|
eSports Chaebol posted:They might have failed, but I bet diplomatic and even military attempts to settle the division of Korea other than staging a proxy war between the world's greatest powers on a tiny peninsula would have had a better outcome, even if it only meant for example that North Korea would still be a totalitarian state but at least one with much better living conditions for its people. North Korea invaded South Korea. The U.S. stepped in to prevent the ENTIRE peninsula from becoming a dystopian shithole. At some cost. It wasn't like the U.S. and the Soviet Union got together and said 'lets fight for dominance here!', the situation kind of happened and both players had to respond.
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:The announcement that the borders should be based on the 1967 borders is going to piss off Israel. Don't worry, they will just break out the holocaust rhetoric. http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=10711363
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Response to Obama's speech from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in LAquote:SWC: Israel Should Reject a Return to 1967 'Auschwitz' Borders http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=10711363 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:North Korea invaded South Korea. The U.S. stepped in to prevent the ENTIRE peninsula from becoming a dystopian shithole. At some cost. It wasn't like the U.S. and the Soviet Union got together and said 'lets fight for dominance here!', the situation kind of happened and both players had to respond. The point is that in 1950, North Korea was no less of a dystopian shithole than South Korea. In fact the North has the larger share of natural resources. There was also a very good chance that Korea could have peacefully united without the U.S. working with the Soviets (and later against) to split it apart. I'm hardy saying the U.S. is entirely to blame for what happened, but I can say pretty definitively that the U.S. didn't give a gently caress about the welfare of the Korean people.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They might have failed, but I bet diplomatic and even military attempts to settle the division of Korea other than staging a proxy war between the world's greatest powers on a tiny peninsula would have had a better outcome, even if it only meant for example that North Korea would still be a totalitarian state but at least one with much better living conditions for its people. South Korea could submit to that right now. I'm sure plenty of people in North Korea would have much better living standards if South Korea disbanded its military and asked the US to leave. Then they can all live in a glorious totalitarian paradise, with much better living conditions for all the people of Korea.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:The point is that in 1950, North Korea was no less of a dystopian shithole than South Korea. In fact the North has the larger share of natural resources. There was also a very good chance that Korea could have peacefully united without the U.S. working with the Soviets (and later against) to split it apart. I'm hardy saying the U.S. is entirely to blame for what happened, but I can say pretty definitively that the U.S. didn't give a gently caress about the welfare of the Korean people. I disagree. Basically what he said ^. I think you're wrong in assuming that the Northern government was willing to accept any option other than 'you join us, with us in charge.' That's probably why they invaded. Sometimes your opposition is just unreasonable. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 20:45 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
automatic posted:South Korea could submit to that right now. I'm sure plenty of people in North Korea would have much better living standards if South Korea disbanded its military and asked the US to leave. South Koreans very much want peaceful reunification, much more so than the U.S., even if not as much as since Sunshine was literally torpedoed. What on Earth are you talking about. Moon. Banana. Staircase. See? I can write words that have nothing to do with anything, too.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
schadenfraud posted:Response to Obama's speech from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in LA Palestine  Bibi'd. Seriously.Netanyahu blasts Obama proposal, calls 1967 borders 'indefensible' WASHINGTON — Forcefully stepping into an explosive Middle East debate, President Barack Obama on Thursday endorsed a key Palestinian demand for the borders of its future state and prodded Israel to accept that it can never have a truly peaceful nation based on "permanent occupation." Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders — before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — was a significant shift in the U.S. approach. It drew an immediate negative response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is to meet with Obama at the White House Friday. In a statement released late Thursday in Jerusalem, Netanyahu called the 1967 lines "indefensible," saying such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders, though Obama left room for adjustments reached through negotiations.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
