|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 10:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Homer wrote: |
| Quote: |
What does the US get out of keeping US forces in Korea today?
What has Korea done for the US?
Where would Korea be without the US? |
Overly simplistic questions applied to a complex situation. |
well they why don't you take a stab at it?
Personally I think the US would be better off with more F-22 Raptors.
North East Asia is not strategically important anymore for the US.
What would have Kim Il Sung done to South Korea if the US had not gotten involved?
What no answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
They were dirt poor here for nearly 40 years with US troops stationed on their soil all the while. All of a sudden in the late 80s and early 90s their economy started taking off, and even though a great deal of time had passed with nothing of the sort happening you assert that the reason for it is that the American military presence.
But that��s all it is, an assertion. You are not backing it up with any coherent argument save the one about not needing to devote as many resources to defense than would be true otherwise (though S Korea still devotes a larger percentage of their economy to it than many countries their size). However, this was always true from 1953 onwards and there was nothing unique that happened in these later decades that was connected to the US involvement here. |
Not true the South Korea economy was one of the fastest growning economies in the during the 70's and their economy started taking off in the 60's.
and the US provided foreign aid to South Korea all the way up to 1976. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo wrote: |
| North East Asia is not strategically important anymore for the US. |
I cannot disagree with this more Joo. There is no other place that is more strategically important for the US in the Far East. The Korean Peninsula basically puts the US in the Chinese�s hip pocket, a country that just threatened to crush Taiwan, a US ally. Korea is an natural and easily defensible beachhead and of great strategic importance in the context of an ever strengthening China. Do I think their being there helps South Korea, well that is another question all together.
| Joo wrote: |
| Not true the South Korea economy was one of the fastest growning economies in the during the 70's and their economy started taking off in the 60's. |
Totally agree with this, they achieved the kind of growth that China is now experiencing and the IMF crisis should show us that if the Chinese bubble bursts - it will have a huge affect on international economics and stability.
| Arthur Fonzerelli wrote: |
| Last time, I checked South Korea wasn't the one with a history of sticking it's nose around the business of other nations (Vietnam, Philippines, Iraq).... |
Well that isn't totally true. Although the Korean government may not have wanted to be involved in the Vietnam War, Park Chung Hee realized that if the money and Military support from the US was to continue to fund Korea's economic and military growth - they sure did stick more than ther nose in there.....
| Quote: |
| The Republic of Korea (ROK) sent three divisions of troops to Vietnam, beginning in September of 1963, to help the Americans fight against North Vietnam. The "White Horse," "Blue Dragon," and the "Tiger" divisions totaled 312,853 men over a twelve year period, forming the second largest army fighting in Vietnam. |
And The Korean Government's decision to send 3,000 more troops (including 1,400 combat marines and special forces commandos) to the Iraq now gives them the prestigious honour of having the third largest coalition contingent in that conflict (approximately 3600 troops).
But anyways, back on topic:
I see no reason that the Korean population should not protest the US actions as long as they focus on the abuses and that they are ant-war (not strictly anti-American) demonstrations. They should also realize how involved their own country's government has become in the conflict.
I tend to wonder what might happen if the same protest took place out side Cheung-Wa-Dae? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I also asked you a question at the time. Can you find one country where the U.S forces have been stationed for several decades and whose quality of living has not improved? |
Sure, I can think of a country that has had American troops stationed on their soil for several decades whose quality of living did not improve. South Korea.
Mithridates is right, though. We can make a fair guess that without UN intervention the entire peninsula would have fallen under communism – BUT we cannot make any accurate surmises about what would have happened these many decades later. There just is not enough evidence to make those kinds of suppositions. |
South Korea though has a higher standard of living now. As for it being dirt poor for 40 years, well as Mr. Joo pointed out, (and Mr. bignate agreed) this is not true. Even going by your own figures this would make S.K dirt poor until about 1993. 1953-1993=40 years between them. South Korea was not dirt poor in 1993 or for a few years prior to that. So it is not the country to point to. Find another.
Now as to your next point. Yes we can make a fairly accurate surmise of what would have happened this many decades later. Historians do it all the time.
How? Simple. Just look at the old Soviet satellite states. Look what happened and has happened to them. Most followed fairly similar stages after the Berlin Wall fell. I think we can suppose that South Korea would have followed a rather similar path. And one thing we can be fairly certain on is that it would NOT have the standard of living it has today. None of the states that were under Soviet domination have reached that point yet or close to it.
Mithridates is right? I believe I raised that point first. Any credit should be due me.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scarneck
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| chronicpride wrote: |
| Badmojo wrote: |
What do US atrocities in Iraq have to do with life in South Korea? Why do they care?
|
Try not to think of them as being Koreans and in South Korea, but rather human beings that are free to express their sympathies and emotional expression for something that an individual(s) may feel strongly about |
Why are you talking crap? There is no history of caring for Iraqis in Korea? Why do they care now? Are you seriously suggesting that they feel strongly for the Iraqis? Rubbish. It's just an excuse to bash the Yanks. As I remarked earlier, the plight of Arab workers in their OWN country wasn't enough to get them on the streets was it?(depsite many human rights groups slamming Korea's treatment of foreign workers) Oh I see, it's okay for an Asian to mistreat Arabs, but as soon as an American does it, it's off limits is it? That reeks of prejudice. |
Now this I agree with. I wonder if they'll give us a send off when we deploy from the ROK to Iraq?...Hope so, I'd like some squid to chew on while on the flight... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="The Bobster"]South Africa and the road to the end of apartheid provide one of a handful of examples where civil disobedience and dissent, economic sanctions, public demonstrations in democratic nations and nonviolent resistance to an oppressive regime brought about progressive change with a minimum of bloodshed. The reason this happened the way it did was that both de Klerk and Mandela were reasonable men (not demogogues such as we have in Washington now) who had firm commitment to the ideals of democracy and to see reform take place within that process.
