NK media blatantly making its mark in SK's elections

Jessica12 · Post by **Jessica12** » Sun May 20, 2012 11:35 pm

It has recently been discovered that whenever South Korea's election season begins, North Korea's media and anti-South Korea propaganda groups join forces and push its way through the border, leading the leftists and North Korea followers in South Korea to act against the interests of South Korea and confuse the voters.

North Korea disturbed 7 South Korea presidential elections and tried to influence more than 3,000 local elections. For the last congressional elections held on April 11th, it has been reported that there was 246 different incidents in which North Korea trying to influence the elections.

As election day comes near, North Korea tries its best to paint a bad picture of South Korea's president Lee Myung Bak and promote anti-U.S. movements using all kinds of nasty and deceiving tricks.

This kind of anti-government, anti-U.S. activism during elections that are led by North Korea North Korea leads these anti-government, anti-U.S. activism during election season so they can place leftist people in governmental seats. North Korea must stop this at once if they want to peacefully restore their relationship with South Korea.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 21, 2012 1:09 am

That's rather exciting news, Jessica. You say North Korea has followers in South Korea? I hadn't known that. Why do you suppose people in South Korea would go to the trouble and accept the danger of supporting North Korea? It sounds to me as though loyalty to Korea as a whole still matters to at least a proportion of Koreans and that unification is still on people's minds.

Sixty years ago Korea had a civil war which, rather than allowing it to be won by the Communists, was interrupted by the USA and some of its dependent satellite nations. That civil war has been frozen unendingly ever since. Had the Communists won that civil war, Korea would have developed and changed into a single-party dynamo of productivity - it happened that way in China, for example. Instead you've had a perpetual civil war that can't end, and conflict where there should have been national unity.

I'd like to see Korea reunited. To do that, the first essential requirement is an end to the military occupation of the south.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 21, 2012 11:26 am

If the North took over the South, or had taken it over 50 years ago, there would have been millions more deaths and the incompetence or the Kim regimes starving and wrecking the lives of millions more. Just my opinion.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 21, 2012 1:08 pm

Clodhopper;1394141 wrote: If the North took over the South, or had taken it over 50 years ago, there would have been millions more deaths and the incompetence or the Kim regimes starving and wrecking the lives of millions more. Just my opinion.

And you may be entirely right - it's what Mao did, after all. China has progressed beyond Mao because it had the choice of where it wanted to go. The occupied south hasn't had since it was occupied. The independent north hasn't since it's still on a war footing. The civil war has frozen both halves of Korea into a fractured stasis. The Koreans need to be allowed to end the civil war and remake Korea. For both the north and the south, the thing preventing reunification is the continuing occupation by foreign armed forces.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 21, 2012 4:52 pm

Think I'd rather live in the South than the North, think the North would win a civil war as things stand if the US withdrew backing for the South, and I think that would result in terrible loss of life.

Given that, then partition is the least worse solution.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 21, 2012 5:43 pm

I'd see the settlement of the civil war as involving a complete removal of all occupation forces, the establishment of a common currency, the dismantling of the excess armed force numbers in both north and south and full national elections across the whole of Korea. The northern insistence on unaided self-defense of Korea would be met, there's honour all round for those going into retirement and there'd be a damn sight more civil justice both sides of the demarcation line. Until Korea is reunified there's no end to the tension that partition forced on the country.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 21, 2012 8:33 pm

Clodhopper;1394149 wrote: Think I'd rather live in the South than the North, think the North would win a civil war as things stand if the US withdrew backing for the South, and I think that would result in terrible loss of life.

Given that, then partition is the least worse solution.Your post makes it appear that NK is better prepared to run an independent country, while SK has become dependent on foreign forces.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 21, 2012 11:36 pm

Accountable;1394152 wrote: Your post makes it appear that NK is better prepared to run an independent country, while SK has become dependent on foreign forces.

That's always been North Korea's principal policy objective - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

It's surely no great surprise that they should have this mindset. They spent a decade on their backs providing R&R to the Japanese marauders who were raping half of Asia, they learned to fight back pretty successfully, they had a civil war in the aftermath to decide whether socialism or capitalism was to be flavor of the month and whammy, the entire Western world piles in guns blazing and the occupied section ends up spending yet another decade on its back providing R&R to junked-to-the-eyeballs drunk-as-hell American conscripts trying to survive their Vietnam moment. Of course the north wants to run an independent country and so would you in their position. The south, on the other hand, hasn't yet had the opportunity.

