|
Look, if you don’t think the South might’ve attacked first, you are literally proud of civilian deaths and casualties.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Look, if you don’t think the South might’ve attacked first, you are literally proud of civilian deaths and casualties. That was the point in question to begin with yeah. ROKA were defeated until Incheon after which UN forces killed or sanctioned the killing of tons of people including South Koreans who were "subversive" or otherwise killed by our ally Rhee because they formed a union. Foreign intervention in a Korean civil war forseeably creates more casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
I think that original tweet was reflective of some pretty unfortunate beliefs but arguing against it like an insane person helps literally nobody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Antares posted:I would say it is more likely that KPA initiated an invasion than ROKA. But regardless of whether KPA or ROKA started the war I don't think Americans slaughtering 20% of the population was good. lol, what a weaselly answer. You absolutely moved the goalposts because you made a stupid argument that made no sense. Look, I've only read up to the Cat in the Hat. I'd like it if you cited actual evidence that it was the south mobilized for war, and that the north just happened to get to it first. Like, actual evidence of southern mobilization to counter the entire well-supplied army that was clearly massing on their borders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Antares posted:in light of all of this new evidence, leveling the country by air then rounding up civilians and murdering them, etc. is good and worth bragging about. the troops acted heroically. we should all be proud of this. I agree, it was definitely bad of North Korea to bomb the South, round up civilians and kill them, and then brag about it for the next 60 plus years. Koramei posted:
Why do you think that's a bad example? Both plans would involve some serious changes without a second party's support. Kim Il Sung is definitely not going to invade the South if Stalin (or Mao) is giving a hard no, and the Nazi plan of action to invade Poland as it stood in August/September 1939 absolutely required the Soviets to be willing both not to assist Poland, and to be willing to meet up with the Nazi invasion force amicably after their own invasion. Kim Il Sung would be especially hard pressed if the PRC and/or the USSR not only opposed his war, but opposed it enough to invade to stop it. He was already reliant enough on trade with them to feed and supply the military operation as it stood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Antares posted:I would say it is more likely that KPA initiated an invasion than ROKA. But regardless of whether KPA or ROKA started the war I don't think Americans slaughtering 20% of the population was good. According to white liberals, slaughtering 20% of the north koreans was very good, and should be done again. There's really nobody liberals only hate more than asian people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:lol, what a weaselly answer. You absolutely moved the goalposts because you made a stupid argument that made no sense. I said that the circumstances are suggestive but not conclusive. Again, a ROKA report suggests they captured a Northern position before the supposed initiating KPA assault too. Who you choose to believe is purely ideological because there are no definitive accounts. There were plenty of bilateral skirmishes started by both sides before the official start of the war that anything was plausible. If I'm the KPA and I know how loving poo poo ROKA is and how much better equipped I am maybe I move first. But the Rhee government was also very stupid. fishmech posted:I agree, it was definitely bad of North Korea to bomb the South, round up civilians and kill them, and then brag about it for the next 60 plus years. I've heard this is called "whataboutism" and using it is the sign of a modern Soviet agent. Kim crushed ROKA without Chinese support, and the Chinese did not intervene until American commanders arrogantly pushed onto their borders. Again this is a Western cartoon vision of foreigners. Rhee and all the other despots the West propped up in ROK participated in plenty of civilian massacres of anyone they believed to be political opponents, sometimes with US forces present and observing. DPRK are not saints but I'm pretty sure they didn't eradicate 20% of the population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
No, see, whataboutism means "criticized America or mentioned the achievements of America's enemies".