I do not suggest that S Africa was a democracy under white rule, I state it clearly because it is a fact of history. It was a democracy in exactly the way that the US was a democracy during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson and in the same way that Israel is a democracy today under Sharon – all three are examples of oppressive democracies, and illustrate how democracy alone does not provide social justice.
[quote]
Oh. I apologise for using the word "democracy" in it's literal sense! In Greek "demos" means people. The political process in South Africa failed to include a huge segment of the population, thus it's undemocratic. Why are you continuing to back this lost cause? I reckon it's a bid to wrestle the audience away from the real issue because you fear being exposed as a fool.
| Quote: |
Islamic extremism is very dangerous, agreed, as is Christian extremism, of which our barely-elected leaders in Washington provide a very clear example.
|
Why are you comparing the US administration with Islamic extremism. Islamic extremist governments are some of those most widely condemned by human rights groups. Taliban Afganistan was a place like no other on earth. They used their national stadium to host executions for crimes as little as theft, and adultery. Some were stoned for their "crimes." Why are you suggesting that the American government is in this league, when human rights groups don't agree with you?
| Quote: |
| By the way, I took another look at the sources you provided, or tried to. Unfortunately, it seems my computer lacks the software to open pdf files, so I��m going to have to assume that whatever point you were trying to make about Hawaii��s census is very likely as irrelevant as your examples about S Africa, Chechnya and the Congo. (China was a goofy example, since Hong Kong and Taiwan ARE China.) We were talking about scope and scale of foreign meddling by the US and I continue to assert that we need to go back to European Colonialism to find anything similar to the enormous extent of what the US has been involved in just since the end of WW2. |
I am sorry to hear that you couldn't access my source. However, it was relevant because Real Reality had already suggested that state governments don't refer to Koreans as a race. You trumpeted his claims, so I thought I would take a pee on your bonfire. China wasn't a goofy example. Hong Kong is operating under a "one country, two systems" rule, so I thought the references to China's meddling in Hong Kong's electoral process/desires, were absolutely called for. I am sorry you don't know much about it. Why have you labeled Congo an irrelevance? You asked me to name another example and I named two. Are you suggesting that Congo hasn't been the victim of meddling by neighbouring countries? Why would you think that?
| Quote: |
| Of course, you go to their homepage, and you find a lot of things about hermetic wisdom, alchemy, feng shui, auras, even dowsing, of all things �� all in all, just about as mainstream as the Rosicrucians, I think, and I��m a little surprised they are not mentioning Roswell and the Saucer People in there. GB, is this a source that you refer to often for political guidance, and if so, should I assume that it explains a lot about your ideas regarding S Africa, Chechnya and the like? Here is their home page : http://www.denverspiritualcommunity.org/index.htm |
Oh. So Shiria law is marginally more mainstream? Typical, you rubbish a group's spiritual leanings when it suits you. Be careful, you are becoming what you claim to loath. A bigot.
| Quote: |
Sorry, I would normally be asking these things except that you questioned my ability to make even-handed judgments on absolutely no evidence at all �� and so I feel it��s fair to ask you now if you have much or any affiliation with The Denver Spiritual Community. Because, you know, they are pretty weird, GB. I��m from California, so I think I know weird when I see it.
|
No, I am not affiliated to the Denver spiritual community.
| Quote: |
| If it seems I am insinuating that you don��t like Koreans much, well, I��m just going by the evidence of what you have said here. You think the torture is wrong but you resent Koreans for saying so. You think the economic progress is due to favorable treatment from Washington, and only now make a small noise about ��Korea��s strong work ethic�� |
I do think the economic progress is due to favourable policies eminating from Washington, in tandem with Korea's strong work ethic, and resourcefulness. You are letting your emotions cloud the obvious. Only a moron would deny the US's postive influence on the "miracle of the han."
Firstly, the US provided an average of 200 million dollars aid to the South per year, for twenty years after the war.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kr0029)
Secondly, the American military presence was a pre requisite for the huge investment that was poured into the country. Paid for by Americans by the way! Japan for example has been a huge investor in South Korea. (This diplomatice relationship primarily in place because of the US's sponsorship of it.) Do you think it, and others would have felt so confident about their investments if part of the world's most powerful military force wasn't camped on the North's door step? Do you think that they would feel so secure about their investments if the US wasn't prepared to check the North's military ambitions? Do you think the investment could have been engineered during the cold war, without a US presence? Well? Why are you overlooking one of the most basic economic principles? "Where there is security/stability economies can flourish". Are you mad?
| Quote: |
when that economic progress didn��t even start to happen until several decades had passed from the last soldier had expired from that Police Action
|
Why are you lying? http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kr0123) (3rg para).
I happen to be the third person to point out your error here.
| Quote: |
You claim to have no special animosity towards Koreans, and I hope it is true, but the attitudes you have expressed here give another picture. It��s true that there weren��t too many Fords on Korean freeways in the 80s, but there weren��t all that many on American freeways either ? that was the decade the American consumer decided they liked Asian cars better, which is something Lee Iaccoca and the rest of the Detroit oligarchy need to take the hit for, as the market for small and medium-sized cars had been growing steadily in the US since the years of the oil embargo of the 70s. It��s fact of history that the Koreans and the Japanese were in position to take advantage of, and yet you seem to think it is some kind of gift (or ��partnership�� as you put it) bestowed upon them by America for the purpose of providing a boost to their economy and that Koreans are less than they should be if they are not grateful about it.
|
Rather than knock the big wigs of Detroit in the balls, why don't you take a look at the facts? In the 1980's 83% of Korean exported cars were heading in the US's direction. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kr0101) The US tolerated an artificially low Korean currency, and didn't really tackle South Korea's unfavorable import regulations until the early 90's. This led to the figures beneath.
