More Korean War Games

voice of the damned wrote:

 The fact that Park Geun Hye is the daughter of Park Chung Hee doesn't give her anywhere near the sort of power that he had.   

US-backed military dictator Chun Doo hwan didn't order soldiers to slaughter Koreans by his own authority. He obtained US approval to move a Korean division of soldiers under joint US-Korean command to Kwangju to carry out the mass murder of South Korean protesters. That sonofabitch has been allowed to come and go from Korea, the USA and other countries with diplomatic immunity since 1980.

Why do South Korea and Uncle Sam & friends insulate known criminals from international law like this? Not only do US proxies in Seoul and their foreign military partnership on the peninsula not understand what democracy is, they have no respect for justice, either.

Fidel wrote:

Youre not sure of more than just public opinion in South Korea, believe me.

Well, what is it that you think I should be more sure of?

Election Fraud Suspected, South Korea

CNN wrote:

Korea had the presidential election on December 19, 2012. The strong man's daughter, Geun-hye Park, was elected. But many Koreans affirm that the election was fraudulent and illegal. Many kinds of evidence for the affirmation were found. The important evidence is the electronic ballot counting. There was no official investigation carried out by the Lee government, resulting in serious damage of the trust of South Koreans in the government and the Republic of Korea National Election Commission. In this situation, a lot of questions have been raised regarding the presidential election as well, with as many as 230,000 people  having signed in the petition for manual counting.

Quote:

"I'm a mother of two babies in South Korea.

I want my daughters to feel proud of their country.

But they wont

because democracy disappear in South Korea.

I belive in CNN's justice"

Apparently some of us have more faith in South Korea's tainted democracy than Koreans themselves.

South Korea is just another client state of the U.S. Military government with thousands of troops occupying the peninsula. What that has to do with democracy in Korea is apparently a complete mystery for certain babblers.

The truth is that ordinary South Koreans want real democracy not the fake kind, and just as importantly they want diplomacy with the North.  US-backed puppets in Seoul are there to make sure it doesn't happen.

voice of the damned wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Youre not sure of more than just public opinion in South Korea, believe me.

Well, what is it that you think I should be more sure of?

You don't even seem to realize that rabble is an anti-imperialist site, and here you are expressing an unrelenting apologism for imperialism. If you can't figure out that youre barking up the wrong tree here, then what else might you be unsure of in general?

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Oh bullshit Fidel, just because someone doesn’t see eye to eye with you on something doesn’t mean their argument against you is an apology for what they disagree with you on.  When confronted with evidence that a majority of South Koreans understand the US and UN have to be in their country you simply declare their nation and government illegitimate becouse well, that just can't be possable in your mind... You can’t even distinguish between the Korea of 1980 and the one today.

I think when someone realizes they are losing an argument they tend to start making remarks of a personal nature. And that's fine because the truth is what it is. First you said that elections are fair and transparent in South Korea, and it is apparent that they are anything but.

And you said there is no anti-American sentiment in South Korea since 2000+ South Korean protesters were murdered by the US-backed military dictatorship in 1980. The truth is that South Koreans haven't forgotten.

PSY`s Anti-America Protesting Past?

Quote:

In 2002, Psy walked onto the stage at a massive performance meant to protest the large U.S. military presence in South Korea. He wore an outlandish, glittered red costume and gold face paint. As the crowd cheered him on, Psy lifted a large model of a U.S. tank and, to cheers and applause, smashed it against the stage.
.

Smashing a U.S. tank in effigy does not sound like appreciation for the 60 year-old U.S. Military occupation of the peninsula to me.

South Koreans protest land seizure for United States military base expansion, 2005-2007

Quote:

Though estimates vary, as many as 74,200 protesters and resisters were involved in the resistance campaign at some point. While as many as 187,800 police were involved in the eviction process. As of March 2011, the expansion process is still under way in Pyeongtaek, and officials estimate the final transition may be complete by 2016.

I wouldn't say that anti-American sentiment doesn't exist in South Korea. It does. 'Americans not welcome' signs on the front doors of Korean businesses doesn't sound like love for the U.S. Military occupation to me.  

I think you just don't care what Koreans actually think, Bec. And that is typical of citizens living in the empire country. A few British citizens still think England was a benevolent empire welcome in whichever country they happened to be carrying out their soccer hooliganism in Europe. Vicious empires come and go.

"Fucking USA"?  Are your friends in South Korea familiar with the words to that one, Bec?

You don't even seem to realize that rabble is an anti-imperialist site, and here you are expressing an unrelenting apologism for imperialism. If you can't figure out that youre barking up the wrong tree here, then what else might you be unsure of in general?