If the Korean people want to unify they should do it. I'm sure their is some process that can supersede the terrible Americans and throw off all of the terrible oppression they have lavished on the Korean Peninsula. Moon Pancake. automatic fucked around with this message at 20:56 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:South Koreans very much want peaceful reunification, much more so than the U.S., even if not as much as since Sunshine was literally torpedoed. What on Earth are you talking about. Moon. Banana. Staircase. See? I can write words that have nothing to do with anything, too. He wasn't saying that they didn't. He was making the point that a negotiated unification in the '50s would have resulted in the same thing that a total surrender would now. The North Koreans then were not looking for constructive input on their form of government/economy. They wanted control of the peninsula. If unification had occurred then, when the North was much stronger then the South, then the whole peninsula would be a totalitarian shithole, and not just half. There's a lot of things you can blame on U.S. cold-war policy. I reeeaaaally don't think this is one of them though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:He wasn't saying that they didn't. He was making the point that a negotiated unification in the '50s would have resulted in the same thing that a total surrender would now. The North Koreans then were not looking for constructive input on their form of government/economy. They wanted control of the peninsula. If unification had occurred then, when the North was much stronger then the South, then the whole peninsula would be a totalitarian shithole, and not just half. There's a lot of things you can blame on U.S. cold-war policy. I reeeaaaally don't think this is one of them though. Except that without the outside pressures of American and Soviet influence, a unified Korea probably wouldn't have become a totalitarian state. It's still possible (probably even likely) there would have been a civil war, but at least it would have been Koreans determining their future. Preventing countrywide elections in Korea, and then later in Vietnam, because we were afraid the people might vote wrong, was not exactly democratic.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Except that without the outside pressures of American and Soviet influence, a unified Korea probably wouldn't have become a totalitarian state. It's still possible (probably even likely) there would have been a civil war, but at least it would have been Koreans determining their future. Preventing countrywide elections in Korea, and then later in Vietnam, because we were afraid the people might vote wrong, was not exactly democratic. This is the part I'm disputing. What makes you think this? The communist party, led by Kim Il Sung, was already the major political force in Korea. If the U.S. hadn't intervened, nothing would have stopped that party from taking control of NK and SK. They would probably have peacefully (well...brutally suppressing dissent with force is less violent then a full-scale war) unified the country, but it would all be a shithole instead of just half. Why do you think differently? Just to put this into perspective, Kim Il Sung has been dead for 16 years, but is still the official president of North Korea. They are crazy people. They were crazy people then. This hasn't changed. If you mean 'If the Soviet Union (and Karl Marx) had never existed, this party would not have ever come about, because nobody would know enough about communism to try to make it happen.' then alright. But that's still hardly fair. The U.S. reacted to what was already happening. They wanted to prevent the peninsula from being entirely communist. So they didn't support the group that turned NK, and wanted to turn SK, into a totalitarian shithole. How can you blame them for this? Space Monster fucked around with this message at 21:14 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Yeah I see what you're saying. drat America for not letting North Korea conquer South Korea. And that whole intervention into ww2? Despicable. Americans truly are the worst.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:This is the part I'm disputing. What makes you think this? The communist party, led by Kim Il Sung, was already the major political force in Korea. If the U.S. hadn't intervened, nothing would have stopped that party from taking control of NK and SK. They would probably have peacefully (well...brutally suppressing dissent with force is less violent then a full-scale war) unified the country, but it would all be a shithole instead of just half. Why makes you think differently? There's little doubt the Communists would have taken over, but I don't see how a cult like Juche could take hold in a unified Korea, especially one not under siege. Kim Il Sung would have had to make concessions to a functioning bureaucracy to stay in power instead of being able to rely on an insane personality cult accusing the U.S. being responsible for everything bad in Korea. It could have been a much more open society, just as the South transitioned away from authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