Table 6. Trade with the United States, 1982-89
(in billions of United States dollars) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Exports 6.28 8.26 10.52 10.78 13.92 18.38 21.47 20.64
Imports 5.95 6.27 6.87 6.55 6.54 8.76 12.75 15.91
Trade balance* 0.32 1.98 3.65 4.23 7.37 9.62 8.71 4.73
*Figures may not add because of rounding.
Source: Based on information from United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Foreign Economic Trends and Their Implications for the United States: Korea, Washington, June 1989; United States, Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Foreign Economic Trends and Their Implications for the United States: Korea, Washington, April 1990; and Korea Economic Institute of America, Korea Economic Update, 1, No.2, Summer 1990, 4.
Why you are denying the US's positive impact in Korea is well beyond me. Frankly, I think you are mad. How has it come to this? You failed to acknowledge that the demonstrators were anti-American, and not pro human rights. If the protesters had claimed "We don't like what happened in that Iraqi prison because the US did it" then I wouldn't have been bothered. They have their right to demonstrate, and I won't deny them that. However, I happen to feel strongly about human rights issues so I don't like to see it cheapened by people who have no track record of championing the rights of the downtrodden. They are selective, and hypocritical. Only a blind man wouldn't see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh. I apologise for using the word "democracy" in it's literal sense! In Greek "demos" means people. The political process in South Africa failed to include a huge segment of the population, thus it's undemocratic. Why are you continuing to back this lost cause? |
I��m aware of the meaning of the Greek root of the word. Are you aware that what you are describing is precisely as true for America during most of its first 100 years of history? Of course, you are aware because I��ve pointed it out to you already.
You are boring me, trolling and wasting everyone��s time with insincere posts, just as you did with your discussion of Koreans as a race, and with your comments to on the other hand about wanting to bring back a deposed dictator here. Yawn.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Islamic extremism is very dangerous, agreed, as is Christian extremism, of which our barely-elected leaders in Washington provide a very clear example.
|
Why are you comparing the US administration with Islamic extremism. |
Perhaps because they are comparable.
When asked if he goes to his father, the previous and former President Bush, for cousel, Dubya replied that he listens to a ��Higher Father.�� He has used the word ��crusade�� on numerous occasions with regard to the war on terror. His administration blurs the line between church and state, most notably with the legislation enacted last year regarding ��faith-based�� community groups receiving federal support. Ashcroft forces his staffers to attend prayer meetings inside the federal building where they work. Need more?
Try this one : http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220781,00.html
| Quote: |
Just before Boykin was put in charge of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and then inserted into Iraqi prison reform, he was a circuit rider for the religious right. He allied himself with a small group called the Faith Force Multiplier that advocates applying military principles to evangelism. Its manifesto - Warrior Message - summons "warriors in this spiritual war for souls of this nation and the world ... "
"Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army," he preached. They "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus".
There can be little doubt that he envisages the global war on terror as a crusade. With the Geneva conventions apparently suspended, international law is supplanted by biblical law. Boykin is in God's chain of command. |
The present govt in Washington are religious extremists, GB.
| Quote: |
| Islamic extremist governments are some of those most widely condemned by human rights groups. |
At the moment, this can be said for the American govt as well. That is the topic of this thread, after all.
| Quote: |
| Taliban Afganistan was a place like no other on earth. They used their national stadium to host executions for crimes as little as theft, and adultery. Some were stoned for their "crimes." Why are you suggesting that the American government is in this league, when human rights groups don't agree with you? |
I��m not suggesting anything of the kind. Are you high?
| Quote: |
| China wasn't a goofy example. Hong Kong is operating under a "one country, two systems" rule, so I thought the references to China's meddling in Hong Kong's electoral process/desires, were absolutely called for. |
It doesn��t qualify as a country meddling in other countries business. China is China. Hong Kong is China. Taiwan is China. That��s why it was a goofy example.
You didn��t mention Tibet, though, and I would have agreed with you about that one.
| Quote: |
| Why have you labeled Congo an irrelevance? You asked me to name another example and I named two. Are you suggesting that Congo hasn't been the victim of meddling by neighbouring countries? Why would you think that? |
The question was about the scope and scale of international meddling, as in large amounts of it and to a deeply pervasive extent. Do you really think that what is going on in the Congo is in any way comparable to the American intervention that put the Shah in power in Iran and deposed Allende in Chile, or the meddling we��ve done all over Central and South America as well as Southeast Asia? Do you really think so? Really?
| Quote: |
| Oh. So Shiria law is marginally more mainstream? |
I have never supported or advocated Sharia Laws, nor have I used a site that supports same as support for other sorts of positions I might want to advocate. Once again, GB. Are you high?
| Quote: |
| Typical, you rubbish a group's spiritual leanings when it suits you. Be careful, you are becoming what you claim to loath. A bigot. |
Whatever. That site is definitely not mainstream, however, and it did not even support the position you were using it to support. Rather than praising the US for offering refuge to people from those Middle eastern countries you mentioned, it was instead questioning the wisdom of doing so and expressing nervousness about terrorists in the midst of those immigrants.
| Quote: |
| No, I am not affiliated to the Denver spiritual community. |
Why did you question me as being ��pro-Islamist�� and why would someone who felt this way be unable to ��make a fair call�� regarding whether torture of Iraqi prisoners is worthy of protest?
| Quote: |
I do think the economic progress is due to favourable policies eminating from Washington, in tandem with Korea's strong work ethic, and resourcefulness. You are letting your emotions cloud the obvious. Only a moron would deny the US's postive influence on the "miracle of the han."
