Wow, the responses to my previous post have been overwhelming, sort of. That's good. This is what D&D is all about. I promise to reply each one of your posts to the best I can when I have more free time after getting back home this evening.
Too true. Wnes, this board is FILLED with people who readily criticise US foreign policy, past and present (and future, lol!). But this time you've just picked a ludicrous position and you're not going to get much traction.
Deck, with all due respect, you and others willfully neglect the historical facts and let your stubborn ideology and blind hatred of the NK regime cloud your reasoning and judgement. Regardless what he did later as the NK dictator, at the end of WWII the Communist guerrillas fighter Kim Il-sung was regarded as a war hero by most Koreans for his over a decade-long resistance against the Japanese occupation. As such, he was elected the leader of the competing NK faction as oppose to the UN-backed SK regime headed by US puppet Syngman Rhee . Here several things need to be put into perspective. First, the UN was pretty much run/hijacked by US because as a founding member the UN, China's role was nonexistent. Anything attached with a UN label then ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Second, the leaders of both factions in Korea should be examined by objectively. Rhee Syngman rule was every bit as brutal as one would expect from a dictator. While pointing out the lunacy of Kim Il-sung, one can not ignore Rhee's outrageous acts, especially his cruel and ruthless suppression of dissents, which started out immediately after Rhee's repressive right wing political regime -- controlled by formerly Japanese colonial police force -- had been put together by US, and lasted throughout his tyrannical presidencies. Both North and South had been similarly provocative in attacking each other in vying for the control the entire Korean Peninsula before the full scale Korean War broke out. The military conflicts initiated at the end of WWII by the North should be viewed in the context of Korean people seeking long lost independence from imperialist foreign powers (Japan followed by US/UN) and the eventual reunification with the South.
Sam, much of this is afterthought, isn't it? I'm sure you are smart enough to know 1) US didn't have Koreans' interest in mind when they initiated and then conspired with Soviet Union to divide the Korean Peninsula along the 38th parallel, and 2) "the vibrant, flourishing, modern, and self-governing democracy" was built on decades of repressive authoritarian regime. On the other hand, nobody can say for sure what if the entire Korea was run by a non-US backed regime. If PRC (now Vietnam) can be tranformed at least economically, why is it impossible for another East Asian country to do the same? Uh um, I think I am pretty consistent with my anti-colonialist view throughtout.
No, it's not an afterthought. I believe that at the time Truman, Macarthur, etc all honestly believed that the Koreans were, and would continue to be better off under US stewardship than Soviet/Chinese stewardship. They were right, 100% right. It's too bad for the North Koreans sake that they didn't succeed in toppling the Kims from the North as well, they wouldn't be starving to death today. It's not even debatable. And btw, living standards, GDP, etc in South Korea are far, far higher than Vietnam, it's not even close. Not to mention the fact taht the crazed cult of the Kims was never reproduced in Vietnam. Uncle Ho was a much more pragmatic figure than those loonies. Plus, I don't get how you can lament the military governments of South Korea during the 70's for being authoritarian and repressive and then propose a communist police state like Vietnam, China, or North Korea in it's place....that just makes so little sense it's mind boggling. No you're not, you rip on the US all day long (which is your right) and the second anybody even mentions the letters PRC you fly off the handle like a rabid dog and say they have no room to talk. Glass house 101. We've been over this before and there's not much more to say about it.
wnes, I'll ignore this: "you and others willfully neglect the historical facts and let your stubborn ideology and blind hatred of the NK regime cloud your reasoning and judgement." And reply to this: Regardless what he did later as the NK dictator, at the end of WWII the Communist guerrillas fighter Kim Il-sung was regarded as a war hero by most Koreans for his over a decade-long resistance against the Japanese occupation. As such, he was elected the leader of the competing NK faction as oppose to the UN-backed SK regime headed by US puppet Syngman Rhee . From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/coldwar/korea_hickey_print.html We deliberately withheld modern military equipment for the South, in order to keep them from an invasion of the North, because the US, and the UN, didn't want a conflict on the peninsula. A lot of good that did, with the North taking full advantage of our restraint. "The military conflicts initiated at the end of WWII by the North should be viewed in the context of Korean people seeking long lost independence from imperialist foreign powers (Japan followed by US/UN) and the eventual reunification with the South." If the people of the South, and those of the North, held the North and it's communist regime in such high regard, then why did the NK POW's riot to resist being returned to the North? "First, the UN was pretty much run/hijacked by US because as a founding member the UN, China's role was nonexistent. Anything attached with a UN label then ought to be taken with a grain of salt." Communist China's government wasn't recognized as the legitimate government of the country until decades later. Why would they, "have a role?" I'm not saying China shouldn't have been the recognized government of the mainland, but that was the case, regardless. I'll add that the, "blind hatred," comment was absurd. I think the NK government is guilty of crimes against humanity. You don't need blind hatred to feel that way, just the slightest bit of objectivity. Keep D&D Civil.