In fact, American interventionists should have never broken up the Greater East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere. Only then would the Korean people be able to follow their own destiny without pressure from outside imperialist forces.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Yeah I see what you're saying. drat America for not letting North Korea conquer South Korea. It was the Soviets and the Americans working in concert who split Korea into two in the first place. Koreans weren't even consulted!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:There's little doubt the Communists would have taken over, but I don't see how a cult like Juche could take hold in a unified Korea, especially one not under siege. Kim Il Sung would have had to make concessions to a functioning bureaucracy to stay in power instead of being able to rely on an insane personality cult accusing the U.S. being responsible for everything bad in Korea. It could have been a much more open society, just as the South transitioned away from authoritarianism. Like Cuba? Vietnam? How do you come to this conclusion? I am honestly curious why you think that Kim Il Sung would have been moderated by MORE power.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
automatic posted:In fact, American interventionists should have never broken up the Greater East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere. Only then would the Korean people be able to follow their own destiny without pressure from outside imperialist forces. Again with the ridiculous black-and-white. Of course Japanese imperialism was truly awful, but you ignore major impetus for things like the Co-Prosperity sphere such as quite justifiable opposition to unequal treaties. Hell, it was Japan who proposed that the League of Nations condemn racism, which measure was of course rejected. Does that even begin to justify what Japan did? No, of course not. But history occurs in context, and you cannot just ignore that and declare "good guys" and "bad guys".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
automatic posted:Like Cuba? Vietnam? He would have been moderated by having a larger and more diverse constituency, and by lacking a credible scapegoat for Korea's ills. After all, Hitler would have been less powerful if the Treaty of Versailles were kinder to Germany. He would have been moderated by not seeing violent suppression of socialists in South Korea. Would he still have been an authoritarian? Would he still have committed human rights abuses? I'm sure he would have. But would he have been worse than Rhee? That's the real question. edit: Remember, I never said the U.S. was unequivocally wrong to intervene in Korea, simply that the U.S. never had Koreans' interests in mind. We can only speculate on the possibilities if the U.S. and the Soviet union had actually tried to promote peace of course because such a notion is so divorced from history. But I hardly think it would have been impossible. eSports Chaebol fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:There's little doubt the Communists would have taken over, but I don't see how a cult like Juche could take hold in a unified Korea, especially one not under siege. Kim Il Sung would have had to make concessions to a functioning bureaucracy to stay in power instead of being able to rely on an insane personality cult accusing the U.S. being responsible for everything bad in Korea. It could have been a much more open society, just as the South transitioned away from authoritarianism. You are just wrong. Gaddafi didn't have to make concessions to anyone until NATO came in and started bombing. Kim Jung Il has his people under such a tight yolk that they're too beaten to make the attempt. The US and SK would probably try to re-unify Korea, but China won't let that happen without making a huge stink (and possibly going to war again). You are talking nonsense because you want to believe something. That's it. Only drat reason. A Korea united under NK rule would be a larger version of NK. Kim Il Sung could have suppressed any dissent as horribly as he wanted to because he had the backing of both the Soviet Union AND China. So if we had just let it happen, we would have had to stand back and watch that happen for half a century, or try to do something about it and cause world war 3 (we would not have done this). Don't be naive. Ok. If that's your fall-back position. Sure, we didn't have their best interests in mind. This is obvious to a child. Regardless, what we did was better than just sitting by and watching the horror unfold. Also, stop assuming the Soviet Union was a reasonable body. The Cold War would hardly have happened if THAT wasn't a huge totalitarian superpower. The U.S. did lots of bad things to get the image of 'evil superpower' that it has today, but it pales in comparison to the USSR. Blaming the U.S. for problems caused by the USSR is....unfair. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 21:27 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Again with the ridiculous black-and-white. Of course Japanese imperialism was truly awful, but you ignore major impetus for things like the Co-Prosperity sphere such as quite justifiable opposition to unequal treaties. Hell, it was Japan who proposed that the League of Nations condemn racism, which measure was of course rejected. Does that even begin to justify what Japan did? No, of course not. But history occurs in context, and you cannot just ignore that and declare "good guys" and "bad guys". Where did you read in any of my posts anything about black and white? I can objectively decide that the Korean people would be better off without Kim Il Sung without demonizing him. Interesting that you talk about history while playing all of these ridiculous What If games. Every dictator that wants to create an enemy can. You don't need evil Americans to fill that role.