North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

[Sava]

cavebear, do you live in a cave? the North Koreans probably like their government. Heres a history lesson for you... after the Japanese defeat in 1945, the communists in the North took power, and for the first time, a starving population had food, jobs, education, and health care; as well as the assurance of protection from hundreds of years of foreign invasion (Chinese, Japanese). Then, as the people stand ready to spread Communism to the entire peninsula, the American's land and split the country, preventing the new government from stabilizing the country.

The North now suffers because of the US and its sanctions against it. And it's trying to assure it's people, fearful of US military action, that the government can still protect it from foreign invasion, which (if you knew anything about Korean history) has been the people's greatest fear.

My answer, the US and its puppet government in South Korea is the bad guy here. THe US won't remove it's troops because it knows that given the chance, the people will probably rejoin North Korea and probably institute a more leftist government.

[Drake Tungsten]

My answer, the US and its puppet government in South Korea is the bad guy here.

Ohhh, my side hurts...

[Sava]

I bet you laughed at the people that Pinochet butchered too, eh? Wake up! if you don't think the US installs puppet governments.

[Dr Strangelove]

Errr... Didn't the presence of Soviet troops have something to do with the nature of the "revolutionary" government that took charge as the Japanese left? How could anyone in their right mind call any government formed under Stalin's auspices a "revolutionary" government.

Ned's right. We should offer South Korea a space of several years to prepare to supplant our forces. One problem though, the North is going to get the bomb if it doesn't have them already. Should we offer to leave behind a few Pershing missles and some troops to defend them? Perhaps we'd leave some Patriot missle batteries as well.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ned


See, Calc II. What did I tell you.

tell me what? I have a memory span of like 2 minutes.
Please remind me.
EDIT: Now I remmber after reading back what you are pointing at. Chevitz was rather light about it though. I think he said in his own word "it could be said that..."

[Urban Ranger]

Isn't the ROK paying for the US troops stationed there? Anyway, that is just a token force and will not have any effect in any hypothetical conflict scenarios between DPRK and ROK. When and if the US reinforce - this takes time - the conflict would either be largely over or in a stalemate. In the first case, if it is anything like Korean War you need way more than 150,000 men anyway. If not - meaning the ROK troops are winning - there is no need for US forces. Ditto with the latter case.


Jon Miller,

That can happen, but only under special conditions. You need to be distracted, say in a football match, and the wound has to be small.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Errr... Didn't the presence of Soviet troops have something to do with the nature of the "revolutionary" government that took charge as the Japanese left? How could anyone in their right mind call any government formed under Stalin's auspices a "revolutionary" government.

Why not?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by cavebear
Which is worse? Are you joking? North Korea is a country of starving civilians run by a bunch of militaristic psychopaths and South Korea is a country of relatively well-off people with an economy, food, and actually-elected leaders.

This is a trick question, right?

This is exactly what I was thinking, but some people here think it's a "close call". Go figure

[Seeker]

Damn, I had a big post but it seems to have dissappeared.

Oh, well, I agree mostly with Connor, especially that the article is really exaggerated.

We get SOFA protests sometimes at the local E-mart, but they're fairly civil.

We have had a few incidents, bus drivers who make foreigners sit at the back (I loved the historical irony of a white man being made to sit at the back of a bus), one of our resident Yanks was attacked by some drunks walking home late (broke ones nose and ran away; thank Odin for Tae Kwon Do), but largely like they mentioned I feel safer in Seoul than I did in Toronto.

We get comments sometimes, the kids sometimes say stuff like 'I hate Americans', and even laugh about Sept. 11, but then I told them that one of their favourite teachers is an American (maryland) from New York who was in NY that day, so I teach them that it's OK to hate America, but it's wrong to hate American's or the American People.

Connor: Joong-Ang did a piece on the US forces here. I was suprised by some of the things they said.

-Only about 100 M1 type tanks.
-not very much artillery really.
-Some surprisingly old equipment still in use

Unless the Grand Nato Air Army we remember from Kosovo was already fueled and waiting, the NK army is so big it looks like the US forces really are just symbolic, or at least only 'warm bodies' in the way the NATO forces in Germany were vs the USSR.

[Az]

Why not?

UR is right. Not all revolutions are good.
( That doesn't justify the CCP from braking off from the soviet block after Khrustchev denounced Stalin. )

[Drake Tungsten]

so I teach them that it's OK to hate America, but it's wrong to hate American's or the American People.

You're a real humanitarian...

[Arrian]

Then, as the people stand ready to spread Communism to the entire peninsula, the American's land and split the country, preventing the new government from stabilizing the country.

The North now suffers because of the US and its sanctions against it. And it's trying to assure it's people, fearful of US military action, that the government can still protect it from foreign invasion, which (if you knew anything about Korean history) has been the people's greatest fear.

My answer, the US and its puppet government in South Korea is the bad guy here.

You are beyond help.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Errr... Didn't the presence of Soviet troops have something to do with the nature of the "revolutionary" government that took charge as the Japanese left? How could anyone in their right mind call any government formed under Stalin's auspices a "revolutionary" government.

Kim Il Jung, for better or for worse, was the leader of the main anti-Japanese resistence. Following the collapse of the Japanese Empire, the various resistecne groups in Korea set up revolutionary councils across the country. The Soviets and Amerians entered the country, after this process had begun and a sort of national government had been established.

The DPRK, for all its horror and problems, is the successor state to that proto-state that the Korean people themselves had established. Obviously Stalin's iron grip shaped the state the DPRK became, but I have little reason to believe that had Korea been left to itself that they would have been much different from any of the other Asian Communist countries.

When the US came in, they abolished the councils that had been set up by the Korea people and created a state out of the most reactionary people in Korea they could find: fascists, Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese, Japanese soldiers, etc. This government only established itself by murderering off the members of the previous government and their supporters. Massacres were frequent.

This is one of the reasons why the South collapsed so quickly when the North finally decided to put an end to it, the Southern government simply had little indigenous support. That lack of support is still around today, seen in the massive protests and strikes the RoK faced in the late 80s and early 90s (and one still sees today).

[connorkimbro]

Seeker: As far as military equipment goes, i really have no idea what we have here, compared with what their is. However, if a war were to break out, you can bet that along with the influx of troops, would come the influx of battle ready equipment.

Dinodoc: Well, for one, i'd at least pretend to negotiate with north korea. Would i keep giving them economic aid? Probably not. But i wouldn't take such a closed of "no negotiating at all until we get our way" stance. That just seems unnecessary. Almost like the puffer fish that blows itself up real big to appear bigger to frighten other fishies away. It seems like we (the US) is just trying to pretend to be all hardcore.

And, well, we are. We'd whip their ass in a war. But is war really what we want? It's not what I want. I don't think it's the ultimate answer in this case.

[connorkimbro]

Kim Il Jung, for better or for worse, was the leader of the main anti-Japanese resistence.

You mean Kim Il Sung. Kim Jung Il is the current NK leader, and was just a wee lad back in the korean war.

And second, he WASN'T the leader of the main anti-japanese resistence. Of course, North Korea rewrote their history books and said he was, and said he did all these great things and won all these battles, but he really wasn't the leader, nor even very impressive back then.