Short of "my country right or wrong" and a complete disregard for anything other than partisan preference you can't possibly disapprove of Korean isolationism in the face of this sort of aggression. North Korea is what the US has made it, nothing more or less. Go away, remove the pressure and let Korea re-unify in the way Germany did. It's not your business to be there any more than it is for you to be anywhere else outside your Homeland.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 22, 2012 4:32 am

I'd explain how far off base you are, but you can't see through the blood in your eyes.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 22, 2012 3:40 pm

Accountable;1394152 wrote: Your post makes it appear that NK is better prepared to run an independent country, while SK has become dependent on foreign forces.

Surprised. If you regard horrendous oppression as "better prepared", then yes. In terms of dependent, then if you withdrew support tomorrow what would eg China do? China, I understand, supports N Korea. Maybe I'm wrong in this and N Korea stands entirely alone?

One feature of totalitarian regimes is a swollen military. I'd guess S Korean forces are built around the US alliance. If that alliance is removed tomorrow, then who would win the war? I think the North would, and that the death toll and subsequent killing fields would be utterly appalling.

I didn't think that S Korea was an appalling wilderness of oppressed and starving people in daily fear of their lives from their masters, but no doubt I'm wrong. Personally it seems to me that saving the South Koreans from the Kims is a good thing to be doing, if you can afford it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 22, 2012 7:03 pm

Clodhopper;1394186 wrote: Surprised. If you regard horrendous oppression as "better prepared", then yes. In terms of dependent, then if you withdrew support tomorrow what would eg China do? China, I understand, supports N Korea. Maybe I'm wrong in this and N Korea stands entirely alone? I think that China has withdrawn their military support, though I'm sure they provide a significant boost through trade. That's not the same thing. Still, I could easily be wrong.

My phrase was "better prepared to run an independent country." It wouldn't be a free or progressive country, but it would be able to survive a significant period without needing a financial bailout. The US has not allowed SK to develop into an independent entity. Doing so would cut a major source of revenue for the military industrial complex.

Clodhopper;1394186 wrote: One feature of totalitarian regimes is a swollen military. I'd guess S Korean forces are built around the US alliance. If that alliance is removed tomorrow, then who would win the war? I think the North would, and that the death toll and subsequent killing fields would be utterly appalling.

I didn't think that S Korea was an appalling wilderness of oppressed and starving people in daily fear of their lives from their masters, but no doubt I'm wrong. Personally it seems to me that saving the South Koreans from the Kims is a good thing to be doing, if you can afford it.
We need to stop giving SK fish and teach them to fish for themselves.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 23, 2012 1:18 am

Accountable;1394189 wrote: We need to stop giving SK fish and teach them to fish for themselves.What business is it of America's, whether the South Koreans develop any particular skill-set? Who invited you-all into this teaching role?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 23, 2012 4:07 am

spot;1394194 wrote: What business is it of America's, whether the South Koreans develop any particular skill-set? Who invited you-all into this teaching role?
That's a question for history. We're there. I think we should be out. Some think that if we just 'up and left' that SK would fall to the NK totalitarian regime, and then what good would Hyundai's 100K mile warranty be??

SK is a de facto American colony. What did England do to ensure Canada or India would survive when you abandoned your empire?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 23, 2012 6:50 am

Accountable;1394201 wrote: SK is a de facto American colony. What did England do to ensure Canada or India would survive when you abandoned your empire?

Three things. We gave them complete control of their own foreign policy, we gave them complete control of their own financial policy and we closed all of our so-called "freely entered into by treaty" bases and removed every last Tommy Atkins and Jolly Jack Tar from their landmass. If you skip even one of those three essentials it's still a province ruled by an imperial power, though if all you have left of control is the treaty bases then it's an expensive whore of a country to waste your hard-won profits over.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 23, 2012 1:35 pm

spot;1394207 wrote: Three things. We gave them complete control of their own foreign policy, we gave them complete control of their own financial policy and we closed all of our so-called "freely entered into by treaty" bases and removed every last Tommy Atkins and Jolly Jack Tar from their landmass. If you skip even one of those three essentials it's still a province ruled by an imperial power, though if all you have left of control is the treaty bases then it's an expensive whore of a country so waste your hard-won profits over.
You're talking about cleanup when I asked about prep.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 23, 2012 1:46 pm

Accountable;1394214 wrote: You're talking about cleanup when I asked about prep.

