PDA

View Full Version : Korean War II



9chambers
18th June 03, 04:20 PM
They project that if North Korea invaded South Korea that we would be able to win and defend the South but at great cost. Our military leaders estimate that there would be a million casualties on both sides. Excluding the south Koreans they said about 500,000 Ameerican soldiers would die. (I read this online on some news page somewhere yesterday, I forget where) This is all if things go how they expect.

500,000 of us dead. Those kind of losses haven't been seen since we fought in the first Korean War. The North has nuclear weapons, WMD and a 1 million man standing army.

What do you guys think about all of this stuff? Our troops are scattered all over the world and on alert here at home. Will there be a draft? What side will communist China take? Russia? The UN? Will our protestors go nuts?

Peace can't last forever. it was good while it lasted. Is this the next great war or will it be avoided?

>> Perhaps it was because I had an inherent skill for the science and never deviated from natural principles. - Miyamoto Musashi 1643

Osiris
18th June 03, 04:27 PM
Vote demoratic.

"If martial arts are about sex, the kata must be masturbation." Fighty McGee

Phoenix
18th June 03, 04:29 PM
9 Chambers.

I think the shit is about to hit the fan.

The US wants to impose economic sanctions on North Korea....they want to starve them out of their WMD plan. They even have the support of Japan, South Korea, Australia, and a few other nations as well. This is also to combat the trafficking of narcotics and people out of North Korea...also means of generating income for the communist nation, aside from their weapons sales.

The only thing is...North Korea is saying that they will regard these sanctions as an act of war. And they probably have a nuke aimed right at Japan as we speak.

Nobody is taking this seriously because the North seems to always threaten war and they are notorious for brinkmanship and saber rattling. However, I don't remember the stakes for them being so high. Their people are on the brink of starvation (I don't think they have much food left in the country), and their economy is about to collapse.

Some might say that they cannot afford to start a fight. But then again, they might believe that they cannot afford NOT to start a war - especially since they believe their sovereignty to be at stake. I see them as a nation with nothing to lose.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

Bolverk
18th June 03, 04:35 PM
Vote demoratic.

An excellent idea, if you wish to be like an ostrich and bury your head in the sand at the first sign of trouble.

But, then again, with only a few exceptions, Democrats have been at the helm during the start of most of the wars in which the United States participated. But that may due to the fact that most nations out there know Republicans will not hesitate to kick ass then take names.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Phoenix
18th June 03, 04:45 PM
It doesn't matter who you vote for.

The remaining fact is that there is a very strong possibility that a war could break out - a very serious war that could have monumental ramifications. It could be a war that every man could be called upon to fight in. The situation in Korea has been a bubbling cauldron since 1953...I think it will boil over soon, if they do not come to an understanding.

I think Einstein said it best:

"I know now with what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but I know that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

Edited by - Rising Phoenix on June 18 2003 16:51:05

Osiris
18th June 03, 05:04 PM
Bush is clearly a maniac. Anyone who votes for him needs to be drafted immediately.

"If martial arts are about sex, the kata must be masturbation." Fighty McGee

Phoenix
18th June 03, 05:07 PM
Bush strikes me as the kinda guy where diplomacy is not his strong point.

IF war breaks out, it would be Kim Jong Il who throws the first strike, but it will only be because Bush has given him no other option but to do so.

If you back somebody into a corner, they're bound to come out swinging,if you push them hard enough.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 05:12 PM
Calm down.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Phoenix
18th June 03, 05:25 PM
What do you think of this, Wastrel?

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 05:44 PM
Off the cuff...

1. What do you mean the U.S. is planning on economic sanctions? Are you talking about a blockade? I don't see how the U.S. could impose any greater restrictions on trade and traffic than it, and the DPRK itself, already maintain. The U.S. itself cannot interfere through legalistic channels with bilateral trade between North Korea and her trading partners.

2. What would be the point of waging a war that results in 500,000 U.S. casualties to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons to a country that doesn't possess intercontinental ballistic missiles? That's not a reasonable or an efficient decision.

3. The logic of mutually-assured destruction still holds. The North has no interest in launching a strike against the South. It would precipitate the absolute nuclear destruction of virtually the entire peninsula. Guaranteed.

4. The DPRK depends upon China for most of its logistical and intelligence support in the event of a war. China is extremely unlikely to approve of a nuclear-armed DPRK. Why would they? The DPRK could only strike three countries with their current technology-South Korea, Russia, China, and maybe Japan. China is a revisionist state, turning away from its past, and highly rational.

4. It is likely that the acquisition of nuclear weapons capability is tied to regime survival. Kim Jong Il's stability depends on military support. The military sees its role as defense of the nation. Nuclear weapons would provide a credible deterrent to invasion, which the military and the public has been taught is imminent. They would also allow a more efficient organization of the nation's resources.

5. Short Memories: The DPRK pulled out of the NPT before. It is "legalistically" their prerogative. They have demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance and escalation in the past. It is usually a way to secure other demands.

6. Part of the agreement was that the U.S. Japan and South Korea would build light-water reactors in the North by 2003. That never happened, so the DPRK was handed a credible rationale for their own violation of the Agreed Framework. News organs in the West don't seem to like to mention this.

7. The idea that the DPRK might provide such materials to "terrorists" is ridiculous. A terrorist organization can't come close to affecting North Korea's economic needs. The U.S., ROK, Japan and the PRC have far deeper pockets.


Don't confuse what nations seem to be doing with their actual intentions. I believe there is little chance of this blowing up. The U.S. needs to cultivate their relationship with China in order to maintain a short leash on NK.

What kind of conflict might we face? If we are talking about a conventional war, then it will be extremely ugly...but an invasion by the North? Why? There's no motivation. Kim Jon Il is merely trying to maintain power.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Phoenix
18th June 03, 06:08 PM
Well, that is true indeed....

But firstly, as for the blockade and the US not being able to "legally" interfere with DPRK trade matters, the US pretty much proved that they were above the law when they invaded Iraq, much to the chagrin of the UN. I think the US will do whatever they feel they need to, in order to keep the DPRK in check. That is a very dangerous attitude.

According to what I've been reading, US intelligence is unsure whether or not the DPRK posesses intercontinental ballistic missiles. There is still the Taepodong 2 missile. They know that it can reach as far as Alaska. But they don't even know if it is out of it's prototype stage or not. It may not be, but given the amount of money that the DPRK uses on military expenditures, do you think it would be wise to underestimate them? And they do have missiles capable of striking Japan. In fact, this year alone, they have fired at least two missiles right over the island (and pretty much scared everyone there shitless).