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Antares posted:
That's nice, but irrelevant. The North had full freedom for war materiel trade with the PRC and Soviet Union throughout the first part of the war before the Soviets started actively providing fighter pilots and the PLA came in with full military presence. But what you're especially missing is that the PRC and Soviet Union did not seek to stop the invasion or even hold back on provision, because The North had already spent quite some time discussing the topic of invasion with their leadership and garnering approval. I don't know why you think ranting about foreigners is relevant but Kim Il Sung would be incapable of successful invasion of the South with the PRC and Soviet Union locking him out of trade and war materiel, let alone if they had decided to take force into their hands to stop it. Also the DPRK started a war that killed millions, I really don't get why you want to excuse their killings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
This is getting into Greedo/Han shot first levels of stupidity at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's nice, but irrelevant. South Korea would be incapable of a defense without US/UN forces carpet bombing the North, what's your loving point. I'm sure the families of the deceased, if any survived, would rather they were still alive. Everyone in this thread is a Westerner defending the principle of wholesale imperial slaughter because "the other guys were worse, trust us". Who is a foreigner and who is not is profoundly relevant when you're talking about people dismissing a Korean peace process, or celebration of American war crimes. America has not had one day of existence where it was not a white supremacist state but I'm sure in this one instance they acted fairly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Your problem is that you can't seem to distance yourself from facts of the conflict versus some pretty good reasons to be mad about US foreign policy. Often justified anger at the latter makes you sound dumb as all poo poo about the former. North Korea was heavily armed and supplied and supported by China and the USSR when it decided to invade South Korea, knowing full well that the US and UN was backing the existence of South Korea. That's dumb and puts a lot of dumb blood on their hands. If you want to say that it was very bad when the US was trying to go whole hog once they defeated the offensive and rush toward Pyongyang, I wouldn't disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Antares posted:America has not had one day of existence where it was not a white supremacist state but I'm sure in this one instance they acted fairly. Guaranteed if there are any white American liberals left in 2050 they're going to talk about how President Richard Spencer III's war of aggression against Indonesia is an awful folly while recounting how good and just Iraq and Afghanistan were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Antares posted:I said that the circumstances are suggestive but not conclusive. Again, a ROKA report suggests they captured a Northern position before the supposed initiating KPA assault too. Who you choose to believe is purely ideological because there are no definitive accounts. OK, if you want to believe against the weight of all intelligence and information that it was an uncertain thing, you do you. "Hey here's this one report" vs. "hey here's this entire campaign that was necessarily deliberately planned, or it wouldn't have even gotten to Seoul." I mean, who could possible know? Anyway you've done a great job and convinced me, it was definitely a war of aggression and extermination. I genuinely wish the US hadn't forced all those fuel trucks close enough to support an entire army; many lives would have been saved. CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:According to white liberals, slaughtering 20% of the north koreans was very good, and should be done again. So there's the three million number again. It's super impressive that the North Koreans and Chinese managed to kill zero noncombatants during the war. How does Marxism inspire such discipline?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:So there's the three million number again. Nice whataboutism, the PLA doesn't get on twitter to gloat about how many white imperialists they managed to kill despite vastly inferior weapons and logistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Antares posted:South Korea would be incapable of a defense without US/UN forces carpet bombing the North, what's your loving point. You only seem to care about atrocities committed by South Korean-aligned countries and give the DPRK and their supporters a pass on their atrocities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
this is whataboutism and i'll be reporting this thread to the FBI. surely if the UN had left the Busan perimeter to naturally collapse, because Rhee is a piece of poo poo and Kim is an anti-Japanese imperialist war hero, half of Korea would have been devastated anyway by some act of god to absolve Americans of their imperial sins. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Antares posted:this is whataboutism and i'll be reporting this thread to the FBI. surely if the UN had left the Busan perimeter to naturally collapse, because Rhee is a piece of poo poo and Kim is an anti-Japanese imperialist war hero, half of Korea would have been devastated anyway by some act of god to absolve Americans of their imperial sins. Funny how the usual screamers of whataboutism hit that crackpipe the hardest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Antares posted:this is whataboutism and i'll be reporting this thread to the FBI. surely if the UN had left the Busan perimeter to naturally collapse, because Rhee is a piece of poo poo and Kim is an anti-Japanese imperialist war hero, half of Korea would have been devastated anyway by some act of god to absolve Americans of their imperial sins. I can hear the typing speed intensify