Until independence motivated over the hill, those running the Empire took the position that independence wasn't going to happen. They made no preparations at all, they actively sabotaged moves to create a sustainable independent country. The three steps I outlined are observations from after the event and describe the reality of what it takes for a country to let go. The Empire never benefits when it binds the province by treaties forced on the weaker party when the latter had no option but to accept the terms - we did that with Hong Kong and thereby guaranteed 150 years of non-cooperation from China, for example.

Does the US still own territorial bases in the Philippines? I ask not knowing the answer though I could obviously look it up, I'm just being conversational.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:10 pm

Clodhopper;1394141 wrote: If the North took over the South, or had taken it over 50 years ago, there would have been millions more deaths and the incompetence or the Kim regimes starving and wrecking the lives of millions more. Just my opinion.

I would look to the nearest comparable situation for an answer to that - what was the outcome in Vietnam and how has the country faired since the civil war was allowed to end?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:49 pm

OOOHHHH that just made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up..... Accountable I don't believe you just said that ."SK is a de facto American colony." "We need to stop giving SK fish and teach them to fish for themselves. " There's a huge difference between giving somone fish and forcing fish upon them, saying if they don't take it they are the enemy.

Yes Spot they are still in the phillipines. And here as well. 1000 troops up north recently soon to be 2500 . But we're told they are just sight seeing in Kakadu........They are positioning themselves heavily in Asia at the moment .

And no SK is not a backward country they have a better broadband service than us..seriously

Post by **spot** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:55 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1394220 wrote: And no SK is not a backward country they have a better broadband service than us..seriouslyBe fair fuzz, they don't stretch across fifteen timezones and 90% of them live in cities, laying fiber to the apartment is a doddle. You do well just linking half of Australia by radio telephone.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 23, 2012 3:15 pm

what's strange about it is, per capita we own the most computers in the world . This house has five.

Laying fibre...lol lol I'll go take a pic of the fibre cable down the road and where it stopped ..you'll laugh . I won't be getting it ..I'm 4 km down the road from the cable and I won't be getting it. Ahh the joys of our government, proof they have a sense of humour.

We do have pretty good wideband though.... I guess we have to

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 23, 2012 5:16 pm

spot;1394215 wrote: Until independence motivated over the hill, those running the Empire took the position that independence wasn't going to happen. They made no preparations at all, they actively sabotaged moves to create a sustainable independent country. The three steps I outlined are observations from after the event and describe the reality of what it takes for a country to let go. The Empire never benefits when it binds the province by treaties forced on the weaker party when the latter had no option but to accept the terms - we did that with Hong Kong and thereby guaranteed 150 years of non-cooperation from China, for example.So GB didn't initiate any withdrawals at all? Hmf. Probably an assumption on my part more than anything I'd actually been taught.

spot;1394215 wrote: Does the US still own territorial bases in the Philippines? I ask not knowing the answer though I could obviously look it up, I'm just being conversational.Clark Air Base used to be the 2nd or 3rd largest Air Force base, until God decided to close it by burying it under Mt Pinatubo back in 1991. I know we still have naval installation(s) there but I don't know how substantial our presence is anymore.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 23, 2012 5:20 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1394220 wrote: OOOHHHH that just made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up..... Accountable I don't believe you just said that ."SK is a de facto American colony." "We need to stop giving SK fish and teach them to fish for themselves. " There's a huge difference between giving somone fish and forcing fish upon them, saying if they don't take it they are the enemy.
You don't think the colony statement is accurate? Please set me straight.

The fish remark was meant as light sarcasm. We're not allowing them to fish for themselves. We're keeping them dependent. I'm sure some campaign contributors feel it's more profitable that way. So yeh, I agree with you.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 24, 2012 1:12 am

Accountable;1394226 wrote: So GB didn't initiate any withdrawals at all? Hmf. Probably an assumption on my part more than anything I'd actually been taught.Withdrawal from India was what happened post-war, when Churchill was ousted and a socialist government elected. The national accounts obviously didn't balance, there was a massive hill to climb just to find daylight, India went out with all the bathwater - it was fully independent within three years. A longer term period would have allowed Indian politicians time to form agreements locally. Saying "We're off, how do you want to be constituted" enabled the locals to erect fences, it's why the world now has Pakistan to deal with. Until independence all of Pakistan was governed from New Delhi, it had never been a country in its own right, all it was was the part of India with an Islamic majority.

