and they have made some progress in normalizing relations with North Korea in recent years. It seems they want to take the lead for themselves now and no longer want to be directed by Big Brother America. I'm all for that. Let them run things themselves. I'm tired of being in everyone elses business. Pull out and save some money.

06-24-2004, 11:08 AM	#17 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Stalin certainly gave North Korea the equipment - there is no doubt given what they were using. Then again, he gave all allies of his weapons. But I don't see the issue with that or the topic at hand.

06-24-2004, 11:22 AM	#19 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I don't know about in case the U.S. decided to enter the fray - most new sources have pointed out that Stalin was afraid of confronting the U.S. Mao, however, was not afraid to confront them if it boosted China's prestige. Hence, he was not afraid to enter the fray when needed. Stalin was still weak from World War II and after the U.S. showed that it wouldn't fall to his pressure in the Berlin blockade crisis, he wasn't willing to get involved militarily. He defenitely sent advisers and equipment but he was largely trying to expand his borders without directly confronting the U.S. military. Oh and it would defenitely be so in that China's intervention is what ultimately saved North Korea from being completely taken - not the Soviet Union. We had nearly reached the Yalu River and had taken all the major cities of N. Korea before the Chinese intervened that winter. N. Korea was in no shape to face the U.S. military and when the U.S. intervened, they were toast. Anyways I'd recommend a few books but I can only think up one that sticks out in my mind right now and that's "We Now Know" by John Lewis Gaddis a professor at Yale. The book uses sources released after the Cold War so it is fairly recent and will provide a better look in than most sources before the end of the Cold War. When I get back home I can provide excerpts.

06-24-2004, 05:26 PM	#25 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	This isn't revisionist history FYI. Its the new Post-Revisionist history. And its taking sources from opened archives after the Cold War. If you want history written 30 years ago, be my guest. I'm using the newest sources.

06-25-2004, 12:55 AM	#28 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Maybe this will help answer some questions. Here is a great summary from the National Security Archive on the lead up the Korean War. It talks about who asked who for support as well as the extent of the Soviet's help based on newly declassified documents. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b3a2.htm

06-25-2004, 11:36 AM	#37 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	apeman: its not kissinger's book, its gaddis - kissinger is a revisionist, gaddis is a post-revisionist and yeah that document basically states that the war was largely n.korea's idea mao plays a large part as well... again i recommend Gaddis' book.. it covers a lot of htese pretty well