Firstly, the US provided an average of 200 million dollars aid to the South per year, for twenty years after the war. |
But that aid ended in the mid-70s and the economic ��miracle�� happened at least a decade and a half later. Where are the dotted lines that connect these things?
This link mentions no data more recent than 1960, at least one full generation further back in history than the economic boom we are speaking of.
| Quote: |
| Secondly, the American military presence was a pre requisite for the huge investment that was poured into the country. Paid for by Americans by the way! Japan for example has been a huge investor in South Korea. (This diplomatice relationship primarily in place because of the US's sponsorship of it.) Do you think it, and others would have felt so confident about their investments if part of the world's most powerful military force wasn't camped on the North's door step? Do you think that they would feel so secure about their investments if the US wasn't prepared to check the North's military ambitions? Do you think the investment could have been engineered during the cold war, without a US presence? Well? Why are you overlooking one of the most basic economic principles? "Where there is security/stability economies can flourish". Are you mad? |
No, I��m not mad and in fact it��s one of the few things you��ve said here that makes any sense.
The investments you speak of began in the mid-60s, though, and once again the ��miracle of the han�� came about much later. You��re getting closer, and you are starting to give Koreans some credit for what they have achieved, but you are not quite convincing about the role of the US military. Almost there, but not quite.
Um, swift economic growth is not hard to achieve in the first decade after a major war – a lot of things got knocked down that had to be built up again, and a lot of neocons have been making similar noises about Iraq in the first year of occupation. It��s not quite the same as economic progress, however, which is something that happens when wealth can be distributed sufficiently to create a middle class able to buy the things they are producing. This didn��t happen until the early and mid-80s when the automotive industry here was fueled by a strong domestic market full of first-time car buyers.
| Quote: |
| I happen to be the third person to point out your error here. |
It��s possible all three of you are wrong. It��s also possible that I am wrong. A third possibility is that we are just not understanding each other.
It��s because they were making the kind of cars Americans wanted to buy just then, which Detroit was not, and selling them at a lower price as well. True, there were some inequities in the exchange rates that made them cheaper but that would not have made the slightest bit of difference if consumers didn��t want to buy them. Brazil makes some cars for their domestic market, as do many other countries with an exchange-rate differential that would make them very cheap in US dollars �� but, see, no one in the US wants to buy them.
From the source you gave us :
| Quote: |
| The industry continued to grow, however, because of a surge in domestic demand, up 47 percent during the first half of 1989. In 1989, for the first time since car exports had doubled in 1985, domestic sales surpassed exports; two-thirds of the cars manufactured were sold domestically. Most of the domestic demand came from first-time car buyers whose savings had been buoyed by double-digit wage increases each year since 1987. Other factors leading to the growing domestic demand for motor vehicles included stable or slightly decreased new car prices because of cuts in special consumption taxes, reduced fuel taxes, and growing economies of scale by manufacturers. |
It��s hard to find any role for the US military in this, or even US aid. This is a stable and mature economy that has made economic progress by spreading wealth among its citizens so that workers who produce goods can afford to buy them as well.
| Quote: |
| Why you are denying the US's positive impact in Korea is well beyond me. Frankly, I think you are mad. |
Actually, I haven��t said this. I have said that Koreans are responsible for creating the wealth which they did create, and that it had little or nothing to do with the US military presence here.
| Quote: |
| You failed to acknowledge that the demonstrators were anti-American, and not pro human rights. |
Um, well, you see, that��s because I don��t know it for a fact, and I suspect you don��t either. You��re pretty sure about it, and you have said it often enough, but as for me, I haven��t talked to these protesters so I can��t really say for sure. If you have spoken with them, then you are ahead of me on this, but I suspect you have not either.
| Quote: |
| I happen to feel strongly about human rights issues so I don't like to see it cheapened |
Then why not engage in protest regarding the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They were dirt poor here for nearly 40 years with US troops stationed on their soil all the while. |
Not true the South Korea economy was one of the fastest growning economies in the during the 70's and their economy started taking off in the 60's.
|
It��s easy to have a fast-growing economy when you start out with so little due to having most of the place being destroyed in a catastrophic war.
The average Korean person was quite poor right up until the 80s –sure, okay, I��ll amend my 40 years figure down to 30 - and I��ve heard an acquaintance (a Korean-born adoptee in the US) offer a remark that during the 70s orphans were Korea��s number one export.
http://www.geocities.com/sunny_jo888/kadfacts.html
| Quote: |
| South Korea began the postwar period with a per capita gross national product (GNP) far below that of the North. It received large amounts of U.S. foreign assistance for many years, but all direct aid from the United States ended in 1980. The Republic of Korea's economic growth over the past 30 years has been spectacular. Per capita GNP, only $100 in 1963, exceeded $10,000 in 1997. One of the world's poorest countries only a generation ago, South Korea is now the United States' eighth-largest trading partner and is the 11th-largest economy in the world. |
http://www.eslfocus.com/nationsfolder/fosokorea/fosokorea05.html
When I said that Koreans were dirt poor I was speaking of average Korean people, not the handful of families that have controlled the chaebol monopolies.