Unlike India, Canada said it was off thank you and the handover terms were decided at a conference in, I think, the twenties. You have to remember that the Canadians, unlike the Indians, were Brits Abroad (with a couple of million or so defeated Frenchies and First Peoples who'd never had much say in their future, then or since).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 24, 2012 4:19 am

Got it, thanks. Interesting.

Nothing will change with SK anyway. Every time I dare suggest that the US respect the sovereignty of other nations I'm accused of being isolationist. If we quickly extracted from SK then NK would attack, and the international community would find it very convenient to keep their hands in their pockets and blame the US for not acting exactly how they otherwise excoriate us for acting. No one is willing, nor (arguably) able, to help SK transition to independence while keeping NK at bay (a danger neither India nor Canada faced, if I'm not mistaken). US powers that be will use this to excuse remaining in SK, maintaining status quo.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 24, 2012 4:44 am

The parallel between India and Korea exists, I think. In Korea's case the civil war happened first and it was interrupted by outsiders. In India, the reason there hadn't been an Islam/Hindu civil war was that the country was occupied. As the occupation ended the civil war broke out, it's simmered through three nation-on-nation wars so far. Now that both sides are nuclear-armed, war is no longer an option. It's one reason I'd be happy to see Iran nuclear-armed, I don't think you could argue Iran's leadership is more ferociously off its trolley than either Pakistan's or India's each of which is a nationalist wasp-nest. The Indians were sufficiently insane as to go to war with China, if you remember, before either had a nuclear defense. Once a nuclear defense is established, no other country ever attacks you - it's a universal truth.

What you wrote had an interesting observation, "Every time I dare suggest that the US respect the sovereignty of other nations I'm accused of being isolationist" - why is isolationist such a bad word in America? Where's the internal pressure to go abroad with guns? Is the opposite of isolationist interventionist, or can the US participate in the international arena without every President feeling obliged to deploy the big fist?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 24, 2012 6:35 pm

spot;1394243 wrote: The parallel between India and Korea exists, I think. In Korea's case the civil war happened first and it was interrupted by outsiders. In India, the reason there hadn't been an Islam/Hindu civil war was that the country was occupied. As the occupation ended the civil war broke out, it's simmered through three nation-on-nation wars so far. Now that both sides are nuclear-armed, war is no longer an option. It's one reason I'd be happy to see Iran nuclear-armed, I don't think you could argue Iran's leadership is more ferociously off its trolley than either Pakistan's or India's each of which is a nationalist wasp-nest. The Indians were sufficiently insane as to go to war with China, if you remember, before either had a nuclear defense. Once a nuclear defense is established, no other country ever attacks you - it's a universal truth.I wonder how loud the international uproar would be if SK bought nukes and asked us to leave. :sneaky:

spot;1394243 wrote: What you wrote had an interesting observation, "Every time I dare suggest that the US respect the sovereignty of other nations I'm accused of being isolationist" - why is isolationist such a bad word in America?I guess it's our relative isolation.

spot;1394243 wrote: Where's the internal pressure to go abroad with guns? Is the opposite of isolationist interventionist, or can the US participate in the international arena without every President feeling obliged to deploy the big fist?
Dunno. The psychologist in me says that it's the mob mentality peculiar to Washington. By the time people reach the pentacle of the US gov't they're so segregated from the "real world" that they start doing what they think they're supposed to, rather than actually thinking critically about the decisions they're to make.

The cynic in me says it's the corporate sponsors, the military industrial complex in this case, pulling all the strings with only profit and expansion commanding any real priority.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 24, 2012 7:52 pm

Accountable;1394277 wrote: Dunno. The psychologist in me says that it's the mob mentality peculiar to Washington. By the time people reach the pentacle of the US gov't they're so segregated from the "real world" that they start doing what they think they're supposed to, rather than actually thinking critically about the decisions they're to make.

The cynic in me says it's the corporate sponsors, the military industrial complex in this case, pulling all the strings with only profit and expansion commanding any real priority.