You are right about the DPRK wanting nuclear weapons to supplement their military. They are now saying that they want this so they can spend less on conventional weapons and thus save money.

I did not mention anything about invasion from the North. If that were so, they would have done it already. Rather, I think that if any strike is made, it would be retaliation from somehthing that the US would do.

I think the DPRK is being backed into a corner and they are, indeed, a force to be reckoned with. If they weren't, then why doesn't Bush use military force to neutralize the DPRK? Why? I'd say it's because the US knows they are playing with fire.

As I said before, I don't see the DPRK as having very much to lose. I think that, as paranoid as Kim Jong Il is, if they feel that they are going to lose their sovereignty, they will retaliate. They may not want to hit the south, but remember, you said yourself that Kim simply wants to maintain his power.

So, how far do you think he's willing to go to retain it?



Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 06:14 PM
Kim Jong Il knows better. He's more worried about domestic sources of turmoil, as he well should be. Remember, it's not "they". Systems of power are complicated and interdependent. Hitting the South won't keep him in power.

You're not quite certain of what I mean by "legalistically". It's not the same as legally. There is no real international law. None. Legalistically means there is pretty much no treaty or agreement that the U.S. can obtain that would allow the to interfere with NK's trade. Neither the U.N.'s GA nor the Security Council will let that happen. Whether or not they pull of a blockade is entirely different. I say...bad idea. But not because I think it will trigger invasion.

There is a lot of disagreement about North Korea's missile technology. And no real reason to believe that the Taep'odong 2 is in production.

The DPRK has EVERYTHING to lose. Think about it.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Phoenix
18th June 03, 06:19 PM
Why would you say that a blockade is a bad idea?

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

PizDoff
18th June 03, 07:02 PM
"Our military leaders estimate that there would be a million casualties on both sides. Excluding the south Koreans they said about 500,000 Ameerican soldiers would die."
this is insane.......but in an odd way......the world is facing over population....




"Why would you say that a blockade is a bad idea?"
how would this be a good idea? I think it would only aggravate them further.


"This is also to combat the trafficking of narcotics and people out of North Korea...also means of generating income for the communist nation, aside from their weapons sales."
i read this a while ago

"Calm down."
i doubt Bush will want another war here......the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't over....
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/05/02/nkorea.drugs/index.html

--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.

PizDoff
18th June 03, 07:06 PM
"Off the cuff..."
Damn. Wastrel for President.
Good post. Covers vast areas, stop being so smart.

I think it's quite obvious that NK is screwed and are playing their last card.....then again I'm getting this from the popular media....


--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.

Phoenix
18th June 03, 07:13 PM
Wastrel said in his last post that he believes that the DPRK is not likely to take military action or invade, but he says that the blockade is a bad idea, nonetheless.

I am interested in hearing why he believes this. Everything else he is saying so far makes sense.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 07:42 PM
Because Rising Phoenix, a blockade implies interference in the DPRK's bilateral trade relationships with other nations. That's a whole other deal.

Truth is, sanctions and blockades have NEVER NOT ONCE successfully destabilized a regime in power.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Phoenix
18th June 03, 07:47 PM
Then why are they doing this if it isn't even going to accomplish anything?

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

deus ex machina
18th June 03, 07:47 PM
"NEVER NOT ONCE"

Damn, he was going so well until then.

~
danny

"All this talk about 'newbies' is making me a little nervous. You guys don't have any sort of secret hazing initiation involving wooden paddles and me screaming 'Thank you sir, may I have another?!' do you?"

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 08:00 PM
Rising Phoenix,
What do you mean "accomplish nothing"? Are you talking about the U.S. and the blockade? If so, my answer is, because they think they will.

If you mean the DPRK, you're crazy. They accomplish a lot. Didn't I already illustrate that?

Deus,
You want a comma or something?

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Phoenix
18th June 03, 08:14 PM
Yeah, I was referring to the US.

I already know that the DPRK accomplish alot. Hell, it's even possible they might get their own way on this one too.

Well, Wastrel, I hope you're right on all this. As you probably know, I have alot of personal ties to people who live in that area, including my girlfriend. So as you could probably understand, I am more than a little concerned with regards to events in that area.

But I figured that if anyone'd know about this it would be you, especially since you did your service there, and with your political science background.

Thank you, Wastrel.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

gojuJKDdude
18th June 03, 08:15 PM
I don't think the us would be able to remain in te korean theatre even if they only sustained 250,000 losses. However I don't believe that north korea has the most technically advaced millitary. judging by the Iraq war, I would think that losses would be much lower. We don't even have to resort to nuclear weapons, just drop a few moab's. One on the kookiwon too!

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 08:22 PM
Um...Goju. The KPA is not comparable to the Iraqi military.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

deus ex machina
18th June 03, 08:46 PM
Get rid of those slanty-eyed motherfuckers.

~
danny

"All this talk about 'newbies' is making me a little nervous. You guys don't have any sort of secret hazing initiation involving wooden paddles and me screaming 'Thank you sir, may I have another?!' do you?"

Phrost
18th June 03, 08:50 PM
Their government is desperate because it's about to collapse if they don't get their economy going soon.

Fuck them. They're just trying to extort money and aid from us to keep their wacked out leadership in power.

My ex was Korean, and she was actually stationed in Korea when she was in the Army. According to her (and she had a top secret clearance) our role over there wasn't to protect the South Koreans, but to manage things to make sure they didn't charge over the border into the north running apeshit over their army and starting an asian world war (assuming China would get involved).

The North Korean's army is ill equipped, ill fed, and ill trained. Their only strength is to throw body after body at the enemy. And while this would be effective at killing some of our forces, unlike NK we do NOT have the same military we did in 1953.

Seriously, we would fucking obliterate them as if it were a cheap game of Duck Hunt on the old 16 bit Nintendo system.

Now, they don't have guaranteed support from China (due to trade ties with the west), so the ONLY deterrent they can weild is the threat of a nuclear attack.

Osiris
18th June 03, 08:54 PM
We had no real problem with them until a certain dumbass started talking.

"If martial arts are about sex, the kata must be masturbation." Fighty McGee

deus ex machina
18th June 03, 08:59 PM
I know Osiris, shut the fuck up already.

(In case you did not understand the innuendo, you are the dumbass who has been starting wars. Of course, I've now cheapened my insult by explaining it.)