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Antares posted:South Korea would be incapable of a defense without US/UN forces carpet bombing the North, what's your loving point. I'm sure the families of the deceased, if any survived, would rather they were still alive. See that's the thing, everyone acknowledges that the South Koreans were indeed allied with the UN and the US. But you refuse to acknowledge that the North was allied with the Soviet Union and the PRC just as meaningfully. Why is that? It seems like you can't admit that Kim Il Sung required approval from his neighbors, who were also his allies, before he proceeded with his invasion. This doesn't really apply to South Korea though because South Korea didn't invade the North - in fact part of why they didn't is the US held back on certain sorts of trade and arms deals for fear Syngman Rhee might! That's a nice little rant you have about Westerners, but you're employing it in defense of a solidly Western revisionism that does not accord with "eastern" thought at the time or now. And you're certainly not arguing against white supremacy. CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Nice whataboutism, the PLA doesn't get on twitter to gloat about how many white imperialists they managed to kill despite vastly inferior weapons and logistics. It's solidly ahistorical to claim the PLA had vastly inferior weapons, and for that matter it's ahistorical to say they had vastly inferior logistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Antares posted:Kim is an anti-Japanese imperialist war hero Where'd you get that info from? Significant defectors claim that his legend is manufactured. CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Nice whataboutism, the PLA doesn't get on twitter to gloat about how many white imperialists they managed to kill despite vastly inferior weapons and logistics. P. sure you don't know what "whataboutism" means. I'm arguing against the notion that every Korean civilian was murdered by US/SK forces. Supposing it's true, it's extremely impressive, but I do wonder at the mechanism that keeps all socialist soldiers in such good order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
I'm not getting into a slapfight here when Party Plane Jones is abusing mod powers to silence disagreement. But I couldn't just let this go uncommented upon-The Washington Post posted:Cumings's assertion that the Republic of Korea government in the south was "in total disarray" on the eve of the North Korean attack ignores or downplays the fact that it had recently defeated the guerrilla movement below the 38th parallel and implemented important measures to control inflation and advance land reform. Cumings dwells on the failures of South Korea's army during the war, totally ignoring the contribution the army made to the defense of the Pusan Perimeter and its manning by mid-1952 of over 50 percent of the front line on the United Nations side. Cumings makes some striking omissions, too. He spends considerable space on such topics as the North Korean perspective and American atrocities from 1950-53. He fails, however, to explain U.S. policy during the occupation or describe the eventual emergence of the Republic of Korea as an economically prosperous and democratic state that contrasts dramatically with the economic basketcase and brutal regime in North Korea. The "guerrilla movement" being referred to here consisted mainly of normal South Koreans agitating for better material conditions- like inflation controls and land reform. Giving Rhee credit for doing that after his first response to dissent was accusing the protestors of being Communist fifth columnists so he'd have an excuse to murder them is utterly grotesque. As to the second point South Korea's prosperity is largely a result of Park Cheong-hee telling the United States to gently caress off with their free trade bullshit because he recognized South Korea was in a unique enough political situation that we couldn't really push on that point too far. I'd also like to take a moment to note the irony of talking about how lucky South Korea is to be economically prosperous and democratic when the prevailing political mood of the past several years has been that economic prosperity is an illusion when people are stuck in terrible jobs and crippling debt and how the current major political investigation is over how the military was seriously considering responding to the Candelight Protests with a Gwangju-style martial law crackdown. This is the language of fascists. Or at least, that's how it would be recognized if you started posting this poo poo on a South Korean message board. This is how people talk at the cult of personality rallies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
TT what are your thoughts about the recent military changes that Moon proposed? It dovetails nicely with his moves to clean up the military and his stated commitment to peace in the peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
It's especially timely given the whole martial law plan. One of the more alarming aspects of that is how no one can figure out who ordered the plan be drawn up and how many people were aware of its existence. The general in charge may well have been planning an outright military coup, or at least he was until someone told him what an insanely bad idea that was. Reorganization is the bare minimum necessary response to that. In terms of obviously noticeable changes the reduction in mandatory service length is the much bigger deal though, even if it's only a few months. I'm also relieved to see Moon taking initiative on this, considering that his hand had to be forced by the courts when it came to finally acknowledging conscientious objectors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:See that's the thing, everyone acknowledges that the South Koreans were indeed allied with the UN and the US. But you refuse to acknowledge that the North was allied with the Soviet Union and the PRC just as meaningfully. Why is that? It seems like you can't admit that Kim Il Sung required approval from his neighbors, who were also his allies, before he proceeded with his invasion. This doesn't really apply to South Korea though because South Korea didn't invade the North - in fact part of why they didn't is the US held back on certain sorts of trade and arms deals for fear Syngman Rhee might! dprk broke with the ussr on a multitude of questions almost immediately after the civil administration period ended. "dprk is a soviet pawn" was pushed by the state department from the very beginning to obfuscate and excuse the military occupation of the south.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:dprk broke with the ussr on a multitude of questions almost immediately after the civil administration period ended. "dprk is a soviet pawn" was pushed by the state department from the very beginning to obfuscate and excuse the military occupation of the south. He didn't say that the DPRK was a "Soviet pawn", he said they were dependent on the USSR for their supplies of military hardware and couldn't have achieved what they did in the first phase of the Korean War without that support. Those are two different statements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Where'd you get that info from? Significant defectors claim that his legend is manufactured. I don't know about hero, but I mean what else was he doing until 1940?