I don��t know if this is available online, but I��m pulling down my copy of A New History of Korea by Ki-baik Lee (translated by Edward W Wagner) and although it was written back in ��84 I think it can probably be trusted for info about the decade or so just after the end of hostilities.
| Quote: |
| (��) although industrial output and Korea��s infrastructure in general actually expanded beyond the pre-war levels within a few years after hostilities ended, due in large part to US foreign aid, this redounded to the benefit of a few privileged businessmen rather than that of the people as a whole. (p. 383) |
| Quote: |
| The result was that economic inequities grew ever more severe. For one thing, small and medium size enterprises, unable to obtain adequate financing, had no way to halt their slide to bankruptcy. But the inequity between urban and rural sectors of the economy was particularly glaring. The farmers received land in accordance with the land reform carried out in 1949, but the bare subsistence pattern of farmholding prevailed as before. With the price of rice arbitrarily set by the government even below the cost of production, the poor rural population became even more impoverished. (p.384) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
It��s easy to have a fast-growing economy when you start out with so little do to having most of the place being destroyed in a catastrophic war.
The average Korean person was quite poor right up until the 80s �sure, okay, I��ll amend my 40 years figure down to 30 |
Bob, I usually agree with you on most things, and respect your views, but on this one I am in slight disagreement. You may have to amend it by at least another 5-10 years, if you see it my way 
I think you mean that it is easier to show real economic growth, but the fact of the matter is it was quite difficult and there were a great many sacrifices "to have a fast growing economy when you start out with so little do to having most of the place being destroyed in a catastrophic war."
As for A New History of Korea, I have heard it is a great book and am saving up for it, in his other book Korea Old and New: A History (Written with Eckert, Lew, Robinson, & Wagner) Lee et al state that much of the infrastructure, education and economic advancement after the armistice was indeed a result of American aid (p 351 economic aid, p 353 educational infrastructure, p 391 societal advances)
| Quote: |
| Between 1946 and 1976 the U.S. supplied a total of $12.6 Billion in economic and military assistance to South Korea - more dollars per capita of aid than to any other foriegn country except South Vietnam and Israel...between 1953 and 1962 American aid financed about 70% of South Korean imports and nearly 80% of total fixed capital formation...Also worth noting is that nearly all of the American aid to South Korea before 1964 was provided on a grant basis, thus making it possible for the country to begin its export-led growth in the 1960s without the backlog of debt (p. 396) |
Lee et al, further discuss the time period directly after the rise of the chaebol during the late 60s and early 70s (that was feesable because of American aid) that saw the Park export and entrepreneur directed reforms take over and bring about the real rise in the economy.
| Quote: |
| The increasing prosperity of the Park years also engendered a middle class of small-medium businessmen, lower-level white-collar workers in governement and industry, and intellectuals whose growing affluence gave them some reason to tolerate regime, if not actively support it. The post-land-reform peasantry also continued to be a conservative force in South Korean politics and the main base of Park's electoral victories, despite the fact ath his economic policies were clearly geared toward the export manufacturing industries rather than agriculture. Whatever discontent existed in the countryside seems to have been largely dissipated by strong anticommunist feeling, by migration to the cities (leaving the rural population older and more conservative), and by greater government attention to rural development with the launching of the bl (New Village) Movement in the winter of 1971-1972. (p. 367) |
The economic growth for sure centred around the installation of a strong export industry and large business, that ended up placing the majority of the power and wealth in the hands of the monopolies as you have mentioned. It was important, or rather essential, for Park to make Korean Industry powerful and able to support the Korea that we see today. It often times focused on the suppression of workers' rights and the limitation of wage potential among the majority of workers, however to gain a sort of quasi-indepedence away from the post war 50% (economic) -75% (military) aid that was flooding in from the United States, Park saw this as the most likely way of success. Though Park wished to be free of the need of American aid (and their resultant tendency to medel in Korean domestic affairs) it cannot be ignored that with the devestation incurred by the country's infrastructure was restored to prewar levels due to this aid.
As Kim Chung-yum, Parks vice Minister of Finance, and later Chief of Staff, stated in his memoirs, Policy Making on the Front Lines, it must be remembered that after the coup on May 16, 1961 as a form of monetary reform, Park began by freezing "the idle capital held by the moneyed class, forcibly diverting ti to the Industry Development Corporation, which would invest the funds in certain enterprises until they could stand on their own feet." (p. 23) It was under these reforms (that the US despised because of their parallels to Communist ideology - Park eventually had to acquiesce due to the threat of interupted economic aid) and other subsequent ones, that the chaebol eventually rose. The majority of the support was, as has been noted given to those who had supported Park in his coup.
However, under the Saemul Movement the government used a reward system to increase the rural farmers to use their own initiative to better their productivity and their independence, whether it was extra cement donated from that industry, or extra steel from another - it lead to a sharp increase in wages among farmers in the early 70s.
| Quote: |
| From 1974 rural incomes rose to the level earned by urban laborers, and the goal for 1981 was reached ahead of time in 1977. By that time 98 per cent of the villages had became independent villages and no basic [not independent] villages remained (Kim, 1994, p 92) |
So, this American aid (though I know was not given in any aultruistic sense) was very important in rebuilding the economic infrastructure of South Korea that led to the building up of and export market, allowing (eventual and earlier than expected) internal and universal increases in wages. Your source shows the real income in 1963 and 1997, yet ignores the increases that were made between.