No. An apologist for imperialism would be if I was making arguments in defense of the USFK being in Korea. I'm not doing that. I'm questioning whether or not people who oppose the USFK can really be said to represent public opinion in Korea.

It's like, I'm personally against NATO and Canada's involvement in NATO, even moreso since the end of the Cold War and the seemingly neverending expansion of its mandate. But if someone were to suggest that NATO is something being forced on Canadians against their will, I would point out that almost all Canadian voters now vote for pro-NATO parties, that opinion polls show most Canadians support continued invovlement, and that I personally know lots of people who support NATO.

Basically, if you're expecting any action to come about on the anti-Canada-in-NATO front, it's gonna have to come from Canadians themselves. And if Canadians don't agree with that idea, then you've got bigger problems than just some guys on message boards in non-NATO countries disagreeing with you.

And if you're not expecting any action to come about on the anti-imperialist front(presumably because Uncle Sam never listens to anyone), then I don't know what the point is of demanding that the USA do anything, be it leave Korea or whatever.

And yes, Fucking USA. They played that video on a big-screen near Democracy Square the first time I attended a May 18th event in Gwangju. Must say, that video being played at a public event didn't exactly buttress the notion that the ROK in the 21st Century is like what it was in the days of Generals Park and Chun.  

And even if it were the case, he is speculating.

Big deal, you've proven nothing, you can always find stuff on the internet and South Koreans whom dis-like the USA and want them out; just like you can find South Koreans who are anti North Korean... No one here has said they don't exist. 

They are not (no where close) in the majority...

When exactly has the USA (6 times) ever threatened a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea? You are talking about a preemptive first strike surprise attack, right? The US has said it has the capability to react to North Korea should it shoot a nuclear missile at the USA but I’ve never read where the USA threatens a first strike (6 times). I'm pretty sure that would be big news...

Hmmm so its the US who threatened it when in fact the General who threatened it was canned for threatening it? Wouldnt that mean the US was NOT threatening it?  Much like they never threatened it in Vietname or Iraq or Afghanistan?

Bruce Cumings(again), via reviewing two books about Korea, offers this interpretation of Truman sacking MacArhthur...

MacArthur wanted to nuke China but Truman overruled him, Becker says. Wrong again. In April 1951, Truman dismissed MacArthur, in order to put a reliable commander in the field should he decide to nuke China...

I'm not sure what Cumings source is for that last bit of information, but it can possibly found in his history of the Korean war(which I've never read). That LRB review is well worth the read.

http://tinyurl.com/d8z2phc

Bacchus wrote:

Hmmm so its the US who threatened it when in fact the General who threatened it was canned for threatening it? Wouldnt that mean the US was NOT threatening it?  Much like they never threatened it in Vietname or Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

If it wasn't for the UN, the pipe and glasses would have continued threatening North Korea with nuclear annihilation. And those threats were serious given that the Yanks had just committed mass murder in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima five years prior. Or will you be denying that, too? ffs

MacArthur (and hawks) were mad as hatters over China's intervention at the Yalu River on Thanksgiving day with MacArthur casting an imperialist gaze over the way at China. Yanks had their asses handed to them by several hundred thousand Korean and Chinese soldiers who had mobilized overnight. Since then the imperialists realize that land war in Asia is unwinnable hence the focus on aerial blitzkriegs ever since.

Yanqui imperialists offered two atomic bombs to France in 1954 in order that they might take care of imperialists' collective problem in Viet Nam. The French refused.

Reading Into South Korea’s Nuclear Debate

Quote:

The third nuclear test conducted by North Korea on February 12 was the latest in a long history of provocations. In many capitals, this event was noted with some alarm and then more or less pushed aside by other issues. Not so for denizens of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. There, the North's nuclear test was so threatening that it has moved onto center stage a once-fringe debate about whether South Korea should acquire nuclear weapons of its own. Washington and Beijing should take notice. 

Public opinion polling in South Korea over the last decade has consistently demonstrated majority support both for an indigenous nuclear weapons effort and the return of US tactical nuclear weapons, which Washington withdrew in 1991. In two recent polls conducted in the wake of the North Korean test, 64 percent and 66 percent of those surveyed agreed that South Korea should possess its own nuclear weapons. This is not surprising as a simple matter of equality with North Korea, ignoring for a moment the thorny technical and policy issues that developing nuclear weapons would pose to South Korea. Public opinion seems to reflect a general sense of insecurity among South Koreans more than a real desire that their government build nuclear weapons.

Devil’s Advocate: Does South Korea need nuclear weapons?

