|
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 |
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| It's what I meant about you possibly having something intelligent to say, but declining to show it. Why is it stupid? |
It is stupid because the US hasn't opposed reunification;the North Korean government has. The US doesn't want to see reunification if the Kim dynasty reunifies on its own terms. I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious, and only hancheonglyong would have a problem with it. But we all know how bizzare their political affiliations are.
| Quote: |
| What instances can you point to and say, here, this one place where the US tried to help reunify the peninsula? The other side can provide numerous instances and examples where this and other administrations have either directly opposed the Sunshine Policy or at best gave it lukewarm treatment. |
When Kim Il Sung's gambit didn't pay off and the allies pushed the communists all the way back to Baekdu mountain. They lost a lot of men trying to do it too.
| Quote: |
| Now you can argue about whether the Sunshine Policy is or was the best or smartest way to bring about reunification, but it's very hard to argue that this was not one of its goals. If you think the US disrerard and discouraging response to it was not a hindrance to reunification, why not give some reasons for thinking so? If it is as stupid as you say, it shouldn't be hard to say why. |
The sunshine policy rewards a regime which repeatedly threatens to flatten Seoul, and is in the process of arming itself with some very nasty weapons. Should we mention what human rights watch has to say about the North's "policing" policies? It might also still be hungover from the time when North Korea secretly built nuclear weapons when the US thought it had a deal with them. Things like that eat away at ones trustworthiness. If I failed to pay you back some money would you carry on lending me more?
| Quote: |
| If memory serves, the "lie" you refer to here is from an argument you and I had, omigod, almost 2 years ago, and you impress me all the blazes with your long memory of an imagined slight. What I remember is that you said that S Africa was not a democracy prior to Nelson Mandela because it was a country existing under apartheid. Well, it really was a democracy despite the massive disenfranchisement of the black population there, because it had multi-party elections and power changed hands due to them. I asked if you thoght America was not a democracy while slavery was practiced and you either declined to respond or you said, yes of course it was |
I asked you to show where I had said the US under slavery was a democracy and you failed to do so. Shamefully, you won't withdraw this lie. You are a liar until you deliver the quote.
| Quote: |
| I'm surprised you do keep reminding us all of that episode - as I say, you ended up looking pretty dumb. |
That is a very dubious contention. You lied in that thread.
| Quote: |
| Yes, it would appear he believes this, though whether he is barmy or whether his ideas lack merit, is again, something you have declined to show. The issue is important enough to deserve an intelligent response, and the people who come here deserve that much respect asd well - you have not provided an intelligent response and you are displaying disrespect to the forum. |
Analogous to the time when you lied about something I said. You should exercise more caution when using the word "respect."
| Quote: |
| The lack of criticism for the North means something important, I see ... should we go through your backlog of posts and make an inventory of things you have neglected to criticize? Kind of a wierd argument, but hey, whatever ... |
It's crucial because the North Korean government is the obsticle to reunification. Do you not read anything about the history of the country in which you work?
| Quote: |
| Yoiu make it sound as if language and a common history prior to 1945 are small things and not important. I think many Korean people disagree with that. |
Even prior to 1945 there was a de facto North South divide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| What instances can you point to and say, here, this one place where the US tried to help reunify the peninsula? The other side can provide numerous instances and examples where this and other administrations have either directly opposed the Sunshine Policy or at best gave it lukewarm treatment. |
When Kim Il Sung's gambit didn't pay off and the allies pushed the communists all the way back to Baekdu mountain. They lost a lot of men trying to do it too. |
Are you telling me you have to go all the way back in history to the Police Action to find a place where America tried to reunify the country, and that the only way it was attempted was by means of a military action at the cost of thousands of lives? Fifity years or more have gone by, and the US has done nothing that you can point to?
It sounds like you are making indiercj's case for him, and better than he did.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Now you can argue about whether the Sunshine Policy is or was the best or smartest way to bring about reunification, but it's very hard to argue that this was not one of its goals. If you think the US disrerard and discouraging response to it was not a hindrance to reunification, why not give some reasons for thinking so? If it is as stupid as you say, it shouldn't be hard to say why. |
The sunshine policy rewards a regime which repeatedly threatens to flatten Seoul, and is in the process of arming itself with some very nasty weapons. Should we mention what human rights watch has to say about the North's "policing" policies? It might also still be hungover from the time when North Korea secretly built nuclear weapons when the US thought it had a deal with them. Things like that eat away at ones trustworthiness. If I failed to pay you back some money would you carry on lending me more? |
Well, the other side of that is that Seoul and the American military here has been constantly preparing to flatten Pyeonyang, isn't it? No one has anything good to say about the North's record on human rights, but their isolationism has only partially been self-imposed, and if the outside world appoaches them with anything other than beligerance there might be a chance of seeing some progress in that area. Maybe, maybe not, but no way to tell until someone tries it. And I think you know very well that the Agreed Framework was breeched by both sides, not just by the North.