Has there, in your opinion, been a single candidate capable of gathering enough votes to become a Senator or Congressman or President since... shall we say 1950? - who consistently voted or campaigned against this tide of affairs you describe? If you can think of a few it'd be interesting to dig into why they failed to have any effect.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 24, 2012 7:55 pm

Accountable;1394277 wrote: I wonder how loud the international uproar would be if SK bought nukes and asked us to leave. :sneaky:On a point of information, I don't think any country has ever bought or sold any nuclear weapon. If you know an example it would interest me.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 25, 2012 3:44 am

spot;1394287 wrote: Has there, in your opinion, been a single candidate capable of gathering enough votes to become a Senator or Congressman or President since... shall we say 1950? - who consistently voted or campaigned against this tide of affairs you describe? If you can think of a few it'd be interesting to dig into why they failed to have any effect.
I'm not aware of one, though I'm sure the Vietnam war brought out a couple. I assume Ron Paul voted consistently against most of our military actions, but I haven't checked. I don't know of an easy way to do so. I'd say broadly - and this is strictly my own view - that most people who run for national office agree with the general direction the federal gov't is going (stronger centralized gov't, more "services", larger international role); they likely only disagree with how it's currently being done.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:47 am

Accountable;1394295 wrote: I'm not aware of one, though I'm sure the Vietnam war brought out a couple. I assume Ron Paul voted consistently against most of our military actions, but I haven't checked. I don't know of an easy way to do so. I'd say broadly - and this is strictly my own view - that most people who run for national office agree with the general direction the federal gov't is going (stronger centralized gov't, more "services", larger international role); they likely only disagree with how it's currently being done.I'll make an observation, by which time we'll have taken an excursion that's left me surprised. Either (a) the political system that has created the serving Senators and Congressmen and Presidents since my arbitrary 1950 has restricted a wide range of people from standing for office, which I don't myself believe for a moment, or (b) your two-party machinery leads the majority of voters almost invariably to support candidates fielded by the two parties to the exclusion of independents, or (c) the majority of American voters want this massive armed force and its regular deployment, and that they vote in sufficient numbers to elect, with remarkably few exceptions, only for those prepared to back its maintenance and dispatch against other nations.

I've held the opinion, when posting here, that both (b) and (c) are true, hence my disapproval of your two-party system as undemocratic for as long as both have a practically identical policy to feed the massively militarized Federal economy, and of your electorate in general as selfishly belligerent. Either of (b) or (c) on its own would be sufficient to hold the USA back from returning to your personal ideals relating to the US Constitution. Do you feel, from what you've red and seen over the years, that either or both of (b) and (c) are true? And if so, do you think they're fixable or are they permanent features of the world's political landscape?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:00 am

Our two parties have operated in the fashion of a business trust such that would be illegal if they were actual businesses. They have set up more and more complicated rules, making it extremely difficult for any competition to gain a foothold. At the same time they portray each other as the most evil opposite of themselves, such that any vote for some "third party" is the same as voting for the opposing party. I mean, after all, would you rather waste your vote on an ideal candidate who can't win, or would you rather win? Enough people have bought into this tripe so that it has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Now the norm is to vote only against whomever you don't want to win, without the first thought about who one is actually voting for. The lesser of two evils is the best most people think they can hope for. They truly believe it, and thus it becomes so.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:28 am

If you can't subscribe to "the majority of American voters want this massive armed force and its regular deployment", would we find common ground in saying "the majority of American voters want this massive armed force"?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:48 am

Yes, most Americans I speak to are convinced that we need the military empire. Most also bristle when I call it a military empire.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat May 26, 2012 10:21 am

Accountable;1394336 wrote: Yes, most Americans I speak to are convinced that we need the military empire. Most also bristle when I call it a military empire.
This has been my experience too.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat May 26, 2012 5:04 pm

It's late and has been a long but enjoyable day. But spot is oversimplifying when he talks of India. They had a fully developed legal system, an integrated transport system, Congress had been meeting for years and hadn't sorted the Hindu Muslim issue, a fully modern Army under political control; were promised independence mid-War by Cabinet against the wishes of Churchill in return for the co-operation of the Indian Army and a ceasing of protest for the duration of the War. I'm sure independence could have been handled better, but it wasn't quite as dire as spot made out.

edit: and Civil Service largely manned by Indians who moved into the top posts on independence.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 27, 2012 3:26 am

Yes, most Americans I speak to are convinced that we need the military empire. Most also bristle when I call it a military empire.