Quote:

Stephen Gowans at The Centre for Research on Globalization recently asked the question ‘Does North Korea Need Nuclear Weapons?’ Seoul, Washington and most of the world are of course too concerned with geo-security implications of the DPRK’s nuclear ambitions to indulge in such ideological debates, but Gowans argues passionately that North Korea is theoretically in the right. I can’t say I agree with his rather hopeful conclusion that nukes in the North will bring ‘political utility’ and ‘reduce the likelihood of war’, but if some are willing to argue that North Korea does need nuclear weaponry then are some of the calls for equality in Seoul so ridiculous?

Its not revision when its declassified documents which tell us what happened as opposed to the speculation of the day

And I guess 

Bacchus, youre an embarrassment to progressive social forums everywhere. I suggest quitting while you apparently still have an ounce of self respect. I certainly do not respect your bare faced apologies for nuclear imperialism. Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I suspect you are not.

is an improvement over your previous comment :

Bacchus, youre so full of shit that your eyes are brown. Go screw yourself, fucktard.

Uh huh, as you know I am merely quoting the comment you originally had there which you replaced.

Bacchus wrote:

You mean the French asked for atom bombs and the US considered it until the British said no way. The French didnt refuse, they wanted the bombs

Oh horsehit! American revisionists are a dime a dozen these days.

In his essay on Eisenhower and Dulles, USC professor of history Ronald Steel wrote that during the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, J.F. Dulles, one of the early architects of U.S. imperialism in the last century,  “told the French that the United States would use atomic weapons against the communist-led Vietnamese rebels.”

Whether or not JF Dulles offered atomic weapons to the French, France obsviously rejected them in favour of not wanting to provoke nuclear wrath of the Soviet Union. Yanqui imperialists would have loved nothing better than to use nukes by proxy without actually involving themselves. The USSR and USSA fought a number of proxy battles around the world during the cold war.

Herring and Immerman wrote:

[img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7283/8727795932_dde614339a.jpg[/img]

All this attempted revisionism aside, apologists for U.S. imperialism are at a loss to explain 25 verified nuclear threats against other countries since WW II.

The apologists are still at a loss to explain why the U.S. Military dictatorship still has nuclear weapons stationed in Europe since their former cold war nemesis, the USSR, does not now exist. They are at a loss to explain why the nuclear mafia is the only country with nuclear weapons positioned on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas.

Apologists for nuclear blackmail are at a loss to explain why nuclear weapons even have a legitimate purpose when they can not now nor ever have a lawful purpose.

Bullshit on you, Bacchus. Bullshit on you.

I think you two are imagining things. Just like the U.S. Military government imagines pipsqueek North Korea is a threat to anyone.

There is a threat to peace and security on the Korean peninsula and to Asian countries in general. That threat is foreign, nuclear-armed and menacing more than just North Korea in the region. This is what a waning vicious empire does in its last stages.

When vcious empires become so corrupt and bankrupt and losing economic influence around the world, it resorts to military aggression. It's all they can do to try and regain that which they once had. It's broken, and all the kings soldiers can't put Humpty back together. It's finished.

Youre just disappointed that we don't subscribe to the imperialist Yanqui bullshit, like you and the other dude in the minority of opinions here in this thread.

Neither you nor the other dude are interested in facts just expounding on the right wing propaganda. Your argument is weak and lacking credibility in general as long as the U.S. Military dictatorship continues menacing other countries with nuclear weapons, practices "war games" immediately next to and adjacent countries it threatens with nuclear blackmail and U.S. military presence in distant hemispheric regions of the world general.

The U.S. Military dictatorship in Warshington's problem is that it doesn't know when to leave other countries. It's been 60 years since North Korea's 9/11. Uncle Sam should get the hell home where he belongs - the USA is falling apart at the seams due to wild and wanton taxpayer spending on all things military. That's what military dictatorships do, though.

Only Koreans can decide their own fate and unite into one strong and prosperous country. Uncle Sam has no business on the peninsula and definitely no business threatening Koreans with nuclear incineration, like the U.S. Military government has done at least half a dozen times since destroying North Korea with blitzkrieg in the 1950's. The U.S. Military government has no legitimate business whatsoever surrounding Korea and China with nuclear weapons. None nada zilch. They should get the fuck home and stop threatening other sovereign nations militarily.

ETA: And at least I am man enough to admit that Bacchus has totally changed my opinion of the U.S. Military dictatorship's perceived nuclear threat to Viet Nam in 1954. Now I am merely unsure of which of the two Gladio partners in crime actually threatened to use nuclear weapons in Viet Nam that year. For this I am thankful to the babbler known as Bacchus. I now think that Gladio nations, America and France, actually had no intention of using nuclear weapons in Viet Nam, at least not in that specific year of 1954. It may have had something to do with realizing that the USSR had nuclear weapons capability themselves, and that the fascist hawks own right to exist on the planet may have been threatened in return.