But again, you might be making kindiercj's case for him. When the Agreed Framework fell apart, the US offered nothing in its place, and eventually began labeling it a "rogue regime" and part of an "axis of evil" and in the meantime did quite a lot to discourage the Sunshine Policy, which was the only game being played on that particular table.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| If memory serves, the "lie" you refer to here is from an argument you and I had, omigod, almost 2 years ago, and you impress me all the blazes with your long memory of an imagined slight. What I remember is that you said that S Africa was not a democracy prior to Nelson Mandela because it was a country existing under apartheid. Well, it really was a democracy despite the massive disenfranchisement of the black population there, because it had multi-party elections and power changed hands due to them. I asked if you thoght America was not a democracy while slavery was practiced and you either declined to respond or you said, yes of course it was |
I asked you to show where I had said the US under slavery was a democracy and you failed to do so. Shamefully, you won't withdraw this lie. You are a liar until you deliver the quote. |
I don't think I lied. I asked you if you felt that the US was a democracy under slavery and you failed to respond or address the matter at all, and in combination with your assertion about deocracy under apartheid it seemed reasonable at the time to think you believed that as well.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm surprised you do keep reminding us all of that episode - as I say, you ended up looking pretty dumb. |
That is a very dubious contention. You lied in that thread. |
Are you ready to admit that claiming the govt in Praetoria was not a democratic one was a pretty stupid thing to say? It's been nearly two years, you've had ample time to research the matter.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, it would appear he believes this, though whether he is barmy or whether his ideas lack merit, is again, something you have declined to show. The issue is important enough to deserve an intelligent response, and the people who come here deserve that much respect asd well - you have not provided an intelligent response and you are displaying disrespect to the forum. |
Analogous to the time when you lied about something I said. You should exercise more caution when using the word "respect." |
I did worse on that thread, I think I called you a baby, made some snide remarks about your handle and told you it was time to grow up and become "gwangjuman," or something ... looking back it was pretty adolescent of me, perhaps, but considering that you've been nursing a grudge over something so trivial for so long, it just might have been more accurate than I knew at the time.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The lack of criticism for the North means something important, I see ... should we go through your backlog of posts and make an inventory of things you have neglected to criticize? Kind of a wierd argument, but hey, whatever ... |
It's crucial because the North Korean government is the obsticle to reunification. Do you not read anything about the history of the country in which you work? |
I don't know, I think different people can read the same facts of history and come to different conclusions. The US is not here soley or even primarily for the benefit of the Korean people, and you have to admit that the lack of communication between the two countries means that only one side of the issue gets heard.
When you said that "The US doesn't want to see reunification if the Kim dynasty reunifies on its own terms," it's really another way of saying thatthe US doesn't want to see reunification on any terms other than those prescribed by Washington. There's some logic to this, of course - we've invested a lot over here, so there's no reason why the Americans should encourage any kind of reunification that does not benefit us - but in the end, it is not our country. If the S Koreans are serious about bringing the peninsula together again, the first thing they should do is ask the US to remove every single soldier from this country. Until that happens, they will always need to consult the American Ambassador before making any moves in that direction.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Yoiu make it sound as if language and a common history prior to 1945 are small things and not important. I think many Korean people disagree with that. |
Even prior to 1945 there was a de facto North South divide. |
The DMZ exists because there was a proxy war fought here between the US and Russia, with China having a small role as well. If you know the history as well as you claim then you'd know that the "Korean War" is a misnomer, since there wasn't a whole lot that was Korean about it. I see so many conservatives with this attitude that SK should be eternally grateful because we helped "protect their way of life," when the truth of it is that we were protecting OUR way of life, and it was mostly Korean people died, a lot of them women and kids, mainly so that OUR women and kids would not have to die in such a conflict ...
Whatever things were like prior to '45, there was communication and movement between the two ends of this peninsula, and trying to say that whatever differences existed between various regions was in any way similar to the language and much greater history the two sides share is ... well, about as silly as saying that S Africa did not practice democracy prior to the end of apartheid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
No matter which way you say it, blaming the US for the two Koreas not reuniting is idiotic. Of course American bashing is all too common on ESL Cafe. America may not be perfect but it is better than 95% of the countries around the world.
