Should the UN have its own military?

[David Floyd]

Would you have supported someone else intervening in the US if another country invaded and set up Texas as their own puppet state? That is exactly what the Soviets did in North Korea.

And, I remind you, what the US did with South Korea.
But no, I would not support another country forcing its citizens to die under any circumstances.

What if you don't believe in absolute rights and wrongs? Why do you?

Because I believe in natural rights. And I'll elaborate later, I'm too freakin tired right now

Hey, if we used your reasoning, I'm sure the Korean people would feel a whole lot better about being under a Stlainist government - "Hey, my brother just got shot for complaining about the price of bread,and I can't afford to buy food, and I'm not allowed to say anything about it, but that's all right, because it meant 38 000 Americans could stay home and the US could save a few billion dollars."

Not my problem.
In any case, committing a wrong (conscription) in order to right another (perceived) wrong (in this case, unified Stalinist Korea) is not OK because the ends can't justify the means. Further, the US government had no right or authority to violate the natural rights of American citizens (or anyone else, for that matter).

I would feel bad if Korea had been unified into a Stalinist state. I really would have. But me feeling bad about something is not enough for me to support violating someone's rights.

[GeneralTacticus]

And, I remind you, what the US did with South Korea.
But no, I would not support another country forcing its citizens to die under any circumstances.

The government of SK was not set up by the US. Supported, yes. Created, no. It was elected (ironically enough, largely due to the communists).

Not my problem.
In any case, committing a wrong (conscription) in order to right another (perceived) wrong (in this case, unified Stalinist Korea) is not OK because the ends can't justify the means. Further, the US government had no right or authority to violate the natural rights of American citizens (or anyone else, for that matter).

Why do you consider American lives intrinsically more valuable than others? Koreans are people too.

I would feel bad if Korea had been unified into a Stalinist state. I really would have. But me feeling bad about something is not enough for me to support violating someone's rights.

Would you have supported the Korean War if conscription had not been in place at the time?

[rmsharpe]

United Nations having it's own military? Good one!

The United Nations is made up of the looney toon half-wit dictators of third world countries that would be so ignorant as to probably try growing jellybeans on whatever corrupt state-run farm they have, if it hasn't been destroyed by the bi-monthly coup d'Etat.

[KrazyHorse]

Work on your technique. Need better language skills to pull it off.

[Q Classic]

Korea? Democracy? Really now. If it's anything like the democracy South Korea had, that's certainly nothing to fight for.

spoken like a person who has absolutely no idea what exactly korean democracy is like.
so you hear about the dictators.
they weren't democratically elected.
rhee syngman? voted in. thrown out.
park chung hee? coup d'etat.
chun doo hwan? coup d'etat.
roh tae woo? semi-peaceful handoff, no real elections.
kim young sam? first democratic election. bit of corruption, but completely free of any vote fixing.
kim dae jung? second free democratic election. no judges involved, either.
it takes time to develop a functional democracy, especially in a nation rising out of the ashes of a bitter occupation and then a brutal war.

i'm not saying south korean democracy has had a pure history. but seriously, you saying that you have no real problem with a unified korean stalinist state offends me-- because you're pretty much saying that you don't care if 44 million (and more, actually) people end up in a society where their rights are violated in worse means than being sent on a draft.
americans got drafted, and fought.
were all koreans under the stalinist state: all would be drafted, or forced into some labor. none would have food right now--some would have to resort to cannibalism, others grass and dirt. none would be safe in a police state where people disappear for no reason at all.

their rights would be violated in a hundred worse ways than how the americans got theirs "violated". i'm not saying i like the draft. i'm just saying what america did in korea was a good. it's a pity that it had to be done in such a manner, but it was good.

the rights of 44 million here were at stake. unfortunately, sacrifices had to be made.

yes, i know the families of those 38000 suffered.
38000*3 is still not equal to 44 million skoreans + 22 million nkoreans + however many korean diaspora that would have been forced to stay. i'll be generous and say that approaches 80 million.

was it tragic that 38k americans lost their lives? was it tragic that the vast majority of them were drafted and paid the ultimate price? yes. did they do it for a good reason? yes.

ah, well. i guess to you it would be better if i were starving under a stalinist state.