DEM = 1
Osiris = 0

~
danny

"All this talk about 'newbies' is making me a little nervous. You guys don't have any sort of secret hazing initiation involving wooden paddles and me screaming 'Thank you sir, may I have another?!' do you?"

Edited by - deus ex machina on June 18 2003 21:00:18

Samuel Browning
18th June 03, 09:14 PM
Nice posts wastral. I don't think 500,000 American casualties would result simply because we don't have that many trigger pullers to send to South Korea if a war starts. I'd go more for 100,000 American causulties plus a million or more Korean casualties plus a chance that Japan would get irradiated. A war would truly suck though I don't think we have many alternatives other then bribing NK at this point.

PizDoff
18th June 03, 10:13 PM
"Damn, he was going so well until then."
lol

"Um...Goju. The KPA is not comparable to the Iraqi military."
also consider the difference of terrain....



"Get rid of those slanty-eyed motherfuckers."
ok i respected you up until there......
Incidentally, all the racism I've received in my past has been from ignorant white fuckheads that don't know shit! They are like, "Welcome to Canada!" and I'm like "HOLY FUCK YOU INBRED! WERE YOU THE FIRST FUCKING PERSON IN CANADA? SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!"



Dues I recommend you delete your post.


--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.

In training to be the superior practitioner.

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 11:14 PM
Pizd. Deus is Korean-American.

Phrost,
I PM'd you about your post.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Osiris
18th June 03, 11:18 PM
Owned.

"If martial arts are about sex, the kata must be masturbation." Fighty McGee

elipson
18th June 03, 11:21 PM
I think Deus was being sarcastic.

Don't even look at Iraq when considering NK. The two are like night and day.

Does the US even have half a million ground troops right now?
And if NK did launch a suprise attack, could we get reinforcements there fast enough? Remember, the first war was fought by the UN, so the Yanks wouldn't be the only ones going in to help. Canada would probably send a soldier or two, maybe even a tank, but don't get your hopes up.

Bush is putting NK in a desperate situation, desperate men do desperate things.
Fuck I hate that guy.....

The Wastrel
18th June 03, 11:23 PM
You guys are funny...

...NK has over 16,000 reliable, well-maintained conventional artillery pieces. They could pretty much obliterate the capital, Seoul, and most of the peninsula before they are defeated.

There are nearly half a million Americans on active duty...I think. Though there are not that many in the combat arms.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Deadpan Scientist
19th June 03, 12:12 AM
Phrost, Duck hunt was released for NES, which was an 8-bit system. Can I have 1000 posts added to my post count now?

Love,
Brandeissansoo



Edited by - brandeissansoo on June 19 2003 00:19:20

Deadpan Scientist
19th June 03, 12:24 AM
http://people.brandeis.edu/~timcraig/nintend0wned.jpg

PizDoff
19th June 03, 07:17 AM
hmmm......without reading any posts since i last posted, except for that nintendo one above.....(WTF is that?)


i may have reacted a little too much, i get paranoid about shit like that...i realised you must have been starically expressing WW2 American feelings towards their attackers.....

oh well, now let's what trouble i caused




--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.

In training to be the superior practitioner.

PizDoff
19th June 03, 07:19 AM
lol heh


hmmm i don't have slanty eyes.....
strange, but then again i have some Portugese (sp?) in me.......

i've been told i don't look like any other Chinese.....

--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.

In training to be the superior practitioner.

Phrost
19th June 03, 09:55 AM
Apparently I was incorrect on a few of my assumptions.

But I still feel we'd obliterate the NK army without much of an effort. They have less territory than Iraq, and about the same equipment.

Sure, they'd fuck up South Korea pretty bad, but that wouldn't affect our ability to wage war against them too much, as we'd still have Japan as a base of service and support.

Samuel Browning
19th June 03, 02:52 PM
My personal suspicion is that if North Korea started doing too well, the Japanese would send some combat divisions to South Korea on the grounds that its in their back yard and that they would not want to see NK gain control of South Korea. The SK government wouldn't normally want such help, but if they were really being over-run they might reconsider.

The Wastrel
19th June 03, 03:36 PM
Phrost,
The problem is that South Korea does care very much, and we basically can't fight without their permission and assistance. If NK invades, it's a moot point, but as far as preemptive activity goes...that's a different matter entirely.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Phrost
19th June 03, 03:57 PM
Agreed.

dogparkpsycho
19th June 03, 04:59 PM
china told nk not to invade the south or start anything major with the u.s. 8-10 months ago. another war, no matter how small, could sink the u.s. economy, and china depends on us too much. still, if nk did start something, china could invade the whole peninsula and free american troops there and come out smelling like a rose, while owning the whole ballpark. and what could we say? interesting scenario, don't you think?

the figures for u.s. casualties are way out of line (500,000). we lost one-tenth that in the korean war, same number (one tenth) in ten years in viet nam, and somewhat more than half that in wwII. if nuclear hostilities did start, we wouldn't stand around with our mouths open staring at the sky as the hot bodies started dropping. most likely, if the lunatic who rules nk tried to start a nuclear holocaust, he would be immediately executed by his own generals. nobody wants to see their children fry.

choke points would easily prevent the flow of those artillery pieces into the south. for a good review of the use of choke points, see what happened to the chinese when they tried to take over viet nam after the u.s. left and viet nam had most of its troops in cambodia. a few thousand rear echelon vietnamese troops annihilated the chinese army contingent in two weeks or so and sent tens of thousands of the chinese home in body bags. from this, we learn the lesson: "it's not good to be stupid in war."

i'm not saying there won't be a war on the korean peninsula. i'm saying it won't be a nuke war, unless the maniac in the north has his own key to the firing mechanism. they might revert to tac nuke if we invade the north and start pressing forward, but i don't see them using nukes in an offensive scenario. paybacks are such hell.

Vapour
20th June 03, 08:39 PM
Not related to military issue but still relevant nontheless.

http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/107/lee0502.htm

DRD
20th June 03, 11:33 PM
I would be interested in knowing who "they" are, that 9chambers is referring to in his comments. If you can please post a link.

I was concerned also about the over statement of total deaths in the Korean conflict at almost 1/2 a million. I am also concerned at the under reporting by dogparkpsycho by generalizing at about 1/10 the 500,000 in different conflicts and declared war's.

I don't know if the DOD just estimates the numbers because of not knowing specific civilian numbers, but the following are the numbers they gave out.

In WWII the number was not "somewhat more than half that" which would put it at 250,000 plus, but much more at 408,000-412,000.