It is the U.S. and to a lesser degree, Soviet Union, created the North-South divide of Korea in the first place, demonstrating utter disregard of Korean people's resolve to seek unification and independence from colonial powers after four decades of brutal Japanese occupation. Korea as a state was not responsible for any of kind of aggression in WWII, yet it was chosen by U.S. to split up for the American's own strategic interest at the end of WWII. It's well documented that the U.S. military savagely and deliberately targeted Korean civilians numerous times during the Korean War. The U.S. government has refused to issue formal apology to the Korean people for its war time aggression. Despite the steadfast denials by the U.S., independent researchers have shown the U.S. forces spreaded biological agents in NK territory. Other non-conventional weapons such as napalm and white phosphorous were also used indiscriminately. North Korea before 1990s was the only non-nuclear country in the world where nuclear weapons were pointed at. During the War, the U.S. considered on mutiple occasions using nuclear weapons on NK. It should be noted MacArthur was not the only American who advocated the use of A-bomb. PRC was forced to defend NK only after U.S./UN troops crossed the 38th parallel and MacArthur threatened to spread the war into China. It is long held policy of PRC that two Koreas reunited peacefully on their own term and free of foreign intervention. PRC also repeatedly called upon the U.S. to have direct talks with NK to settle the disputes on nuclear program and other matters, which U.S. declined time and time again. I have not seen any report suggesting Koreans hold grudges against PRC, have you? Instead, I saw many angry protests by South Koreans against the US military stationed in their country. Now who is responsible for the stalemate?
Here you go on the one hand you blasts GWB for launching a preventive war in Iraq and on the other hand heap praise on the U.S. military campaign of similar nature in Korea. At least Hayes is a consistent warmonger, eh, interventionist. NK regime under Kim Il-sung was unique in its own way and actually quite independent of either PRC's or Soviet's influence. So "stewardship" under Soviet/PRC is not an accurate depiction. Trying to directly draw GDP comparison between SK and Vietnam is a poor attempt to steer away from the topic, which is hypothetically, a unified Korea even under a dictator like Kim is not without possibility able to transform enonomically or even politically, given the right circumstances. PRC under Mao was as disastrous as it could be but we all know what has happened since the late '70s. SK over the years has become increasingly democratic and progressive not because of US intervention, but by Koreans' own volition. Your pathetic attempt to omit the Rhee's brutal regime in the early years (not short) of SK existence is duly noted. If you guys and biased media don't view PRC through red filters, I don't need to defend PRC at every opportunity. Still, my criticism and opinions on PRC are objective, thoughtful, and fact-based.
I have to agree with Sam on this one. How are Iraq and the Korean War in any way similar? NK attacked SK. That is a basic and undeniable fact. NK attacked UN troops. That is a basic and undeniable fact. There was no preventive war in Korea. That is a basic and undeniable fact. You've taken your anti-US pro-PRC stances from the realm of the disputable into pure lalaland.
The North invaded the South in 1950, not vice versa. Last time I heard, Iraq did not invade South Korea in 2003 (or anybody, for that matter). Also the UN & our allies were not on our side. And there's the small matter of the cold war issues and Japan which make it Irrelevant - and even if it wasn't it wouldn't matter. Irrelevant, South Korea = better off than NK. You brought it up. South Korea = better off than North Korea (and Vietnam, not that it matters) Brutality of Rhee vs. "disastrous" regime of Mao and Kim. It's a wash at best - however since the difference is that the Rhee regime ended and eventually a stable, modern, self-governing, democracy (along with a booming economy) replaced it, it's still not even close. S. Koreans are better off than North Koreans (and Chinese, not that it matters). In no small part, that is because they fought (along with the US, and the UN) the Korean war and successful repelled the North Korean invasion. I don't view it through red filters. If I did that I would jsut say they're a bunch of godless commies and blah blah blah dismiss them at every opportunity. I don't do that and nor does Sishir Chang or others.