In a way I guess the argument is true. If it weren't for the US, Korea would be united. Say right after WW2. Under a Communist government or some bizarre authoritarian monstrosity that the Koreans would have invented. Heck, we probably wouldn't be teaching ESL here and we probably wouldn't have ever eaten Kim-chi.  What a sad little world it would be... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
| No matter which way you say it, blaming the US for the two Koreas not reuniting is idiotic. |
I don't think that anyone said that the US was responsible, on its own for the non-reunification of the Koreas. However many have said that the situation was a result of the ideological differences that existed after and since the end of WWII.
| Quote: |
| America may not be perfect but it is better than 95% of the countries around the world. |
Joo, is that you? 
| Quote: |
| In a way I guess the argument is true. If it weren't for the US, Korea would be united. Say right after WW2. Under a Communist government or some bizarre authoritarian monstrosity that the Koreans would have invented. Heck, we probably wouldn't be teaching ESL here and we probably wouldn't have ever eaten Kim-chi. What a sad little world it would be |
And equally plausible is the fact that without the Korean War, the death and destruction, and the intensive ideological conflict between the Koreans, a post WWII Korea without division, would have gone on to be a prosperous and open communist nation a la China? The division of the country placed much of the arable land in the hands of the South and much of the industrial resources and infrastructure in the North. Hypotheses are very interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Are you telling me you have to go all the way back in history to the Police Action to find a place where America tried to reunify the country, and that the only way it was attempted was by means of a military action at the cost of thousands of lives? Fifity years or more have gone by, and the US has done nothing that you can point to? |
I am interested in what you think the US government can do besides either pulling its troops out completely (and in turn ignore the wishes of the elected government in South Korea), or forcefully removing the demonic Kim dynasty.
| Quote: |
| Well, the other side of that is that Seoul and the American military here has been constantly preparing to flatten Pyeonyang, isn't it? |
Considering that the current administration has repeatedly denied any militaristic measure will be aimed at the North I find this contention rather dubious. The North has sinned far more in the past and avoided attacks from the US. Two incidents spring to mind; the murder of two US officers near Panmunjeon (axed to death) for attempting to cut down a tree, and the imprisonment and torture of US seamen captured in East Sea. (both took place in the 1970's I think).
| Quote: |
| No one has anything good to say about the North's record on human rights, but their isolationism has only partially been self-imposed, and if the outside world appoaches them with anything other than beligerance there might be a chance of seeing some progress in that area. |
You are missing out huge chunks of history here. The North has failed to pay back huge loans that its government borrowed from foreign banks, and has refused to open up its backward economy despite assurances that it would do so to her closest ally - China. When Deng Xioping was pushing through his economic reforms in the 1980's he urged Kim Jong Ill (Kim Ill Sung had ceded virtually all of his power to Kim Il Jong in preparation for the succession at this point) to feel the winds of capitalism in North Korea. Kim Jong Ill feared that his people would be more exposed to foreigners so he renegged on those commitments. The preservation of the personality cult took precedence over any liberalisation socially, or economically. What would happen to his regime should North Koreans discover that he wasn't really born on Baekdu mountain, and that North Korea attacked the South first? North Koreans don't even know that man has been on the moon. Remember, the isolation is self imposed, because this self imposed isolation is the only way the regime can survive.
| Quote: |
| Maybe, maybe not, but no way to tell until someone tries it. |
I reiterate; governments have been trying. Any opening up of the country increases the chances of foreign exposure, and thus puts the Kim Jong Ill personality cult in jeopardy. Do you know that North Koreans genuinely believe that his father could walk on water? Why are you underestimating the mammoth obsticle to reunification that is the personality cult?
| Quote: |
| But again, you might be making kindiercj's case for him. When the Agreed Framework fell apart, the US offered nothing in its place, and eventually began labeling it a "rogue regime" and part of an "axis of evil" and in the meantime did quite a lot to discourage the Sunshine Policy, which was the only game being played on that particular table. |
There are valid reasons for labelling the regime part of an axis of evil. It has one of the worst human rights records in the world. The sunshine policy only serves to feed Kim Jong Ill's army. It doesn't reduce the chances of Kim Jong Ill ceding power. Do you really think he will relinquish the god like worship he enjoys for the sake of reunification under any other terms except his own? Are you really that naive?