In Korea, it was not 1/10th of 500,000 at 50,000, but was 54,246.

And in Vietnam it was not 1/10th 500,000 at 50,000, but was 58,151.

These are said to be best estimates at this time by the DOD.

I do not report the above to nitpick the numbers, as the massive numbers are virtually incomprehensible to begin with, but rather as a way of saying that each was a life who was deeply loved by other's.

DRD

Vargas
20th June 03, 11:38 PM
Name that quote:

"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic".

True, in a grotesque sort of way. Death on that kind of scale is almost too much for the human mind to truly understand, so we just rattle off the numbers and hope it means something.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

The Wastrel
20th June 03, 11:59 PM
Little Koba himself-Josef Stalin.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Phoenix
21st June 03, 12:01 AM
"True, in a grotesque sort of way. Death on that kind of scale is almost too much for the human mind to truly understand, so we just rattle off the numbers and hope it means something."

What's worse than that is when you have assholes like Ernst Zundel, who come along and say the Holocaust never happened and 6,000,000,000 Jewish people were never slaughtered by a facist regime.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

Edited by - Rising Phoenix on June 23 2003 15:05:09

cyrijl
23rd June 03, 03:21 PM
my girlfriend in singapore paints a pretty scary picture of KIJ....he's pretty much a nutcase...he is only in power because his father was the previous leader. It is not like he was trained for this.

________________________________________________
http://jozef17.tripod.com/tiny.jpg%20'Cuz it's a Khomeini-meini world after all

Freddy
24th June 03, 04:34 PM
dogparkpsycho- I dont recall China ever invading Vietnam.
I personally dont think North Koreans would turn on their leader if he decides to start a nuclear war.
Chokepoints are alot easier said than done. The Koreas might look small on the map but trying to secur borders during a war is very very difficult.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Freddy
24th June 03, 04:47 PM
If there is a war in the Koreas its most likely that China would support the North. They dont need U.S. imperialism on their border.
As for Japan getiing invlove I think both the Koreas would attack Japan's imperialist forces. Just to let those know who doesnt already know Koreans have a dislike to Japan (for historical reasons)and so does China.

As for the Taep'odong 2 missile it is a medium range missile. one of the problems of the missile is that it is a liquid fueled missiled (really a hybred of both but for argument sake) so it cant be fired immediately like solid boster rockets. The missiles uses a fuming red nitric acid/ kerosene fuel system and takes some time to fueled. Spy satelites will most likely see the rockets being loaded before being fired alerting the U.S.
In most part NK has really nothing to gain for starting a war. They are an old remnant of a Stalinist regime.
I think diplomacy is the best answer for this. Mainly with China and the Russians. Leaving out Japan.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

The Wastrel
24th June 03, 07:32 PM
Freddy,
You're insane.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Vargas
25th June 03, 11:57 PM
Wow, Koreans have a 'dislike' for the Japanese? That's deep, dude, I would've never guessed. Also, that was pretty slick how you got the I-word pinned on both the U.S. and Japan, but not on China (cough, cough "Tibet"). You must be, like, some kind of geo-political whiz. But please, continue to enlighten us about the Land of the Morning Calm. I know The Wastrel can hardly wait for your next post on this thread (he was just kidding about you being insane, he really thinks you're right on target).



"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

Edited by - Vargas on June 25 2003 23:59:48

Phoenix
26th June 03, 12:55 AM
"Wow, Koreans have a 'dislike' for the Japanese?"


Vargas, just for shits and giggles.......

If you ever get the chance, ask a Korean person what the 'chongshindae' was. Be sure to let us know what kind of response you get.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

Edited by - Rising Phoenix on June 26 2003 00:56:33

Edited by - Rising Phoenix on June 26 2003 00:57:25

PizDoff
26th June 03, 01:26 AM
"If there is a war in the Koreas its most likely that China would support the North. They dont need U.S. imperialism on their border. "
how can you be sure of that?

Clinton went over to China to talk about furthering trade relations between the two countries. This bilateral agreeement could be quite profitable.....

--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.

www.despair.com

Vargas
26th June 03, 07:27 AM
Uh, Rising Phoenix, I lived in South Korea for a year and a half. I know what the Koreans think of Japan and the Japanese, especially the older ones. I was being, what's the word? Oh yeah, SARCASTIC! Apparently a wasted effort, as your post illustrates.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

Homsuplo
26th June 03, 10:35 AM
[quote]
dogparkpsycho- I dont recall China ever invading Vietnam.

Yes - Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. It was pretty ugly. My dad's from Vietnam...the whole country mobilized. Getting invaded by China is no joke...not even for the NVA.

Omar
26th June 03, 11:27 AM
OF course China supports the north. Just pull a map out and look how close Korea is to Beijing. It's closer than Cuba to D.C. Bush's rethoric about North Korea scared the bejeezus out of me.

On Vietnam,
China has invaded Viet Nam once or twice in it's history but not often. I didn't know they had done it so recently. Any background on why they marched in that time?

The Chinese even have a saying about why not to invade Viet Nam. "Without the lips the teeth will get cold." Previous dynasties figured out it's strategically better for the Vietnamese to be independant. That way, if anyone tries to get at China through Vietnam, they can support the Vietnamese with weapons and money and stuff but let the Vietnamese do most of the work. It's difficult territory to take and anyone who manages to get through it to get to China will have already been seriouly weakened by the effort. Then the Chinese can repel them with the support of the local Vietnamese. I don't know what happened in '79. Now I'm curious.

btw, dogparkpsycho, another war in Korea would be much more disasterous for Chinas economy than the US, imo. The biggest reason they are lagging so far behind us in terms of ecom=nomic development and lack of basic infrastructure is because they've been at war domestically for too much of this century.. .er.last century. First the opium wars (o.k. late 19th century but the western powers maintained controll on into the 30's) then the revolution of 1911, then the KMT then the Japanese in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, cultural revolution. All of this stuff was on their borders or on their own soil. They need peace to get their internal affairs in order.

Edited by - omar on June 26 2003 11:33:37

Omar
26th June 03, 11:56 AM
Since I tend to come across as such a strident anti-imperialist commie, I just wanted to say for the record, North Korea sucks and so does communism. I would love nothing more than to see the ROK toppled but it's not worth the risks.