And we can be sure that Vietnamese everywhere are now relieved to find out that none of the then nuclear-armed Gladio nations(a sum total of the USA by itself) actually wanted to accept historical responibility for threatening millions of their people with nuclear holocaust in the years before commencement of aerial bombing, chemical weapons attacks, and U.S. Military destroying so many villages with machine gun fire and flamethrowers in order to save those human beings from a fate far better than freedom and democracy American style.  We now know that the Gladio nations had much more integrity and respect for humanity than to actually use nuclear weapons to commit mass murder of millions of fellow human beings.

My opinion of the U.S. nuclear-armed military dictatorship has been elevated somewhat raised to a new high water mark as a result of Bacchus posting that important information about the 'Pentagon papers' leaked to the lapdog newz media. Thank you, Bacchus. Well done.

Fidel, you're entitled to disagree with other babblers, but once again you've shown us that you're incapable of disagreeing without being abusive.

You've earned a 24 hour timeout.

Hey Fidelio, welcome back. Yes,  well throw it on the same pile with 911, 'Arab Spring' etc. Many of those that would be posting 'contra' Yanqui imperialism have been taken out already. So beware of offering them up yourself as an easy target too eh?

This thread and the crude scribblings in reply to us make mock of the 'anti-imperialist' ideal referred to loosely in babble policy.

It seems babble's actual policy is to provide welcome debate of friendly imperialism. Uncle Sam is actually Canada's friendly gladio ally whose imperial right to threaten mass murder of Koreans and other sovereigns is now considered "debatable" right here on babble. The long-time imperialist military occupation of Korea is now considered "necessary" because the barbarians can't be trusted with democracy the same as Chileans couldn't be trusted with democracy in 1973. These racist-imperialist points of view are now considered respectable and dignified according to Rabble's unwritten policy.

Just be civil with these anti human rights advocates for Uncle Sam is all babble moderators ask of us. Is that asking too much? Yes, I think it is, and progressive posters should be highly offended.

Imagine that you and I plunked ourselves down in the middle of feminist forum where they happen to be discussing women's basic right to abortion, say, in Korea. You and I interrupt with insanely anti-feminist talk of the imperial right to threaten mass rape in Korea. We begin by introducing the bizarre idea of "threats of nuclear-armed rape" of Korea and lasting decades after the initial rape occurred when millions of Koreans were mass raped by a foreign military and every major city levelled by blitzkrieg for added effect.  And then we begin arguing in favour of the stranger, a notorious nuclear-armed rapist,  to remain at the scene of the crime with stated intention to threaten mass rape, once again. It is for Koreans own good, we might explain. And the victims of mass [s]murder[/s] "rape" in the 1950's should never be allowed to defend themselves against the same mass rapist threatening them for the last six decades in a row non-stop. How long would those views be tolerated in a feminist forum? We'd likely be incinerated lickity split.

But in this case Koreans are treated differently according to unwritten babble policy. The foreign rapist is perfectly within his imperial rights to remain there on the peninsula, which pro imperialists might see as a giant nuclear-armed dildo if that helps them see things more clearly,  andcontinuing to threaten even more mass rape for some reason or other  that I can't fathom. Apparently Koreans require threatening with nuclear-armed rape according to our American friend and his bacchup.  And for some reason i don't think framing it in terms of nuclear-armed rape would help them understand this imperialist crime against peace any better. In fact, I think this analogy would only confuse them even more than they already are.

These forums used to be teeming with human rights. Not anymore.

Hands off Korea!

Peace out.

Bacchus check your messages.

Sure they can, since they were asking for them to be used as a fellow ally in need. That makes them responsible, your attempts at bullying me here or in PM notwithstanding

There were no personal insults in that message. Forum s/w maintains a sent copy to support my claim of innocence in that regard. Your American government sources of information lack credibility and integrity given their history of intragovernmental lies to one another for their own purposes. And, France was not nuclear weapons-capable in 1954 and therefore could not be held solely responsible for the threat if supported by one of just two nuclear-armed countries at the time.

Slumberjack wrote:

I read it as a suggestion.

As did I, but it would seem that is no longer the case.

Slumberjack, Fidel displayed a pattern of disrespectful behaviour on the thread that had been commented on by other mods as well as me, and he had been given many warnings. His last sentiment was moderated because he was previously asked to leave the thread, which he chose not to follow.

Another mod stepped in because we are not on threads all day long and we work as a team.

I suggest we let this issue go now because it is now become exhuasting to talk about.