According to Oberdorfer (1997), fewer than 10 percent of households existed under the poverty line by the 1980 cut off of American aid and the per capita income rose from $100 in '63 to $1000 in 1979, a substantial increase.
I do not agree that Koreans owe America for what they did, since the Americans were not doing this as an altruistic motivation or out of compassion. They supported the Korean enterprise because it strengthened their foothold in Asia and gave them a place to put their soldiers as a means to maintain their inclusion in Asian affairs. But to say that their aid contributions, regardless of motivations, had an inconsequential effect is not exactlly true either.
The pulling of Korea out of the devastation of the Korean War during the Rhee presidency was a result of American aid: The will of Park to use the advantages of the substantial grants to form a strong export dominated industrial base was the result. These economic advances though they initially ignored the needs of the labourer and the rural farmer, eventually, because of Park's initiatives, were changed to "spread the wealth".
The US aid certainly did not go directly into the pockets of the poor worker, governmental economic aid never does. However, the formation of the infrastructure and the economic backing of debt free aid certainly helped the progression out of the misery of that war and has resulted in the formation of the strong economic nation that is now paying our student debts. Is it time for the Americans to leave? In my humble opinion, of course.
Nice Chatting and Cheers,
Nate
Last edited by bignate on Mon May 24, 2004 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I cannot disagree with this more Joo. There is no other place that is more strategically important for the US in the Far East. The Korean Peninsula basically puts the US in the Chinese뭩 hip pocket, a country that just threatened to crush Taiwan, a US ally. Korea is an natural and easily defensible beachhead and of great strategic importance in the context of an ever strengthening China. Do I think their being there helps South Korea, well that is another question all together. |
Why is Korea important to the US?
Do you think land locked US ground forces in Korea can be used to threaten China?
I am not 100% sure that Korea would allow the US to use the bases in Korea to defend Taiwan and most of the forces that the US has in Korea are army, Now how would they be used to defend Taiwan?
And more importantly each dollar spent keeping forces in Korea and defending Korea is one less dollar that the US has to spend on military procurement or military R&D.
Which do you think China fears more F-22 Raptors and B-2 Spirits or land locked US ground forces in Korea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo wrote: |
| Do you think land locked US ground forces in Korea can be used to threaten China? |
Forces are not landlocked when they are backed by an impressive navy, aircraft carrier wings, and long range strategic bombers. It would be a beach head for unloading ground forces, stockpiling munitions and supplies. This is the difference between Tactical and Strategic - those weapons you mentioned are tactical, Korea as a beachhead, on the other hand is strategic. And don't forget the Airforce Bases Joo for your F22s and B2s....
| Quote: |
| Which do you think China fears more F-22 Raptors and B-2 Spirits or land locked US ground forces in Korea? |
What would they do with short range fighter and a few B-2 bombers Joo? - China is huge they would have little effect without a ground force and a beachhead for supply and refueling. The short combat range of the Raptor and the fact that it is primarily an air to air weapon. But stationed in Korea their comabat effectiveness becomes that much better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="The Bobster"[/quote]I��m aware of the meaning of the Greek root of the word. Are you aware that what you are describing is precisely as true for America during most of its first 100 years of history? Of course, you are aware because I��ve pointed it out to you already.
You are boring me, trolling and wasting everyone��s time with insincere posts, just as you did with your discussion of Koreans as a race, and with your comments to on the other hand about wanting to bring back a deposed dictator here. Yawn.
[quote]
I never denied that America during it's first 100 years of history was democratic. Did I? I plainly stated that South Africa under white rule wasn't democratic. You have thrown in America's history to deflect attention away from your earlier absurd suggestion that white South Africa was democratic. That's real bordem. I have already cleared up the remarks about Chun Doo Han. On the Other Hand doesn't have a problem now, why do you? Are you milking it?
| Quote: |
Perhaps because they are comparable.
When asked if he goes to his father, the previous and former President Bush, for cousel, Dubya replied that he listens to a ��Higher Father.�� He has used the word ��crusade�� on numerous occasions with regard to the war on terror. His administration blurs the line between church and state, most notably with the legislation enacted last year regarding ��faith-based�� community groups receiving federal support.
Try this one : http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220781,00.html |
So? I have no problems with his religious beliefs, and neither should you, unless you are a bigot. I took you to task for attempting to draw paralels between his beliefs, and Islamic extremism. Damn, the US is a lot more tolerant of other religious practices than any other Islamic nation is. Especially those who can be labeled extreme. (such as Taliban Afganistan).
| Quote: |
The present govt in Washington are religious extremists, GB.
|
I don't think they are. They hold elections, allow political freedom, and allow others to practice their own religions. If that's extreme then what adjective do you use to describe Iran?
| Quote: |
Quote:
Taliban Afganistan was a place like no other on earth. They used their national stadium to host executions for crimes as little as theft, and adultery. Some were stoned for their "crimes." Why are you suggesting that the American government is in this league, when human rights groups don't agree with you?
I��m not suggesting anything of the kind. Are you high? |
Then why only a few paragraphs above do you say "perhaps they are comparable"? Just asking.
| Quote: |
It doesn��t qualify as a country meddling in other countries business. China is China. Hong Kong is China. Taiwan is China. That��s why it was a goofy example.