I have a question. WHY do you think Bush wants to invade N.Korea? I don't know, don't have a theory. That the N.Korean government is bad is usefull for garnering popular support but morality has extremely rarely, if ever, been a motivator for foregin policy. To me it just seems like China is last man standing. Theres nobody else left who can even pretend to stand up to the US and truth be told, they can't either. China's best strategy now is to make sure that their health = Amerca's wealth and vice versa.

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Freddy
26th June 03, 12:24 PM
The Wastrel- Why am I insane? Was it not you who brought up Japan? I would think it would be obvious the two Koreas both dislike the Japanese.
Humpsuplo- It was a border clash. China had many with their neighbours (including the former USSR and India). Theres still alot of disputed territories in the region. I guess you can relate to the conflict between India and Pakistan over these sort of border disputes.
Vargas as for Tibet and other oppressed ethic groups. They have the right for self determination.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Freddy
26th June 03, 12:26 PM
The Wastrel- Why am I insane? Was it not you who brought up Japan? I would think it would be obvious the two Koreas both dislike the Japanese.
Humpsuplo- It was a border clash. China had many with their neighbours (including the former USSR and India). Theres still alot of disputed territories in the region. I guess you can relate to the conflict between India and Pakistan over these sort of border disputes.
Vargas as for Tibet and other oppressed ethic groups. They have the right for self determination.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Freddy
26th June 03, 12:26 PM
The Wastrel- Why am I insane? Was it not you who brought up Japan? I would think it would be obvious the two Koreas both dislike the Japanese.
Humpsuplo- It was a border clash. China had many with their neighbours (including the former USSR and India). Theres still alot of disputed territories in the region. I guess you can relate to the conflict between India and Pakistan over these sort of border disputes.
Vargas as for Tibet and other oppressed ethic groups. They have the right for self determination.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Freddy
26th June 03, 12:46 PM
The funny thing is I dont think most Asian countries would care if North Korea blew up Japan.

Its a joke. (No offense to anyone who is Japanese btw).

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Freddy
26th June 03, 02:12 PM
Just incase anyone is wondering studying rocket science is just one of my hobbies. I just find the subject fascinating. IF anyone knows anything about inertial guidance systems please post it.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Homsuplo
26th June 03, 02:39 PM
[quote]
OF course China supports the north. Just pull a map out and look how close Korea is to Beijing. It's closer than Cuba to D.C. Bush's rethoric about North Korea scared the bejeezus out of me.

On Vietnam,
China has invaded Viet Nam once or twice in it's history but not often. I didn't know they had done it so recently. Any background on why they marched in that time?

It was more than a border clash...I'll pull up the stats later, but there were a lot of troops involved. China was trying to teach Vietnam a lesson for being a Soviet proxy and wiping out the Khmer Rouge, so they sent a few hundred thousand troops over the border. The NVA fought them off using 2nd-line troops...but it was pretty ugly anyway. House-to-house fighting and guerilla warfare.

China and Vietnam have a love-hate relationship...I see that in my parents. HAHAHAHAH! On a more serious note though, China occupied Vietnam for a long time...going to Vietnam you'd prob find a lot more anti-Chinese sentiment than anti-American sentiment. I'm done now.

Omar
26th June 03, 06:11 PM
That sounds like what I was thinking. After I posted I asked someone old enough to have been reading the news in '79 (I was only 9 at the time) He told me he vaguely remembered some kind of border dispute.

A border dispute fits more with what I know of Chinese history. So does the love hate thing. I never said they didn't WANT to invade Viet Nam, just that they long ago realized it was strategically to their advantage for Viet Nam to be independant. I don't wan't to be dismissive of the loves lost in that conflict but a border dispute is different from an invasion. It's still ugly but I have been thinking in terms of imperialism. I don't think I could put it better than you already did, punishment for being a Soviet proxy and wiping out the Khmer Rouge.

The Soviet-Chinese relations are fascinating. I wish I knew more. I was fascinated to learn that Mao, even while implementing manditory Russian lessons in the schools, was learning English for himself. It seems that he thought that America was a better ally than the Soviets who he was leery of. The thing he really brought in from the U.S.S.R. was not so much communism as the methods of taking control of the government. Today's China doesn't even pretend to be communist in anything other than name.

Freddy, keept up the good fight. . . do you really take that sig seriously? Noe THAT guy was on drugs!

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Homsuplo
27th June 03, 12:03 AM
Yeh...I'm Viet-Chinese so the histories of both nations have always fascinated me. You're right about the Communism thing though...the idea that all the Communist nations were automatic buddies and a solid front was a little off the mark.

Heh...Omar, did you ever hear about the Sino-Soviet border clashes? I heard those were pretty hairy.

Freddy
27th June 03, 03:00 PM
Homsuplo- Those sino-soviet border clashes was pretty hary alright. They had several of them. Theres also border clashes with India. Even today Japan and Russia are still having disputes over some Ilands in the Pacific.
I think its correct to say theres been a love and hate relations between China and Vietnam as well as with Cambodia. If I recall Ho Chi Minh was backed by China to throw out the French in South East Asia then later the Soviet Union backed him.

Omar- Thanks for your comments. As for Alister Crowley its a love and hate relationship with him. He had such a sense of humor and he really pissed off many Victorian conservative in his days. Even Mussilini had him thrown out of Italy.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Omar
27th June 03, 04:28 PM
Soviet-Sino border clashes? Why do you think we have 'inner' and 'outer' mongolia? The 'outer' mongolians speak Russian and the 'inner' ones speak Chinese. Then there's ALL of Xinjiang (lit. 'new territories') That's inner (fil in the blank)______istan. All just buffer zones between the Soviets and the Chinese.

Freddy,
I know way more than I ever wanted to about Crowley. Shit, I've gotten high with a magistar templar and had a regular satanist for a roommate...I have no idea how that all happened. Let's just say I passively absorbed a lot of occult knowledge without ever practicing. I do seem to attract the weirdos.

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Freddy
28th June 03, 02:57 PM
Thats pretty funny Omar; attracting all those weirdos!
I personally wouldnt want a satanist as a roomate. Thats a bit too much for me.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

The Wastrel
29th June 03, 09:23 PM
"As for Japan getiing invlove I think both the Koreas would attack Japan's imperialist forces."

That's insane. I'm frankly tired of arguing about this stuff because no one listens. They just manufacture grand scenarios out of little tidbits of area knowledge that they seem to think are arcane secrets. Never mind that one or two people here have actually studied and worked in the area of North Korean security studies.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Edited by - The Wastrel on June 29 2003 21:26:14

The Wastrel
29th June 03, 09:25 PM
Omar,
Do you think that the PRC would support a DPRK invasion of the ROK, or a nuclear strike against the ROK? No. Come on.