[David Floyd]

GT,

The government of SK was not set up by the US. Supported, yes. Created, no. It was elected (ironically enough, largely due to the communists).

Oh, OK, so the US *DIDN'T* have an inordinate amount of influence in Korea following WW2?

Why do you consider American lives intrinsically more valuable than others? Koreans are people too.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Would you have supported the Korean War if conscription had not been in place at the time?

No, because Americans were still being forced to pay for it. Further, people who volunteered for the military beforehand did not volunteer to go fight another overseas war, they volunteered to defend the US. Those are two wildly different things.

Q,

it takes time to develop a functional democracy, especially in a nation rising out of the ashes of a bitter occupation and then a brutal war.

The point I was making is that, until recently, South Korean leaders have basically been dictators who violate the rights of South Koreans in any number of ways, such as killing protesters.

but seriously, you saying that you have no real problem with a unified korean stalinist state offends me-- because you're pretty much saying that you don't care if 44 million (and more, actually) people end up in a society where their rights are violated in worse means than being sent on a draft.

I never said I had no problem with it. I have a problem when anyone's rights are being violated. But violating my rights in order to help someone else is never, ever OK.

Oh, and I'm curious how you think someone's rights can be violated in worse ways than conscription? Conscription involves both slavery and sending you to both kill and die. What's worse than that?

americans got drafted, and fought.

Unfortunately. The draftees should have refused, en masse, to go overseas, and hopefully taken up arms against the politicians and military brass who were pushing the war on them.

were all koreans under the stalinist state: all would be drafted, or forced into some labor. none would have food right now--some would have to resort to cannibalism, others grass and dirt. none would be safe in a police state where people disappear for no reason at all.

None of which justifies forcing Americans into virtual slavery, and sending them to their deaths.

i'm just saying what america did in korea was a good.

Wrong. The ends never justify the means, and what the US did in Korea was by definition bad, because it was accomplished through conscription and taking the money of Americans to funnel it into the "defense" industry.

the rights of 44 million here were at stake. unfortunately, sacrifices had to be made.

Yes, but not by Americans, whom were not concerned with a civil war thousands of miles away. Sacrifices, perhaps, by the people whom it affected - the South Koreans - but not by people whom it had absolutely nothing to do with, unless these people volunteered of their own free will knowing specifically what they were volunteering for, and as long as this was not funded by US tax dollars.

yes, i know the families of those 38000 suffered.
38000*3 is still not equal to 44 million skoreans + 22 million nkoreans + however many korean diaspora that would have been forced to stay. i'll be generous and say that approaches 80 million.

was it tragic that 38k americans lost their lives? was it tragic that the vast majority of them were drafted and paid the ultimate price? yes. did they do it for a good reason? yes.

So forcing millions of Americans into slavery, sending 38,000 of them to die - which I consider to be murder - and taxing the rest blind is OK, and killing over a million North Koreans and Chinese - which is also murder, because this was not valid self defense and totally unjustified - because it achieved the political ends of the government? I'm sorry, but that is absolutely unacceptable. Slavery is never OK, nor is murder, nor is theft.

[Ned]

David, The GA authorized UN supervised elections for "Korea" in 1947-8, IIRC. The USSR said the UN had no jurisdiction and refused to cooperate. Elections were held only in the South. In the North, the USSR set up a puppet communist state that declared themselves the sole government of Korea. In 1949, both the US and the USSR pulled out of Korea.

In early 1950, we had a lot of intelligence that NK was going to attack. But the local commander discounted it, and the information did not reach the higher-ups in the US. In a post-1950 congressional review on the intelligence failure, the congress recommended that getting warnings of this nature to higher admin officials was required. In other words, what happened in 1950 was the same thing that happened in 1941 and 2001. We had enough info to know about the attack, but lower level intelligence bureaucrats discounted it.

