Korean Job Discussion Forums

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Drakoi-OTOH exchange:

Austin · Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: In the kitchen

To all those that think that the U.S. was concerned with Korean people's freedom and liberty:

Where were they during the several decades of Japanese occupation?

Again, a few of you have claimed that the U.S. liberated Korea, but I still have seen no proof. The last time I checked the spoils of war left the Korean peninsula divided, and the U.S. forced that concession due to U.S. economic interests.

More to the point, why should not Koreans be allowed to voice their contempt and hatred of the U.S. considering what they have done to their people?

Austin · Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: In the kitchen

Red herring!

I never claimed Korea was a colony of the U.S. The Bobster merely posted that in response to my post in an attempt to distract others from the issue.

Recheck the thread, and you will see for yourself.

matthewwoodford · Joined: 01 Oct 2003 Location: Location, location, location.

It is a glaringly obvious fact that the American army occupies a huge square of prime real estate right in the middle of Korea's capital. It must be worth billions. There are 37,000 troops stationed there, bills paid courtesy of the Korean taxpayer. In my naivet� the first time I heard that American expenses in Gulf War I were paid for by Kuwait rather than the US, and subsequently when I heard that Korea pays for all the GI's, I was a little shocked, but perhaps I am alone in this...

What do we expect the Korean government to do whenever the American government makes a decision? Go along with it of course, perhaps even with expressions of wholehearted support.

You can call it colonialism or neocolonialism or whatever you want. The Korean government is obviously and totally under America's thumb.

Yes, America liberated Korea from Japan. Does that mean America owns them from now on? No, America did not allow the grassroots socialist movement throughout all Korea, north and south, to form a government but installed Singman Rhee cos they knew him and he was their guy through and through, plus they installed some previous Jap collaborators and suppressed, sometimes bloodily, all resistance to their preferred government. Stalin's Russia did not suppress Kim Il Sung's rise in the north (not the same as the original grassroots socialist organisation which spontaneously arose after the defeat of Japan) and obviously there was no reason for them to do so - noone's saying Stalin (perhaps the greatest criminal in history) was somehow better than the US. There were reasons for America's actions and you can go ahead and justify them point by point but you can't call it altruistic concern for what was best for Korea; it is also begging the question to point to Kim Il Sung's North Korea as 'the' alternative to American hegemony considering that it was America's own presence in the peninsula that - *partly* - caused the genesis and character of the North Korean regime to begin with. IMHO we should focus on the situation now.

If you still think the situation now is fine and justified ask yourself how you would like a foreign army base in the middle of your capital city. Maybe they need protection from North Korea (I doubt North Korea could win nowadays unless they have nukes) or conceivably China. Even given this, does Korea subservience have to be rubbed in their face with the most inequitable SOFA in the world? Can't troops be stationed somewhere else?

It's amazing to me that the facts are staring everyone in the face but most westerners never question America's basic right to be here and altruism. (And I am not anti-American!! Yes, America's done a lot of good things!!)

Matt[/quote]

candu · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

The 37 000 American troops here are mostly paid for by the United States. The notion that South Korea pays the bill is a myth, albeit a widely believed one. (Off the top of my head, of the $3 - 4 billion dollars it costs to keep US Forces Korea operating each year, South Korea provides around $400 million.) One could argue about what this may cost Koreans in terms of pride, but in monetary terms the burden is carried by the US.

Should the US leave, South Korea would have to pay billions of dollars to replace - and who knows for what duration - American tanks, fighting vehicles, F-16 and A-10 jets, spy planes, Apache helicopters, and other hardware (much of it related to intelligence gathering - possibly irreplaceable and largely out of sight), not to mention assume a variety of additional responsibilities. Plus, they might lose the insurance policy of having the US go to war with them in the unlikely event things really went bad here. In spite of stereotypes to the contrary, I personally don't see the average Korean choosing pride over a big tax hike and political and economic uncertaintly.

You will get no argument from me about oil-related interests playing a large part in motivating US action in Kuwait, not to mention Iraq more recently - though it is very clear that Iraq isn't going to turn a profit. However, the last time I checked, there aren't any oil wells on the Korean Peninsula. (I've been told by a couple of students that the US is keen to take control of North Korea's magnesium reserves, but I find that a little far fetched!) The US, like most countries, is motivated by self interest more than altruism, but that doesn't mean that the alliance in Korea doesn't benefit both countries.