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I don't know about hero, but I mean what else was he doing until 1940? That was really my only objection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:dprk broke with the ussr on a multitude of questions almost immediately after the civil administration period ended. "dprk is a soviet pawn" was pushed by the state department from the very beginning to obfuscate and excuse the military occupation of the south. I'm going to need you to explain why your rant here has any relation to what you quoted. Because what it looks like is you're trying to claim the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the Korean War, which is wildly ahistorical, by deciding to moan about phantom occupation during some unspecified time period. I'll point out that if all it takes to "not be a pawn" is to have disagreements, the US certainly didn't have a pawn in South Korea, or indeed most of the world through the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah, Syngman Rhee's regime had been quite intentionally deprived of military equipment by the Americans expressly because they were worried about him starting an invasion. There were skirmishes back and forth in the leadup to it, but the only side that could have started any serious invasion was the North. I don’t think the validity of ‘nationalism is bad’ as a normative statement relies on the ‘realness’ of nationality in an anthropological sense in any way. It’s still bad even if Korea is the most homogenous ethnic-conscious society in the earth’s history. And surely you should know that ethnicity and nationality are largely invented categories for modern political purposes in basically all cases, even the seemingly obvious ones like Ireland or Armenia or Korea icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jul 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I don’t think the validity of ‘nationalism is bad’ as a normative statement relies on the ‘realness’ of nationality in an anthropological sense in any way. It’s still bad even if Korea is the most homogenous ethnic-conscious society in the earth’s history. And surely you should know that ethnicity and nationality are largely invented categories for modern political purposes in basically all cases, even the seemingly obvious ones like Ireland or Armenia or Korea I kinda disagree, I think there's a distinction to be drawn between irredentism for flatly imagined borders and irredentism for borders that'd been the norm for most of history until less than 5 years prior. The split was right down the heart of Korea, bisecting one of its most populous regions; it had a very tangible effect on the people there even beyond a nationalist sense. Nationalism is bad (no question about that in Korea's case) and starting a war that may have killed millions is inexcusable for basically any reason, but painting Kim Il-sung and the northern leadership at the time as Korean Hitler & co paints over a lot of nuance that we have a habit as a society of affording other "patriotic" figures whose actions were not really any different. As for the latter point, it's funny you bring that up since I've been wanting some other thoughts on this book for a while; if you have JSTOR access (or, anyone) and some time then I've been curious for a while for some other perspectives on this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/habo17228 quote:The Imjin War (1592–1598) was a grueling conflict that wreaked havoc on the towns and villages of the Korean Peninsula. The involvement of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean forces, not to mention the regional scope of the war, was the largest the world had seen, and the memory dominated East Asian memory until World War II. Despite massive regional realignments, Korea's Chosôn Dynasty endured, but within its polity a new, national discourse began to emerge. Meant to inspire civilians to rise up against the Japanese army, this potent rhetoric conjured a unified Korea and intensified after the Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636. Even beyond that though, manufactured in the modern period or not, nationalism was potent as hell in Korea in the 1950s so it's not like you can just write that away; it might not be a tasteful motivator for us now but it mattered to the people at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:He didn't say that the DPRK was a "Soviet pawn", he said they were dependent on the USSR for their supplies of military hardware and couldn't have achieved what they did in the first phase of the Korean War without that support. Those are two different statements. "just as meaningfully" implies equivalence. not hard to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:"just as meaningfully" implies equivalence. not hard to understand. There's no intellectually honest way you can get "the DPRK was a Soviet pawn" from what he wrote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:There's no intellectually honest way whoa wait a second here
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rsimmon/status/1024081566136328193 This doesn't appear to be disarmament.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Any day now the Trump administration will start negotiating with North Korea, any day now. Have faith in Trump and the plan, don't trust the Lügenpresse 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Are the new missiles a deterrent or an offense plan?  My bet's on further deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:There's no intellectually honest way you can get "the DPRK was a Soviet pawn" from what he wrote. you're using semantics in defense of fishmech, of all people. the soviet-dprk relationship was not at all like the us-rok relationship. the end
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Korea_Friend_UK/status/1023683942162079745
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:you're using semantics in defense of fishmech, of all people. the soviet-dprk relationship was not at all like the us-rok relationship. the end This is true. For instance, the US was far less supportive of the South invading the North than the USSR was of the North invading the South.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 16:42
|
|