[David Floyd]

I understand all that Ned, but realistically speaking, North Korea was a Soviet puppet, and South Korea an American one.

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, OK, so the US *DIDN'T* have an inordinate amount of influence in Korea following WW2?

Of course they had a lot of influence, much as they did in post-war Europe (only more so).

Don't put words in my mouth.

You were saying basically that it wasn't worth the sacrifice of 38000 American lives to save millions of Koreans from stalinism.

Oh, and I'm curious how you think someone's rights can be violated in worse ways than conscription? Conscription involves both slavery and sending you to both kill and die. What's worse than that?

Maybe REAL slavery, torture, and murder?

So forcing millions of Americans into slavery, sending 38,000 of them to die - which I consider to be murder - and taxing the rest blind is OK, and killing over a million North Koreans and Chinese - which is also murder, because this was not valid self defense and totally unjustified - because it achieved the political ends of the government? I'm sorry, but that is absolutely unacceptable. Slavery is never OK, nor is murder, nor is theft.

Actually it was self-defense; they attacked first.

[Q Classic]

The point I was making is that, until recently, South Korean leaders have basically been dictators who violate the rights of South Koreans in any number of ways, such as killing protesters.

of course. i never said anything different. it's a pity, really, but what did you expect? a completely transparent, honest, and fully democratic nation in a region that was, until half a generation ago, still considered third-world, still was recovering from a brutal war that left millions dead, and destroyed the infrastructure of the entire southern half?
if only things worked as well in real life as they do on paper.

Oh, and I'm curious how you think someone's rights can be violated in worse ways than conscription? Conscription involves both slavery and sending you to both kill and die. What's worse than that?

stalinism, at least how the north koreans practice it, involves virtual slavery in the form of working for the party state. it involves not having enough to eat. it involves be randomly selected to be murdered by the state because of some informant saying you didn't bow deeply enough to the portrait of the dear leader. it involves being forced to a) pretend to hate the democratic south (who are often relatives), and b) not given the chance to even say anything remotely to the contrary or you get shot.
at least the soldiers had something to eat other than people, grass, and dirt, and could ***** about the cold korean winters.

So forcing millions of Americans into slavery, sending 38,000 of them to die - which I consider to be murder - and taxing the rest blind is OK, and killing over a million North Koreans and Chinese - which is also murder, because this was not valid self defense and totally unjustified - because it achieved the political ends of the government? I'm sorry, but that is absolutely unacceptable. Slavery is never OK, nor is murder, nor is theft.

millions of americans into slavery? who, pray tell, other than the soldiers, were consigned into this slavery?

lest you forget, over 4 million south koreans were murdered in a political game that you western bastards created out of your blind and fvcked up notion of conflicting ideologies.
you created the mess. when you came in to try to clean it up, honestly, i think you did a half-as$ed job. the fact that you came at all, and lost 38000 of your own children, however, proves to me, at least, that you weren't all the completely selfish bastards that you made yourselves out to be in the beginning.

you can say that you americans shouldn't have been there. if you really mean that, you best well admit that you american shouldn't have even sent that jackas$ into japan to "modernize" it with trade.

maybe i'm taking this a bit too personally, df. but seriously, when you say that americans shouldn't have been there to help defend the south, how else am i supposed to take it?

it's tragic that the entire damn thing happened in the first place, but the fact of the matter was that it did. i'm thankful of it, because otherwise, my life would be one of starvation, of uncertainty, of random disappearances, of brainwashing, of bondage to the party. if i tried to get more food, i would be shot for not believing in the dear leader. if i tried to escape/defect, i would be shot for being a traitor. if i tried to find more work, i would be shot for being capitalist. if i tried to move, i would be shot for no good reason at all. that's provided i didn't die already from starvation, or from disease, and provided that my grandfather and my entire mother's side of the family would have survived the purges in the first place.

so you see why i think that conscription is just slightly less abusive than stalinism.