I also assume you meant that you couldn't wait for the DPRK, not the ROK, to fall.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Osiris
29th June 03, 09:28 PM
"As for Japan getiing invlove I think both the Koreas would attack Japan's imperialist forces."

"That's insane. I'm frankly tired of arguing about this stuff because no one listens. They just manufacture grand scenarios out of little tidbits of area knowledge that they seem to think are arcane secrets."

Wastrel is correct.

"If a man was to tell me he wasnt God I would have to ask him what he was." Warcloud

Deadpan Scientist
29th June 03, 09:54 PM
Did I mention the US should just take over all these countries and end their petty squabbles?

Omar
30th June 03, 01:00 AM
Wastrel,
Yes I get confused which damn letters stand for which side. And No, I would dream in a million years China would support an invasion. You misread my post. I am stating the obvious, that China would oppose an American invasion of North Korea.

I thought the 'D' in DPRK stood for Democratic so was thinking it was South Korea. It's all the instruction I got as a kid to think Democratic = Good guys ! Then me being such a lefty doesn't help. Of course the 'R' in ROK means Republican, right?

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Phoenix
30th June 03, 05:22 AM
"You misread my post. I am stating the obvious, that China would oppose an American invasion of North Korea."

It's really a moot point on whether or not the US would invade North Korea or not.

It is higly unlikely that the US will invade North Korea because they have nothing to gain by doing so. In fact, the US stands to lose alot, namely because by executing such an action, the US alliance with the ROK (South Korea) would be badly damaged, seeing as how the ROK is trying to re-unify with the DPRK.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

Homsuplo
30th June 03, 11:26 AM
Well, you know North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil. There's only 2 nations left on that list now.

Freddy
30th June 03, 05:28 PM
Osiris- you forget when the French was on the Ivory coast of Africa to rescue French citizens both rebel forces and Government force attacked French troops.
Its a fact both Koreas hate the Japanese Government. If the Japanese were to land military forces on korea I dont belived it would be very welcomed. In particular killing NK troops because South Korean DO care about them and they havnt forgotten what the Japanese Imperialist has done to them.
As for the PRC they have supported NK in the first Korean war. I do not believe the PRC would just let NK be invaded. NK has been the PRC's allied in the past.
BTW way when NK tested thier missiles which country did they aim thier missile towards?
Answer: Japan
I think they won political PR points with the S.Koreans for doing that.

"That's insane. I'm frankly tired of arguing about this stuff because no one listens. They just manufacture grand scenarios out of little tidbits of area knowledge that they seem to think are arcane secrets. Never mind that one or two people here have actually studied and worked in the area of North Korean security studies"
What arcane secrets are you talking about? Did I say anything about arcane secrets or claim to be? So somehow because theres one or two people that has worked in the area in NK securities that they cant be BIAS that their anaylist CANT be WRONG. There were also so called experts that studied Iraq before the invasion but where taken by surprise of the resistance of Iraqi forces. It wasnt that smooth of a ride to Baghdad. Just because two people studied in the area of NK studies doenst mean everything they say is 100% correct. Experts would defer in their opinon on that matter and have just two people anaylises as opposed to a panel of experts dont mean that much.
Have you studied the political ideology of NK or PRC and their historic ideology?


"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Phoenix
30th June 03, 08:02 PM
Freddy,

I think that the North Koreans targeting Japan has less to do with the racism and more to do with the fact that there are about 48,000 US troops (mostly US Marines) stationed in Japan.

This, combined with the 37,000 troops in South Korea and the troops in Guam, would be quite a large force to condend with. And this is only the US forces...there'll still be a bunch from other allied countries. To contend with that amount of manpower would be quite a task, even with the DPRK's 1.1 million strong army.

It would be a better tactical move to take out the bulk of the US troops in Japan.

But hey....as I said before, this is a moot point, because none of that is going to happen anyway.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

The Wastrel
30th June 03, 11:59 PM
Freddy,
Yes. Quit talking out of your ass. I love that "South Korea" would turn on imperialist Japan bullshit. We might be talking about a question of bias if you had any idea what you were talking about.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Osiris
1st July 03, 12:33 AM
"Osiris- you forget when the French was on the Ivory coast of Africa to rescue French citizens both rebel forces and Government force attacked French troops."

Entirely different. Entirely. Damn. This is fucking retarded. Is it ok if I just forget you said that? We usually agree, but DAMN.

"If a man was to tell me he wasnt God I would have to ask him what he was." Warcloud

The Wastrel
1st July 03, 12:36 AM
I just read the half that he wrote to you. That was some retarded shit Freddy.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Osiris
1st July 03, 01:05 AM
Freddy, think of the consequences of that. It would be the dumbest move since Hutker attacked Russia.

"If a man was to tell me he wasnt God I would have to ask him what he was." Warcloud

Omar
1st July 03, 04:02 AM
It's really a moot point on whether or not the US would invade North Korea or not.


Yes. An obvious moot point. But if it's so impossible, why the tought rhetoric. We invaded before. I'm really not arguing here. I don't get it. Why are we making noises like we could invade . . . or invade by proxy or whatever. Axis of Evil and all that BS. Please give me a reason to believe that it's more stupid to attack N.Korea now than it was then.. . or just Korea, I guess. (no N. and S.)

Did anyone high up other than McCarthy really think we were fighting communism? And if they did, how am I supposed to have any faith in common sense guiding their actions now. So are we ruled by fanatical nuts or carefull strategists. If it's strategy, WHAT?

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Phoenix
1st July 03, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:

Yes. An obvious moot point. But if it's so impossible, why the tought rhetoric. We invaded before. I'm really not arguing here. I don't get it. Why are we making noises like we could invade . . . or invade by proxy or whatever. Axis of Evil and all that BS. Please give me a reason to believe that it's more stupid to attack N.Korea now than it was then.. . or just Korea, I guess. (no N. and S.)

Did anyone high up other than McCarthy really think we were fighting communism? And if they did, how am I supposed to have any faith in common sense guiding their actions now. So are we ruled by fanatical nuts or carefull strategists. If it's strategy, WHAT?

BAH ! Puny Humans !
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote>


Well, it's not impossible.....but North Korea, as we all know, is notorious for it's saber rattling. They're just trying to talk tough, it's really just a pissing contest.