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:You are just wrong. Gaddafi didn't have to make concessions to anyone until NATO came in and started bombing. Kim Jung Il has his people under such a tight yolk that they're too beaten to make the attempt. The US and SK would probably try to re-unify Korea, but China won't let that happen without making a huge stink (and possibly going to war again). You are talking nonsense because you want to believe something. That's it. Only drat reason. A Korea united under NK rule would be a larger version of NK. Kim Il Sung could have suppressed any dissent as horribly as he wanted to because he had the backing of both the Soviet Union AND China. So if we had just let it happen, we would have had to stand back and watch that happen for half a century, or try to do something about it and cause world war 3 (we would not have done this). Don't be naive. I wasn't comparing Qaddafi to Kim Il Sung, somehow the conversation just got off on a tangent. Also saying that Kim had the Soviets' and China's backing is greatly oversimplifying things, like his deception of China to get them onboard with war, and then his later estrangement from the Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet split. What I'm saying is that American and Soviet imperialism and proxy wars should have been avoided altogether, and there certainly was a chance for this after WWII that was squandered. Also, the fact the Korea is near China and Russia rather than the U.S. means that there would have been much less of a threat to the Korean government than say to Cuba had not U.S. troops been in South Korea.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I wasn't comparing Qaddafi to Kim Il Sung, somehow the conversation just got off on a tangent. Also saying that Kim had the Soviets' and China's backing is greatly oversimplifying things, like his deception of China to get them onboard with war, and then his later estrangement from the Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet split. What I'm saying is that American and Soviet imperialism and proxy wars should have been avoided altogether, and there certainly was a chance for this after WWII that was squandered. Also, the fact the Korea is near China and Russia rather than the U.S. means that there would have been much less of a threat to the Korean government than say to Cuba had not U.S. troops been in South Korea. Oh. Your one of those "The Cold War was just a big misunderstanding!" types. Think what you want then.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
automatic posted:Where did you read in any of my posts anything about black and white? automatic posted:In fact, American interventionists should have never broken up the Greater East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere. Only then would the Korean people be able to follow their own destiny without pressure from outside imperialist forces. I am assuming that you said this sarcastically, i.e. you were suggesting that the only alternative to U.S. intervention as it happened in history would have been Japanese imperialism. The implication that there are only two possibilities is "black and white". quote:I can objectively decide that the Korean people would be better off without Kim Il Sung without demonizing him. Interesting that you talk about history while playing all of these ridiculous What If games. Every dictator that wants to create an enemy can. You don't need evil Americans to fill that role. The whole Korean War was a what-if game in that sense. We sided with one dictator against another. That's not exactly a firm stance against dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Insallah, democracy will come soon to the Korean Arabs, redeemed in the blood of her martyrs.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I am assuming that you said this sarcastically, i.e. you were suggesting that the only alternative to U.S. intervention as it happened in history would have been Japanese imperialism. The implication that there are only two possibilities is "black and white". No that is looking at history and making a LOGICAL conclusion. If you have any evidence that countries under Japanese imperialism would have obtained self determination without American intervention please share it. quote:The whole Korean War was a what-if game in that sense. We sided with one dictator against another. That's not exactly a firm stance against dictatorship. So? You seem to think that one dictator can't be worse than another dictator. You are literally engaging in black and white thinking. I'll break it down for you, one dictator led to the 11th largest economy in the world with a great deal of freedom and prosperity. The other led to concentration camps, starvation and juche.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Can we keep this Middle-East thread focused on the Middle-East?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
TheOmegaWalrus posted:Can we keep this Middle-East thread focused on the Middle-East? Yeah. Sorry. Last couple of posts realized I was probably pushing it. I'll drop it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Well to be fair, South Korea was a dictatorship with a lovely economy and high unemployment until a springtime popular revolt changed them to a democracy, so there are similarities! Not many Muslims, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