Leslie Cheswyck · Joined: 31 May 2003 Location: University of Western Chile

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Leslie Cheswyck · Joined: 31 May 2003 Location: University of Western Chile

OTOH,
I agree. But you gotta love this guy. He is entertaining.

The question for Austin is do we want to turn back the clock and permit the Japs to continue their occupation of Korea? As the victors in WWII we had the power to do as we chose. We could have chosen to let Japan keep Korea. He's just unhappy the Soviets didn't grab all of it.

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Austin · Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: In the kitchen

Three dog night,

Land redistribution was not about making things "democratic," the USMG wanted to take the wealth and power out of the hands of the landlords to make a class of peasant-farmers that would require outside assistance for mere subsistence (thereby insuring compliance and minimizing future upheavals...i.e. stability). Moreover, if you believe they really wanted to support a democracy in Korea, why did not they?

Do you know what the USMG's agenda was? Democracy was not on it! Stability on the peninsula was the game.

No doubt people are very forgetful, and many do not even know their own history well, but it was the U.S. military in 1871 that attempted to forcefully open up Korea to trade with the U.S. Fortunately, Korea was able to defeat Captain Mackey (they killed him) and his Marine troops, but we know how things eventually turned out today for this peninsula.

Some of you want to paint the U.S. as some sort of savior, like they are a lesser evil to another country's system. However, that is your own patriotic rhetoric, as it is not based on fact, but personal belief.

What does some dead soldier at some memorial have to do with the debate at hand? They just follow orders. They do not think or reason about whether they should or should not do something, so why would I ask them about U.S. foreign policy of which they know little or nothing (besides they are dead)?

Again, the U.S. was in it for selfish reasons, most educated people know and accept that rhetoric and propaganda are used to sell wars and other military action to the people.

The U.S. was successful at finishing what Ulysses S. Grant attempted to achieve decades ago, so let us not confuse our actions as being noble and for the "common good."

Small minds can think of only two options when several thousand exist. After all, this is not a debate about the virtues of capitalism and communism, but on whether Korea should have the right to accurately tell their history and determine their own future apart from outside interference. If you believe they should be allowed this right, why will not the U.S. release sealed documents that would shed more light on decisions of the past and discontinue interferring in Korean political and diplomatic issues? Moreover, considering the S.O.F.A. agreement and the strong-arm political tactics that are used against the Korean government to prevent them from making official statements against the U.S. administration, is it any wonder why Koreans feel the way they do?

Another poster commented on the monopoly in the textbook industry in the U.S. and the lack of accuracy in the telling of our own history, if we are such a great nation, always acting in the best interest of people around the world, why do we white-wash our past?

They have obviously fooled many, but thankfully, they have not fooled all!

Austin · Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: In the kitchen

Three dog night?

Alias · Joined: 24 Jan 2003

<Some of you want to paint the U.S. as some sort of savior, like they are a lesser evil to another country's system. However, that is your own patriotic rhetoric, as it is not based on fact, but personal belief. >

Of course they are the lesser evil. I'll compare South Korea to Communist North Korea anyday.

The US became involved in the Korean War for their own selfish reasons. The end result? They are not ruled by Pyongyang today. Disappointed?

Korean dictators like Chun were responsible for the suffering of their people. To extend blame to the US (like for the Gwangu massacre) is to deny that Koreans are capable of killing other Koreans. Chun was not a puppet. US should have done much more to punish the regime. If Carter wasn't on his way out maybe things would have been different. Unfortunately Reagan came to power and the rest is history.

Also, the US has stated that they would leave if asked. Roh promptly went to Washington and kissed butt because he wanted the troops to stay. Something which upset the anti-American radicals. I'm sure they will try to spin it to say that Roh was forced to go to Washington and ask the troops to stay. Or that he is just a puppet of Washington. This falls directly in line with Pyongyang propoganda.

Alias · Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Do the text books in South Korean public schools discuss the history of North Korean terror attacks against the South or is that now a taboo topic?

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Hammer · Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Location: Cheonan

[quote
In case of conflict or ambiguity between the English text of this document and any translation thereof, the English shall prevail.[/quote]

nice touch - I always kinda wondered how you wrote documents of surrender for a nation where you didn't trust the translators . . .