| Quote: |
| I don't think I lied. I asked you if you felt that the US was a democracy under slavery and you failed to respond or address the matter at all, and in combination with your assertion about deocracy under apartheid it seemed reasonable at the time to think you believed that as well. |
I unequivically denied that I had said the US was a democracy during the slavery period. You failed to post a quote to such effect, and coupled with my denial I think even those with a modicum of commonsense would figure out my position on the issue. Still, if you don't think you lied feel free to post a quote where I said the US was a democracy under slavery.
| Quote: |
| Are you ready to admit that claiming the govt in Praetoria was not a democratic one was a pretty stupid thing to say? It's been nearly two years, you've had ample time to research the matter. |
No. That government wasn't democratic because the elections weren't free and fair. Is the same person who made such a fuss of the 2000 US presidential electional really going down this ally? You are out to lunch.
| Quote: |
| I don't know, I think different people can read the same facts of history and come to different conclusions. The US is not here soley or even primarily for the benefit of the Korean people, and you have to admit that the lack of communication between the two countries means that only one side of the issue gets heard. |
They are not their soley for the benefit of the Korean people, but it would be a stretch to suggest that the US never cared about Koreans at all. The US presence on the North's welcome mat has enabled massive amounts of foreign investment to materialise. More importantly, the effect of this policy has seen South Korea reach its pinnacle historically.
| Quote: |
| When you said that "The US doesn't want to see reunification if the Kim dynasty reunifies on its own terms," it's really another way of saying thatthe US doesn't want to see reunification on any terms other than those prescribed by Washington. |
Your position assumes that reunification is a real possibilty. Unless a Ceaucescu like revolution transpires Kim Il Jong will not cede power. Naurally, that is a precondition to any reunion. What? How is reunion compatible with the personality cult?
| Quote: |
| There's some logic to this, of course - we've invested a lot over here, so there's no reason why the Americans should encourage any kind of reunification that does not benefit us - but in the end, it is not our country. If the S Koreans are serious about bringing the peninsula together again, the first thing they should do is ask the US to remove every single soldier from this country. |
The Roh government attempted to slow down Washington's policy of slimming down its forces stationed in South Korea. If the elected government of South Korea wanted the removal of US forces why would they delay Washington's attempts to shrink its presence here?
| Quote: |
| The DMZ exists because there was a proxy war fought here between the US and Russia, with China having a small role as well. If you know the history as well as you claim then you'd know that the "Korean War" is a misnomer, since there wasn't a whole lot that was Korean about it. |
The bodies that littered the battlefield were predominatly Korean. I think this suggests they had a lot do do with it. You like to empthasise the "foreigness" of this conflict without acknowledging who was responsible for inviting foreigners to participate in the first place; Kim Ill Sung. If Mao hadn't given his backing (Stalin's precondition to backing a Kim Il Sung led attack Southwards) there would have been very little reason for the US to bring its troops back to Korean after withdrawing them shortly after the Japanese were defeated.
| Quote: |
| I see so many conservatives with this attitude that SK should be eternally grateful because we helped "protect their way of life," when the truth of it is that we were protecting OUR way of life, and it was mostly Korean people died, a lot of them women and kids, mainly so that OUR women and kids would not have to die in such a conflict ... |
They should be grateful. In the early 1950's South Korea was smaller than Kyongsam Nam do. Only after US intervention (willed by South Koreans who had experienced the collectives that were being set up in captured cities throughout the Chungcheon do and Gyongi do areas) did South Korea recover the ground it had lost to the rampaging communists. Koreans deserve a lot of credit for engineering this bastion of economic success, but it should never be forgotten that without the intervention of the Western allies the ground would never have been furtile enough for the economic seeds to grow. I don't think there is any need to downplay the role of the US or Koreans when recognsing the great things this country has accomplished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Are you telling me you have to go all the way back in history to the Police Action to find a place where America tried to reunify the country, and that the only way it was attempted was by means of a military action at the cost of thousands of lives? Fifity years or more have gone by, and the US has done nothing that you can point to? |
I am interested in what you think the US government can do besides either pulling its troops out completely (and in turn ignore the wishes of the elected government in South Korea), or forcefully removing the demonic Kim dynasty. |
The word that comes to mind is diplomacy. The Agreed Framework was probably the first time it was tried. The Sunshine Policy was the second. The US has been lukewarm and hostile toward it - but in the end, it was a Korean initiative, and so the opposition the US has responded with just might support indiercj's contention that the US is the biggest obstacle right now to reunification.