At the end of the day, North Korea will get it's food aid, they'll likely, after much pressure from the People's Republic of China, drop the nuclear arms plan, and things will return to the status quo.

Then again, I could be wrong.

"Everybody knows...if the police have to chase you down, they're brining an ass kicking with them". - Chris Rock

The Wastrel
1st July 03, 07:27 AM
Omar,
It's not like the US is the only one talking tough. And what do you mean we invaded? The US "invaded" North Korea after North Korea invaded the South. THEY were the aggressor. So yes, if the DPRK was a communist state, we actually were fighting communism, no matter how much of an idiot McCarthy was.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Homsuplo
1st July 03, 05:56 PM
Wow...this conversation got heated. An NK-SK war would be ugly...the US and SK would win in the end, but Seoul would be pretty much demolished. A war wouldn't happen though...Kim Jong Il isn't that crazy.

China would be in a tough bind if a war did break out though...I believe it has some pretty lucrative economic agreements with SK and would not want a invasion. But then again, they wouldn't NK to collapse and have refugees pour over their borders.

I think we can all agree that this war would never happen. It's pretty funny that we're talking about this actually - one of my best friends is a IR major and we got into a lively debate, which ended up dragging everyone into it.

Yeh...I'm not a big fan of America's "domino theory"...but that's another story.

Omar
1st July 03, 06:35 PM
I still don't get why it's different NOW. And I'm not worried about how crazy Kim Jong Il is. I'm more worried about Bush.

Wastrel,
North Korea invaded South Korea? I thought the Korean was was why we HAVE 'N'. and 'S.' Korea's. I don't think and internal powerstruggle can be considered an invasion.

BAH ! Puny Humans !

The Wastrel
1st July 03, 06:41 PM
No, Omar. The division was at the end of WW2.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

deus ex machina
1st July 03, 07:05 PM
Wastrel is correct.

~
danny

"All this talk about 'newbies' is making me a little nervous. You guys don't have any sort of secret hazing initiation involving wooden paddles and me screaming 'Thank you sir, may I have another?!' do you?"

The Wastrel
1st July 03, 07:52 PM
Once again, off the top of my head:

During WW2, the Korean peninsula was occupied by the Japanese. When the Japanese surrendered, American forces in Japan moved into the south, and Soviets moved into the north. An arbitrary division at the 38th parallel was chosen to divide the two territories. There was an initial agreement to unify the two under a democratically elected regime, but that fell apart. In the North, the Soviets installed popular anti-Japanese guerrila leader Kim Il-Sung as the leader of a new communist state. In the South, the U.S. backed Princeton-educated Yi Seung-Man. People moved back and forth as they shuffled to the state under which they wished to live. Then, in 1951, the North Koreans invaded the South with the grudging support of Josef Stalin, after the United States Secretary of State made a speech in which he excluded South Korea from the region of vital U.S. interests.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Edited by - The Wastrel on July 01 2003 21:00:08

PizDoff
1st July 03, 08:43 PM
I think that's correct, according to my past readings and amnesia.



"Freddy, think of the consequences of that. It would be the dumbest move since Hutker attacked Russia."
You mean Shitler.



http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/01/nkorea.nukes/index.html
hope that wasn't posted before

--
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.
http://www.fightauthority.com/

Omar
1st July 03, 09:54 PM
Thanks. So Korea was split up between US and USSR after the Japanese were driven out. And China at the time...? ... what? Too busy trying to nail down domestic control to be bothered with Korea at the time? Maybe they just sort of nervously figured the Soviets south of the capital was better than having Americans? Except that post WWII the Chinese here pretty pro-american. We were allies in WWII. So when did things go sour? Was the Korean was pretty much the start of anti-Chinese propaganda for us?

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Vargas
1st July 03, 11:20 PM
No, the beginning of the end for U.S.- China relations was the exile of Chiang Kai-Shek to Taiwan in 1949. The general was considered the Asian equivalent to Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt at the end of WWII. Supposedly, he spent all his energy against the Japanese and had nothing left to resist Mao and his army during the civil war that broke out. Hell, until 1972, the U.S. still recognized Taiwan as the only legitemate Chinese government. So, if I was guessing, the Chinese were still busy cleaning up loose ends from the civil war with the Kuomintang when the Korean War broke out. The U.S. had pretty much back Chiang Kai-Shek from the beginning, so this idea that we stabbed Mao in the back after supporting him is pretty far-fetched.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

Omar
3rd July 03, 02:12 AM
I'm not sure how you're reading my posts. I'm not confused about US-China and could add all sorts of comments about Chiang Kai Shek, Mao and more. I didn't catch who said we "stabbed Mao in the back". I'm ignorant and confused about Korea.

>"considered the Asian equivalent to Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt at the end of WWII"

lol. Now that's a hell of a range. I guess you mean, depending on who you ask. Mao was brilliant. An early spin doctor. He was a bastard, but a brilliant one. I have to give him a kind of grudgin respect for all he accomplished for China. I'm not whitewashing. I just think you need to put him in context.

I say spin doctor because I don't know what Chiang's motives really were but Mao managed to PAINT him as cooperating with the Japanese and as a puppet of western colonial powers. He WAS backed by the US, so I think Mao had a point. In the 50's I think Mao did a lot of good. It was a bit later that the troubles came. But, to this day, his right hand man, Deng Xiaoping, is loced and revered by most mainland Chinese I've met. I get the impression that Deng was like Roosevelt to Mao's Washington.

If you want to add some info re: Korea though, I'm really all ears.

BAH ! Puny Humans !

The Wastrel
3rd July 03, 08:25 AM
What do you need? I'm not sure what your question about China is. China at the time of the split...that was 1945. I haven't really worked at interlacing these two different historical threads, but in 1945 the tenuous cooperation between the KMT and the CCP was collapsing after the defeat of the Japanese, and the nation was effectively divided. Before the end of the year, they were at war with each other. So, in 1945, I guess that the KMT was still in effective control of most of China, and wouldn't have feared American control of the south of Korea. They would have been far more worried about the Soviet-influenced Kim Il-Sung...

Anyway, you have to remember too that the plan was for separate administrations of the two halves until eventual reunifaction. The permanent split was NOT supposed to happen.

I could go into the political factors within Korea that led to the failure of unification...given a little time to refresh.



"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Omar
3rd July 03, 10:50 AM
I didn't have a questio about China!!! I'm talking about Vargas' post. It implied I was asking about China. Chinese history is my strong point. I was just thinking about interlacing, as you put it, these two historical threads.