[David Floyd]

stalinism, at least how the north koreans practice it, involves virtual slavery in the form of working for the party state. it involves not having enough to eat. it involves be randomly selected to be murdered by the state because of some informant saying you didn't bow deeply enough to the portrait of the dear leader. it involves being forced to a) pretend to hate the democratic south (who are often relatives), and b) not given the chance to even say anything remotely to the contrary or you get shot.
at least the soldiers had something to eat other than people, grass, and dirt, and could ***** about the cold korean winters.

So, basically what you are saying is that the slavery conditions for American draftees were only slightly better than the conditions for North Koreans. Gee, I feel ever so much better now

millions of americans into slavery? who, pray tell, other than the soldiers, were consigned into this slavery?

However many million men the US drafted during the Korean War, of course. And I wouldn't call these men soldiers, either. I'd call them civilians who were forcibly enslaved and made to go shoot at people.

lest you forget, over 4 million south koreans were murdered in a political game that you western bastards created out of your blind and fvcked up notion of conflicting ideologies.

Oh, I quite agree. The US is almost never the innocent party when it comes to international affairs.

you created the mess. when you came in to try to clean it up, honestly, i think you did a half-as$ed job.

I guess the US body count wasn't high enough for you? What's the magic number? 100,000? 1,000,000?

the fact that you came at all, and lost 38000 of your own children, however, proves to me, at least, that you weren't all the completely selfish bastards that you made yourselves out to be in the beginning.

What it shows is that the US government is awfully generous with the lives of others, and has absolutely no problem enslaving millions of people.

you can say that you americans shouldn't have been there. if you really mean that, you best well admit that you american shouldn't have even sent that jackas$ into japan to "modernize" it with trade.

100% free trade is very important, but it should never have been forced on Japan, no.

when you say that americans shouldn't have been there to help defend the south, how else am i supposed to take it?

I don't know, and frankly don't care - Americans should not have been forced to go kill and die for a political end. Period. Not ever. Take that however you want.

it's tragic that the entire damn thing happened in the first place, but the fact of the matter was that it did. i'm thankful of it, because otherwise, my life would be one of starvation, of uncertainty, of random disappearances, of brainwashing, of bondage to the party. if i tried to get more food, i would be shot for not believing in the dear leader. if i tried to escape/defect, i would be shot for being a traitor. if i tried to find more work, i would be shot for being capitalist. if i tried to move, i would be shot for no good reason at all. that's provided i didn't die already from starvation, or from disease, and provided that my grandfather and my entire mother's side of the family would have survived the purges in the first place.

Yes, that would certainly be tragic.
But no more tragic than forcing Americans to go kill and die in a foreign country in a civil war that doesn't concern them in any way, shape, or form.

so you see why i think that conscription is just slightly less abusive than stalinism.

Maybe I'm just dense, but frankly no, I don't.

[GeneralTacticus]

Maybe I'm just dense, but frankly no, I don't.

Try serving as a conscripted soldier and then try living in a Stalinist state, and then maybe you will understand the difference.

[David Floyd]

Try serving as a conscripted soldier and then try living in a Stalinist state, and then maybe you will understand the difference.

Both of those rank rather low on my list of things to do. To me there is no difference except in degree between the two - Stalinism is *probably* a more brutal form of slavery than conscription, but I fail to see how that justifies using conscription to defeat Stalinism. The phrase "We had to burn the village in order to save it" comes to mind.

[GeneralTacticus]

100% free trade is very important, but it should never have been forced on Japan, no.

Why not? Weren't the Japanese violating the rights of everyone who wanted to trade with them and everyone in Japan who wanted to trade with foreign countries?

[GeneralTacticus]

Both of those rank rather low on my list of things to do. To me there is no difference except in degree between the two - Stalinism is *probably* a more brutal form of slavery than conscription, but I fail to see how that justifies using conscription to defeat Stalinism. The phrase "We had to burn the village in order to save it" comes to mind.

Do you also believe it's wrong for police to require people to evacuate an area that's endangered by fire?