There have been worse Empires. We get criticism for just pulling out of places, especially in Africa, because of the chaos that ensued. It sounds very much to me as though you are proposing that sort of thing in Korea. What that might mean for the region as a whole I don't know, but I imagine that while China would let Kim kill as many S Korean undesirables as he liked, the Chinese would stop him going outside Korea's borders as they are now?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 27, 2012 4:14 am

Clodhopper;1394472 wrote: There have been worse Empires.Well that's a fine consolation. Sorta like being the nicest slave owner in a town where everyone's given up their slaves.

Clodhopper;1394472 wrote: We get criticism for just pulling out of places, especially in Africa, because of the chaos that ensued. It sounds very much to me as though you are proposing that sort of thing in Korea.I would imagine that 59 years should have been enough time to train SK up to withstand chaos, wouldn't you? I mean, the difference between us in SK and you in Africa is that you went into Africa with the stated purpose of expanding your empire, conquering lands, and exploiting them for whatever they have. We not only don't claim the same, we reject it entirely. We're there ostensibly in the name of freedom, fighting against the tyranny of communism. You'd think we would have figured out a way to leave them to their freedom by now.

Clodhopper;1394472 wrote: What that might mean for the region as a whole I don't know, but I imagine that while China would let Kim kill as many S Korean undesirables as he liked, the Chinese would stop him going outside Korea's borders as they are now?Sounds right, but that's hardly our call to make. We can only control our own actions, and I say we should respect other nations' sovereignty as much as we demand other nations respect ours. China will do as China wills.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 27, 2012 5:32 am

Well that's a fine consolation. Sorta like being the nicest slave owner in a town where everyone's given up their slaves.

chuckle. Them's the breaks. If you want to be extreme, every American acquisition west of the Mississippi is an example of US Empire building. Bit shocking to American sensibilities, I suppose, but one person's settling the wasteland and fighting off the savages is another's conquest and subjugation.

I would imagine that 59 years should have been enough time to train SK up to withstand chaos, wouldn't you? I mean, the difference between us in SK and you in Africa is that you went into Africa with the stated purpose of expanding your empire, conquering lands, and exploiting them for whatever they have. We not only don't claim the same, we reject it entirely. We're there ostensibly in the name of freedom, fighting against the tyranny of communism. You'd think we would have figured out a way to leave them to their freedom by now.

If you had spent 59 years training them then yes. But you haven't and that's the way it is. We went into places half the time because someone found gold or good land to farm or to forestall the French or Germans who were also colonising away in Africa. By the C20th there were definite standards of good governance that were supposed to be applied and usually were applied. The trouble was, in contrast with India which we'd been in for 250 years, we'd been in most of Africa for less than 100 and there was a huge difference between the literate and complex Indian society and the totally uneducated (in a contemporary western or indeed Indian view) African tribal societies. There was an idea that it was our duty to educate the savages, appalling as that now sounds, but it took time to develop and the process had nowhere near completed by the end of 1945 with the result that most African countries didn't have the management skills and experience or civil service ethos or established judiciary etc etc required and suffered appallingly from corruption and mismanagement on independence.

Sounds right, but that's hardly our call to make. We can only control our own actions, and I say we should respect other nations' sovereignty as much as we demand other nations respect ours. China will do as China wills.

Have the South Koreans voted to have you leave? Once you ARE there it seems to me you have responsibilities whether you like it or not, just as we do with eg Gibralter or Malta or the Falklands or Northern Ireland. Lord knows it's not easy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 27, 2012 6:03 am

Clodhopper;1394478 wrote: chuckle. Them's the breaks. If you want to be extreme, every American acquisition west of the Mississippi is an example of US Empire building. Bit shocking to American sensibilities, I suppose, but one person's settling the wasteland and fighting off the savages is another's conquest and subjugation.I don't think that's an extreme view at all. It was undeniably empire-building, but that was in a time of empires and expansion, regardless of how we today feel about the practice. This is no longer that time.