You didn��t mention Tibet, though, and I would have agreed with you about that one. |
Honk Kong is operating under a "one country, two sytems" principle. I am surprised that you don't know anything about it. It is not a goofy example, as the thousands of Hong Kong residents who take to the streets about it can testify. I intended to mention Tibet, but unfortunately the name of the region was beyond me. I kept thinking "East Timor" but then remembered that this was an issue concerning Indonesia. Thanks for having the decency to highlight the Tibetan cause.
| Quote: |
| Whatever. That site is definitely not mainstream, however, and it did not even support the position you were using it to support. Rather than praising the US for offering refuge to people from those Middle eastern countries you mentioned, it was instead questioning the wisdom of doing so and expressing nervousness about terrorists in the midst of those immigrants. |
The figures remain the same irrespective of how they are being used. I am aware that the article's position doesn't mirror mine, but I never claimed it did. I just mentioned the figures. The Denver spiritual community is entitled to it's view, but the fact remains that these people have been given refuge by the US. No?
| Quote: |
The investments you speak of began in the mid-60s, though, and once again the ��miracle of the han�� came about much later. You��re getting closer, and you are starting to give Koreans some credit for what they have achieved, but you are not quite convincing about the role of the US military. Almost there, but not quite.
|
The Korean economy was improving rapidly in the 60's and 70's, so much so that the annual US aid pledges of 200 million dollars were cut completely in the 70's. You argued that the the average Mr Kim didn't see much of the wealth until the late eighties, and think this constitutes proof that the economic wasn't related to the US troop presence. That's wrong. An economy doesn't grow over night. You don't go from 0 to 100. You go from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc. The economic success took place incremently and the heavy investment that preceeded the boom (an imperative for the boom to materialise) was only possible because the world's largest military power had a substantial presence here. I never denied that Koreans didn't contribute heavily to this success. I just don't like anti-Americans who seek to underplay the US's role in securing Korea's success.
| Quote: |
| It��s because they were making the kind of cars Americans wanted to buy just then, which Detroit was not, and selling them at a lower price as well. True, there were some inequities in the exchange rates that made them cheaper but that would not have made the slightest bit of difference if consumers didn��t want to buy them. |
You have conveniently omitted to mention the Korean heavy import restrictions that were only ever really tackled in the 90's. Many only being undone after the IMF crisis. The Americans did want to buy Korean motor cars, but the US couldn't sell it's own cars in Korea (due to the heavy tariffs that imported good were saddled with), when the Korean domestic consumption shot up in the late eighties. The US tolerated this right through the 80's. That's why Korea was exporting far more to the US than the US was exporting to Korea. Anyway, you should know that because I posted a table which displayed that inbalance.
| Quote: |
Actually, I haven��t said this. I have said that Koreans are responsible for creating the wealth which they did create, and that it had little or nothing to do with the US military presence here.
|
Only you told me that this was the best point I made. So which side of the fence are you going to sit on here? Did the US military presence play a great role in securing the much needed foreign investment? Yes or no? Would this huge investment (an imperative for the boom that took place) have been secured during the long cold war years without an American force to check the military ambitions of the Soviet backed North? I put it to you that no investor would have touched this country with a 20 foot barge pole without the world's greatest army stuck on the North's doorstep. So yes, the American military presence had a huge role to play in the "miracle of the han". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
[
| Quote: |
Forces are not landlocked when they are backed by an impressive navy, aircraft carrier wings, and long range strategic bombers. It would be a beach head for unloading ground forces, stockpiling munitions and supplies. This is the difference between Tactical and Strategic - those weapons you mentioned are tactical, Korea as a beachhead, on the other hand is strategic. And don't forget the Airforce Bases Joo for your F22s and B2s.... |
Does the US have a Navel base in Korea?
The B-2 does't need bases in Korea it is an intercontential bomber. and the US is going to launch miliatary operations against China from Korea?
Korea would allow this? The US can't even get them to send soldiers to Iraq. China would target the place with hundreds of missiles.
| Quote: |
| What would they do with short range fighter and a few B-2 bombers Joo? - China is huge they would have little effect without a ground force and a beachhead for supply and refueling. The short combat range of the Raptor and the fact that it is primarily an air to air weapon. But stationed in Korea their comabat effectiveness becomes that much better |
Those were just two weapons systems and anyway B-2 bombers are actually a weapon that could threaten China. If not Raptors then stealth destroyers.
Why keep ground forces in Korea ? How could they be used against China? , Surely 37,000 is to few to do anything to China. Do you think the US could threaten China with those soldiers? If the US was to fight China the US would use airpower and naval power. But most US forces in Korea are ground troops.And the US does not have a naval base in Korea at anyrate. Now what military utility do they bring the US against China? Especially that each dollar the US spends defending Korea is one that the US can not spend on military R&D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo wrote: |
| Does the US have a Navel base in Korea? |
A Carrier wing doesn't need a Naval Base you know this. Besides Japan does, another nation that the US would have to support if China were ever to attack there.
| Joo wrote: |
| The B-2 does't need bases in Korea it is an intercontential bomber. |
The B-2 doesn't, but their escorts the F-22s do.
| Joo wrote: |
| and the US is going to launch miliatary operations against China from Korea? Korea would allow this? |
They may not have a choice.
China has said they would not allow - under any conditions - an independent Taiwan.
The US has a treaty with Taiwan guaranteeing defence of the Island if it is attacked.
The Chinese and the North Koreans, though their relations have cooled in recent years, still have one of the most binding military alliances in the "Sino-North Korean 'Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty'" that states in the event of conflict each signatory:
| Quote: |
| "must spare no effort to supply the other with military or any other support." (Harrison(2002), Korean Endgame, p. 322) |
| Quote: |
| The US can't even get them to send soldiers to Iraq. |
They just agreed to send 3000 more troops in August, which will make them the third largest contingent in Iraq behind the US and Britain.
| Quote: |
| China would target the place with hundreds of missiles. |
Taiwan is to be included in the US' anti-missle defence plan, you don't think that the Koreans will be in on that?