Me: China at the time...? ... what? Too busy trying to nail down domestic control to be bothered with Korea at the time?

Vargas: if I was guessing, the Chinese were still busy cleaning up loose ends from the civil war with the Kuomintang when the Korean War broke out.

It looks like a paraphrase of my own post to me. Take your time with the reuinification thing though. Whenever the other threads get boring enough, come on back here with an essay on WHY the split became permanent. I'd figure THAT was definate cold war democratic vs. communist rivalry.

It occurs to me that "tying up loose ends" isn't exactly right. Red China wasn't even founded untill 1949, so '45 can hardly be called 'loose ends'. Good call on KMT being in controll in '45 and therfore NOT afraid of US controled South Korea. Jeez, this damn thing keeps getting more complicated each time I look at it. No wonder I've avoided it for so long.




BAH ! Puny Humans !

The Wastrel
3rd July 03, 03:27 PM
But Omar, Vargas could be right because the Korean war was in 1951, not exactly enough time for consolidation.

Anyway, I'll see what I can do about the rest...

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Omar
3rd July 03, 03:58 PM
cool.

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Freddy
7th July 03, 05:45 PM
I have to agree NK invaded SK after the ww.
Osiris I have to agree with you any invasion of NK would be the dumbest move. Or if NK invaded SK would be just as dumb.
As for Mao and Chiang Kai Shek I dont know who is worst. I dont really like either. As for Deng Xiapeng I think he was a war criminbal after what he did in Tinnamen (sorry about the SP).
As for Taiwan they are somwhat in the same predictament as South Korea. Although that might change with the new PRC.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Freddy
7th July 03, 05:52 PM
The Wastrel- "Freddy,
Yes. Quit talking out of your ass. I love that "South Korea" would turn on imperialist Japan bullshit. We might be talking about a question of bias if you had any idea what you were talking about."
Of course I was talking shit Wastrel. You didnt get the sarcism I had in mind. You have forgotten that Japan has NEVER acknowledge or accepted war atrocities commited by the Japanese in Korea during WW2. It is still a thorny issue with them and the PRC.

On an interesting note wasnt there a few years ago that some British soldiers/officers were attacked on several ocassion in Isreal but the some disgrunted Isrealis and Palestinians??? I forget?

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Omar
7th July 03, 09:07 PM
I have to check the names with my GF before I tell you who your thinking about but I don't think it was Deng Xiaoping. Deng is generally revered by most Chinese. People talk about him like westerner talk about Churchill. Funny anecdotes, smooth handling of rude foreign diplomats, etc. Tiananmen was '88, a little past Deng's time.

As for Chiang vs. Mao...Well nobody in China hates Chiang. He's mostly just laughed at for his reputation for the military tactic know in ancient China as "RUN AWAY!!!!" but nobody seems to accuse him of war crimes or anything.

With Mao most people have very mixed feelings. Of course there was the long march and lots of bad agricultural policies resulting in a lot of hunger. Did I mention the cultural revolution? But over all, most of the old timers I talked to still regard him as a great statesman, strategist and even poet. He drove out the imperialists and unified the country. He did away with footbinding once and for all and gave women equall rights under the law. He established public edjucation and generally built up national morale.

Deng Xiaoping is typically given credit for all the boring policy making while Mao was out there being a "Great Leader". So most Chinese I talked too seemed to really give Deng credit for carrying out Mao's better ideals. I like to compare them to Washington and Jefferson. One was a general and a political leader. The other actually did much more to creat the structure of the new government.

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Omar
7th July 03, 10:53 PM
Just chatted with my GF. She says Deng died in the early 90's. Tiananmen was passed sfter his time. Also, what most people don't realize is that the decision to open fire was far from unilateral. It was the final stage in a major internal power struggle between the reformers and the hard liners. On that day, the reformers lost and many of them were out of office the next day.


BAH ! Puny Humans !

Homsuplo
7th July 03, 10:59 PM
Yeh...the repercussions of that power struggle are still being felt today. Unfortunately for us...God only knows what kind of leader Hu Jintao will be.

The Wastrel
8th July 03, 12:46 AM
Omar,
What about Zhou En-Lai? I think he's FAR more important.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Omar
8th July 03, 12:26 PM
May have actually DONE more. I'm just talking about the general impression on 'average joe's' of China. JFK get's all the credit but a lot of people will tell you Johnson got more done. Besides, I have to be carefull because I sometimes get Zhou and Deng mixed up. Embarrassing as hell really.

Mainly I just think it was really interesting to see what a complex figure Mao was. We get a pretty single sided impression here. Even with the griping inside China about Mao (in private of course) many Chinese have eagerly showed me his poetry or told me funny anecdotes about him. I think the feeling is that, as bad as he was in the 60's, it was better than the alternative, meaning continued foregin domination.

I'm gonna review my notes on Zhou and Deng and get back to this thread later. I remember Deng as being the real short little guy. 'Xiao' is the same pronounciation as 'short' so... Zhou En-lai was treaty of Yalta, right?

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Omar
8th July 03, 12:31 PM
Nope. I remembered correctly. Just pull the following from here: http://web.singnet.com.sg/~~tanwc2/deng/deng.htm

"Deng was attacked during the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s by radical supporters of Mao, and he was stripped of his high party and government posts sometime in the years 1967-69, after which he disappeared from public view. In 1973, however, Deng was reinstated under the sponsorship of Premier Zhou Enlai and made deputy premier, and in 1975 he became vice-chairman of the party's Central Committee, a member of its Politburo, and chief of the general staff. As effective head of the government during the months preceding the death of Zhou Enlai, he was widely considered the likely successor to Zhou. However, upon Zhou's death in January 1976, the (Maoist) Gang of Four managed to purge Deng from the leadership once again. It was not until Mao's death in September 1976 and the consequent fall from power of the Gang of Four that Deng was rehabilitated, this time with the assent of Mao's chosen successor to the leadership of China, Hua Guofeng."

No wonder he's regarded so highly.



BAH ! Puny Humans !

Omar
8th July 03, 01:59 PM
another funny bit from the same article:

"jUST UNDER five feet tall and resembling a panda bear. . ."

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Freddy
8th July 03, 05:52 PM
Omar- If I recall Chiang Kai Shek was responsible for the Shanghai massacre in 1927. In my opinion both Mao and Chiang are war criminals. Both have committed gross executions and human right abuses.

On an intertesting note. Most people dont realize that Chiang was a top member of a Traid organization and Mao formed the Red Spears.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"