To get this back on track, NATO has detained an oil tanker, the largest one since the beginning of the revolution, which was traveling from Turkey to Italy then onward to a Qaddafi-controlled location in western Libya, either Zawiyah or Tripoli. The ship's name is the Cartagena. Also, on more about the rumors of Qaddafi's wife and daughter fleeing Libya, they're believed to be on the island of Djerba, near the Libyan border, and not in Tunisia proper. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:Oh. Your one of those "The Cold War was just a big misunderstanding!" types. Think what you want then. Part of it was misunderstanding, yes. The Soviets and the Americans both considered each other to be taking the more belligerent stance. Whether that means that the Cold War wasn't inevitable is of course an opinion though. I should be clear that I do think the UN intervention after the North invaded did in retrospect lead to a better outcome than not intervening would have. But I think the invasion could have been avoided, and certainly the intervention wasn't altruistic, and pushing north of the 38th just to fall back was tragic. Honestly I think part of it working out (for half of Korea at least) is just luck. Who knows, maybe the U.S. will be lucky and intervention in Libya will work out? But that already looks really unlikely, and there are plenty and plenty of examples of interventions that have been very bad. Indeed, the "good" interventions are the short list.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
automatic posted:So? You seem to think that one dictator can't be worse than another dictator. You are literally engaging in black and white thinking. I'll break it down for you, one dictator led to the 11th largest economy in the world with a great deal of freedom and prosperity. The other led to concentration camps, starvation and juche. Dictators certainly can be better or worse; hell, look at how bad Kim Jong Il is. But Rhee doesn't really deserve credit for the fact that the ROK became a free and prosperous country in spite of him.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Sorry, I'll stop posting about this derail.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Part of it was misunderstanding, yes. The Soviets and the Americans both considered each other to be taking the more belligerent stance. Whether that means that the Cold War wasn't inevitable is of course an opinion though. I didn't know that massive American investments can be called luck.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, sixty-four new posts.. Did Brega get wholly captured? The center of Misrata isn't too safe anymore? I have to go to Twitter, see which names started fi- Oh.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 22:11
|
|
SoroScrew
|
Back to the topic at hand... We've hit the 60 days limit on the War Powers resolution, so look for a hilarious mass of talking heads this weekend bringing that up as well as the "days, not weeks" quote.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Here's a picture of one of the boats abandoned a couple of days ago by Gaddafi forces (Courbet frigate in the background). And some old pics from Misratah :    Molotov cocktails and an 'armored' pickup  
pylb fucked around with this message at 22:38 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
J33uk posted:Back to the topic at hand... No, not really, because we're no longer conducting combat operations in Libya. And haven't been for weeks. It'd be really, really hard for any congress to call what we're currently doing (supplying logistics and support to NATO) "war". Of course, the anti-Obama brigade is bound to make this a talking point anyway, but it's not going to get any traction in Congress at all. Especially since there aren't more than two or three congresspeople who will be willing to risk being portrayed as pro-Ghaddafi because they're attacking funding or authorization for the US's support operations.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
NATO aircraft apparently hit the military port in Tripoli today, probably as a result of the various attempts in mine Misrata point. There's also various reports of more shooting in various areas of Tripoli.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:No, not really, because we're no longer conducting combat operations in Libya. And haven't been for weeks. It'd be really, really hard for any congress to call what we're currently doing (supplying logistics and support to NATO) "war". What's going on is definitely intended to be covered by the WPR. However, the thing is the WPR isn't really law in the traditional sense: there is an ongoing dispute between the executive and Congress over what the bounds of the President's commander in chief powers are. The WPR is basically Congress's assertion of what its powers are, and the executive has considered it unconstitutional since it was passed. Since the Supreme Court will never step in, the only way to resolve the dispute is politically: the power falls to congress to implement it through impeachment if its violated. If Congress is unwilling to do so, the political dispute has been resolved in favor of the President. As long as there's any basis for punting on the issue (and you can come up with plenty that you can say with a straight face, though not for long) Congress is going to punt because at the end of the day the President is in the winning political position here.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:15
|
|