Though I agree with you that it is not in the Korean's interest to fight in a war with China, in retrospect, this may not even happen and may not be the US main strategic interest in Korea.
The US has and always will want to have that foothold in Asia, because with their departure, the eventual reunification of the peninsula will occur. The US departure will leave a "vaccuum" that the Chinese would gladly fill as a dominant nation in the far east. The normalization of Asian political and economic structures would lead to a very strong Asian block, something that the US would loath to see happen.
The stationing of US troops in the opinion of many only prolongs the division of Korea, which inturn maintains a conflict that keeps Asia divided, that is a strategic goal the US has and continues to maintain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bignate,
I think we agree on big picture and only differ on fine points and I��m not gonna even try to argue those points with you. Instead, I��ll happily admit that I am massively outgunned, as you clearly know much so more than I do about the topic that I��m far better served by sitting back listening attentively to what you say. We seem to agree that the attitude of most Americans that Korea owes its present economic position in the world entirely to the US is a skewed and self-serving view. That��s enough for me, except that I hope to see more of your posts in the future if it means I��m likely to learn as much from you as I have so far.
Gwangjuboy is another matter, however. I mean, really, a fellow who asserts that S Africa was not a democratic system under apartheid but that the US under slavery was, who can��t seem to distinguish Tibet from East Timor and thinks that China��s desire for control over a former British colony like Hong Kong constitutes international meddling in any way comparable to coups we Americans have sponsored and the torturers we��ve trained in so many countries�� hey, gimme a break.
Yeah, sure, of course, GB – I heard about this ��one country, two systems�� principle. Come on, dude, nobody really believed it at the time of the handover, either. Did you believe it? Did you really? Really? How cute and naive of you, even a bit jejeune – is this touching quasi-schoolboy tendency to believe what politicians tell people the reason why you choose to call yourself ��Gwangjuboy�� rather than ��Gwangjuman��? Grow up, my friend, this is the real world we��re living in.
(Lest anyone think I am being unfair or too harsh on the young man, let��s remember, please, that he called me a bigot, and just a few posts after labeling me ��pro-Islamic�� and questioning my ability to ��make a fair call�� because of it.)
Hong Kong is part of China. This is why it is not a valid example of meddling in other countries. It was true the last time I said it and it will still be true if you ask me to say it again tomorrow.
| Quote: |
| I have already cleared up the remarks about Chun Doo Han. On the Other Hand doesn't have a problem now, why do you? Are you milking it? |
No, I��m reminding you and everyone else who might consider even for a moment the prospect of having a mature and intelligent conversation with you that you admitted to trolling, right here on this thread, and I believe you are trolling with regard to many of the rest of what you are saying on this thread. You are plainly insincere when you claim that human rights are important to you when you spend so much energy attacking Koreans who want to protest American torturers and yet you have so little to say about it yourself aside from having some kind of wistful confidence that those who are guilty will be punished.
How can we possibly believe in your claim of having any concern for human rights, or even know much about it, when the name ��Tibet�� has so much trouble finding it��s way to your lips? You are insincere, GB, and a waste of time to respond to in any meaningful way.
You are insincere when you speak of Sharia laws as not being mainstream and imply that I ever suggested such a thing, and then show us a website that espouses dousing, of all things �� and the fact that you neither know or seem to care about the provenance of your sources illustrates what a waste of time you are here. Obviously, neither of them are mainstream, but the difference is that I did not come to you with a website that espouses Sharia laws, but you gave me one that espouses finding water with a stick.
Troll, troll troll �� yawn.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The present govt in Washington are religious extremists, GB. |
I don't think they are. They hold elections, allow political freedom, and allow others to practice their own religions. If that's extreme then what adjective do you use to describe Iran? |
They are religious exrtremists, of course, what else? Comparable but not equivalent to the ones living on Pennsylvania Avenue. Go sit a while and get your head around that.
And, yes, they are religious extremists, those cats in Washington. Absolutely. They do not represent mainstream American opinion, and they were not even able to muster a simple majority of the electorate. Don��t open the door to talk about elections, GB, not after what we saw in Florida last time �� haha, boy oh boy, you SURE don��t wanna go there.
| Quote: |
| I have no problems with his [Dubya��s] religious beliefs, and neither should you, unless you are a bigot. I took you to task for attempting to draw paralels between his beliefs, and Islamic extremism. |
You did not take me to task, you foamed at the mouth a bit and that��s all. And you are aware that I drew no parallels with his beliefs and Islamic extremism – you are aware that ��comparable�� is not the same as ��equivalent,�� right? Yes, you are aware, you are probably an English teacher as most of us here are, so you are possibly aware of the meanings of a few words here and there. Troll, troll, troll ��
The only reason a politician��s religious beliefs ought to be a matter for discussion is when and if it appears he is using them as a basis and motivation for political action and policy. This American President had confided to world leaders in private that ��God told me�� to invade Iraq – damn me, to use your phrase, if that doesn��t sound relevant to me.
In fact, ��His religious beliefs are his own�� is exactly how Bush Jr responded to questions about the Boykin fellow whose story I shared by way of the link to The Guardian article – that was just before Boykin got reposted to his next assignment, which was to introduce new methods of interrogation in the Baghdad prison systems. Yeah, I��d say all this is rather germane to the present set of events unfolding before us, and I don��t need to be called a bigot for pointing it out.
Last edited by The Bobster on Mon May 24, 2004 7:18 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