How are the two conflicts remotely the same? I've read hundreds of posts here about the Iraq idiocy, and more news reports and magazine articles than I could possibly hope to count. I've seen hundreds of discussions about the Iraq invasion and occupation on the news programs from the, "talking heads," perhaps more than hundreds, and I've never, never heard anyone make this comparison, until now. Keep D&D Civil.
What you mean you "have to agree with Sam"? Didn't you two share the same view on Korea War in the first place? "Preventive" is so used in reference to Sam's suggestion that Truman and MacArthur waged the war in an effort to prevent Korea from getting into the "stewardship" under Soviet Union. Hayes, what happen to your self determination theory on Korea? BTW, the discussion at hand has little to do with pro-PRC stance.
I disagree with Sam on a regular basis. That's what I was referencing. The US defended SK, the attacked state. There isn't anything preventative about that action. I am glad South Koreans have a voice in their governance. I am sad North Koreans don't - as a result I might add - of the PRC intervention. What's your point?
Judging from the world events related to PRC, I have to say PRC has conducted itself admirably. Not quite so domestically, though. No I am not, sorry to disappoint. Maybe you should disclose what your moniker means in Chinese. I've never denied PRC has influence over NK. But China is not NK's caretaker, I think this fact is not difficult to understand.
Maybe I didn't make it clear, the depiction on the guy's T-shirt showed the drawing of airplane and lots of splashes. So I don't think it was related to the anti-Mongol reference. No I didn't generalize. False interpretation on your part, buddy. In fact, in that same year, a Japanese postdoc in my lab talked to me one day at the end of work how fortunate he was because his father, at the time only 17-18 years of age, was recruited as a Kamikaze pilot to fight the Americans. The WWII ended two days he was about to be dispatched, as he was told by his father years later. He appeared quite sincere on his regret/resentment of the war. I wasn't very interested in politics at the time but we had been subconsciously avoiding the subject like China and Japan's history. To this date, I still don't know what prompted him to approach me and talk about that. Well, rewriting history is part of the reason other East Asian countries are upset. Repeated glorification of its war dead is the huge deal too. I am quite surprised how so little reaction has been generated by this Kamikaze film. Imagine the uproar in Europe if German government makes one commemorating Nazi fighters. Like it or not, the way Kamikaze planes striking US naval ships is extremely similar to the hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon building. The Kamikaze pilots needed to do lots of maneuvers to avoid the shots fired from the warships. Quite a task. Super hand-eye coordination is a must. Since you are very sensitive, I'll stop here. Any offense felt I apologize in advance.
OK, here is our latest threat: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/16/nkorea.us.un.ap/index.html <I>"If they do not want to face some of the additional pressures that can be brought to bear on them, then I think that they will eventually realize that they've got to come back to the six-party talks," she said. "That's really the only game in town."</I> What do people think this means? I really have no idea what kind of pressure can be brought on them. We're certainly not going to attack. We can't really use sanctions because they already have no economy to speak of and don't trade with anyone. If they just say "no", what exactly are our options?
I would say both the PRC / Soviet Bloc and the US / 1950's UN played a role in the division of Korean. From both sides of the Cold War there was an interest in seeing Korean united but only if it was on their side. Unfortunately like so many other countries, and times in Korean history, the Koreans ended up being caught between greater powers.
here's some japanese pre-emptive strikes <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tI7oSGVwRoQ"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tI7oSGVwRoQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
By the summer of 1953, neither side had much choice. Facing the prospect of further prolonging the bloody war, declaring cease-fire and maintaining the status of divided Korea seemed to be the best solution to all. That said, we should be still be mindful who splitted Korea in the first place. Obviously, Korea people's self-determination in the period between the end of WWII and the "formal" division is conveniently ignored in this thread by some of the most ardent supporters of self-determination here in D&D.