Clodhopper;1394478 wrote: If you had spent 59 years training them then yes. But you haven't and that's the way it is. We went into places half the time because someone found gold or good land to farm or to forestall the French or Germans who were also colonising away in Africa. By the C20th there were definite standards of good governance that were supposed to be applied and usually were applied. The trouble was, in contrast with India which we'd been in for 250 years, we'd been in most of Africa for less than 100 and there was a huge difference between the literate and complex Indian society and the totally uneducated (in a contemporary western or indeed Indian view) African tribal societies. There was an idea that it was our duty to educate the savages, appalling as that now sounds, but it took time to develop and the process had nowhere near completed by the end of 1945 with the result that most African countries didn't have the management skills and experience or civil service ethos or established judiciary etc etc required and suffered appallingly from corruption and mismanagement on independence.That bolded part is my point. We routinely violate the very principles we espouse. I'm not certain of the societal development level of Korea post WW2, but I do know they were well beyond the hunter-gatherer nomad. They have a rich history and culture of their own. They deserve more respect than we in the West have given them.

Clodhopper;1394478 wrote: Have the South Koreans voted to have you leave? Once you ARE there it seems to me you have responsibilities whether you like it or not, just as we do with eg Gibralter or Malta or the Falklands or Northern Ireland. Lord knows it's not easy.South Korean independence was supposed to have been our goal from the beginning. If they don't want independence, that only shows the level of failure on our part. I don't think it's a fair comparison to your centuries-old empirical relationships.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 27, 2012 6:59 am

I don't think that's an extreme view at all. It was undeniably empire-building, but that was in a time of empires and expansion, regardless of how we today feel about the practice. This is no longer that time.

Hmm. I think by that argument we ought to still rule in India. Victoria was declared empress in the 1870s and the conquest was basically complete by the 1840s after all, much of it was done in the 1800s by the man who went on to become the Duke of Wellington. It took so long to be part of the Empire proper because it was a commercial property of the East India Company until after the Mutiny (1857), when it was taken over by the government. Since you were annexing Texas and Oregon around that time I'm not sure where the real difference lies. Anyway, the one sure thing is that no matter how we got here, this is where we are.

That bolded part is my point. We routinely violate the very principles we espouse. I'm not certain of the societal development level of Korea post WW2, but I do know they were well beyond the hunter-gatherer nomad. They have a rich history and culture of their own. They deserve more respect than we in the West have given them.

They'd been colonised by Japan in WW2 and provide some of the nastiest pow camp guards. Whatever had been their past culture, the Japanese had been smashing it since 1910 when they invaded. Did you give them any help post 1945?

South Korean independence was supposed to have been our goal from the beginning. If they don't want independence, that only shows the level of failure on our part. I don't think it's a fair comparison to your centuries-old empirical relationships.

I really don't know much about S Korea, but I did think they were pretty much a Westernised society in the way Japan is: ie a blend of cultures (and you did a good job in Japan). I had heard there is some prejudice of Southerners against Northerners who escape but that they had a solid agricultural base and modern industries in the cities. Their big risk is being colonised by the Kim family.

And I did think the S Koreans governed themselves. Is that not true?

I don't claim to have the answers. I just think letting N Korea take over South Korea would result in a very high number of deaths.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 27, 2012 10:41 am

Clodhopper;1394484 wrote: They'd been colonised by Japan in WW2 and provide some of the nastiest pow camp guards. Whatever had been their past culture, the Japanese had been smashing it since 1910 when they invaded. Did you give them any help post 1945?Dunno. Prolly not.

Clodhopper;1394484 wrote: And I did think the S Koreans governed themselves. Is that not true?They have their own gov't, but doesn't every colony?

Clodhopper;1394484 wrote: I don't claim to have the answers. I just think letting N Korea take over South Korea would result in a very high number of deaths.I agree. My point is that we're doing zero to ensure that that won't happen without us.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 28, 2012 2:32 am

I'm really not sure what you can do short of giving them a nuclear deterrent. And that won't happen. It's unlikely they can afford a regular army big enough to take on the N Korean without reducing their people to similar poverty and the country as far as I know is no Switzerland that can be defended easily at a few passes by the people in arms. I don't see what you can do other than a guarantee of support if invaded.

There is wide variety in the way colonies were run. Belgian colonies were hell on earth, German ones often not much better. The British learned a great deal from the American fiasco about how NOT to do it: basically the Roman model of Provinces serving the Capital directly went out the window.

In those straightforwardly racist days, the white colonies were pretty much left to themselves, subject to the Crown and English Common Law but basically self governing in the interests of the white settlers. They've become steadily more completely independent over time and at various times got recognised as independent countries. They never made money for Britain through direct tax if I've remembered right; they encouraged trade which was taxed more indirectly. New Zealand is an exception, because there the settlement was agreed by treaty - the Maori were never completely conquered as such.

Non white but literate societies - India, mostly - had a British elite in the key posts, but everything else run by the native population; and nomad hunter gatherer or hill tribes tended to have a district commissioner to settle local disputes and reduce local tensions, backed up by a small but professional (and often native) army officered by the British in case things boiled over. Treatment of indigenous populations and tribal societies basically got steadily better as time went by, until by the end it was really very advanced for the time, in a thoroughly paternalistic way. Fairly horrible at the start though, and of course the system only worked as well as those in charge. Some were very good, others were not.

Ooof. Sorry. That turned into a bit of an essay. I'll stop now.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 28, 2012 4:27 am

Very informative, though. Thanks!

Post by **spot** » Mon May 28, 2012 5:19 am

When it comes to reunification, the North definitely has something to offer - a reduction of militarism to a minimum consistent with an ability to defend the Korean homeland. Given their land border with China that's quite a big military commitment. The South has no such capability, the North does.

The South also has something to offer: an end to the foreign occupation, because even the US isn't capable of refusing to go if that's one of the terms that puts Korea back together again; and an industrial and electronic manufacturing base capable of adding prosperity to Korea as a whole. Korea hasn't been a unified country at peace for a hundred years now. Establishing a modern legal framework and a Constitution suitable to the current century, with input from both sides of the border, can't be beyond their ability if they have the will to do it. The South has to abandon massive all-pervading political and economic corruption, the North has to abandon dynastic rule over a one-party system. What each gets in exchange is a more financially powerful nuclear-armed country with greater regional influence.

I note that without a nuclear arsenal the unified Korea will have absolutely no guarantee of independence from the People's Republic of China. Taiwan has independence by virtue of the US non-guaranteed defense umbrella which will be effective for exactly as long as the PRC chooses to leave Taiwan unabsorbed into the mainland's economy and political structure. Korea's safer than Taiwan from absorption in that it's not ethnically Chinese and the Chinese don't do Empire but even so, Korea does need that nuclear capacity.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 30, 2012 4:37 am

The sheer weight of numbers China could deploy would swamp any conventional force Korea united or divided could put out. No-one in their right minds is happy with the idea of Kim's finger on the nuclear button. To what extent is the not very indirect threat posed by the USA's commitments to Taiwan and Korea having a restraining effect on Chinese policy? It's simply not something I know about. But the status quo looks like a reasonable least bad situation to me.

I think an awful lot of the appallingly abused "Comfort women" were Korean, weren't they? Says he, struggling to think of anything else at all he knows about Korea other than a minor British participation in the '50s war.

Corruption is, it seems to me, the biggest issue for S Korea apart from the Kims (as your post in another thread reminded me). I don't know what sort of influence the US could bring to bear, but that would be a good place to focus it in my opinion.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 4:53 am

Clodhopper;1394695 wrote: I think an awful lot of the appallingly abused "Comfort women" were Korean, weren't they? Says he, struggling to think of anything else at all he knows about Korea other than a minor British participation in the '50s war.
Some, but fewer than in Thailand. There's what seems a well-documented essay on the subject at Prostitution in Thailand and Southeast Asia

While the Japanese had fostered prostitution on a limited scale to serve their own needs, "the boom in Southeast Asia started with the U.S. presence in Vietnam. There were 20,000 prostitutes in Thailand in 1957; by 1964, after the United States established seven bases in the country, that number had skyrocketed to 400,000." It was this boom, and the resulting slack after the war that was taken up by tourism, that introduced prostitution as a large-scale business to the region.

[...]During a South Korean orientation session for prostitutes, the women were told: "You girls must take pride in your devotion to your country. Your carnal conversations with foreign tourists do not prostitute either yourself or the nation, but express your heroic patriotism." These women play a vital role in the tourism industry which, "including group sex tours, is Thailand's largest single source of foreign exchange." Ultimately, what it comes down to, is that "young Thai country women are just another kind of crop."

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:50 am

I'd be interested to hear Jessica's opinion about South Korea's suicide rate - 14,600 a year among 48 million people, that's four times the rate in the United Kingdom. Something about South Korean society is evidently unhealthy. Reunification with the North might reduce the mental pressures on citizens in the South.