| Quote: |
Should we mention what human rights watch has to say about the North's "policing" policies?
| Quote: |
| No one has anything good to say about the North's record on human rights, but their isolationism has only partially been self-imposed, and if the outside world appoaches them with anything other than beligerance there might be a chance of seeing some progress in that area. |
You are missing out huge chunks of history here. The North has failed to pay back huge loans that its government borrowed from foreign banks, and has refused to open up its backward economy despite assurances that it would do so to her closest ally - China. When Deng Xioping was pushing through his economic reforms in the 1980's he urged Kim Jong Ill (Kim Ill Sung had ceded virtually all of his power to Kim Il Jong in preparation for the succession at this point) to feel the winds of capitalism in North Korea. Kim Jong Ill feared that his people would be more exposed to foreigners so he renegged on those commitments. The preservation of the personality cult took precedence over any liberalisation socially, or economically. What would happen to his regime should North Koreans discover that he wasn't really born on Baekdu mountain, and that North Korea attacked the South first? North Koreans don't even know that man has been on the moon. Remember, the isolation is self imposed, because this self imposed isolation is the only way the regime can survive. |
It's a wierd tangent from the issue of human rights that was being discussed in these paragraphs.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Maybe, maybe not, but no way to tell until someone tries it. |
I reiterate; governments have been trying. Any opening up of the country increases the chances of foreign exposure, and thus puts the Kim Jong Ill personality cult in jeopardy. Do you know that North Koreans genuinely believe that his father could walk on water? Why are you underestimating the mammoth obsticle to reunification that is the personality cult? |
BUt I believe that is the goal of the Sunshine Policy, and my own criticism of it is that never went far enough, did not require sufficient openness to large-scale cultural exchanges from both sides - there is a chance of undermining the personality cult it is there.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| But again, you might be making kindiercj's case for him. When the Agreed Framework fell apart, the US offered nothing in its place, and eventually began labeling it a "rogue regime" and part of an "axis of evil" and in the meantime did quite a lot to discourage the Sunshine Policy, which was the only game being played on that particular table. |
There are valid reasons for labelling the regime part of an axis of evil. It has one of the worst human rights records in the world. The sunshine policy only serves to feed Kim Jong Ill's army. It doesn't reduce the chances of Kim Jong Ill ceding power. Do you really think he will relinquish the god like worship he enjoys for the sake of reunification under any other terms except his own? Are you really that naive? |
The reasons you gave here refer to something else, not the question of an axis of evil and whether N Korea had some unholy alliance with Saddam and the mullahs in Tehran.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you ready to admit that claiming the govt in Praetoria was not a democratic one was a pretty stupid thing to say? It's been nearly two years, you've had ample time to research the matter. |
No. That government wasn't democratic because the elections weren't free and fair. Is the same person who made such a fuss of the 2000 US presidential electional really going down this ally? You are out to lunch. |
Can you provide a source for this? It's news to me. If you are going to say that they were not free and fair then you will have to explain why the US was a democracy under slavery. or, for that matter, why any country was a democracy until suffrage was granted to women.
I don't recall making "such a fuss" about the 2000 election. There were a lot of questions about it. I've said that if it had happened in S America, with leader being handed the office by some judges, several of which had been appointed by his father, then we would probably wink and nod and say that such countries are not "real" democracies. I wouldn't characterize that as such a fuss, really, just an opinion, one about which people can agree or disagree. Can you explain the connection to S Africa?
There's more you said that I could discuss or disagree with but it's late and in fact I was interested in something else - whether you were capable of semi-coherent debate. It seems that you are. Now go back and compare your last post with the one in response to indiercj that OI originally criticized, and you'll understand what I meant before about "lame and loutish." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The word that comes to mind is diplomacy. The Agreed Framework was probably the first time it was tried. The Sunshine Policy was the second. The US has been lukewarm and hostile toward it - but in the end, it was a Korean initiative, and so the opposition the US has responded with just might support indiercj's contention that the US is the biggest obstacle right now to reunification. |
And are there not valid reasons for opposition to it? The US has been burned by the Kim dynasty before, and they might not be prepared to back initiatives which feed Kim Jong Ill's army. Soldiers who otherwise might become hostile to the regime due to chronic food shortages. The wait and hope policy has been a hallmark of successive governments in Washington. The appeal of such a policy is that the North Koreans themselves might grow tired of the Kim Jong Ill personality cult. The futility of the sunshine policy is that it fails to tackle the Kim dynasty's personality cult.
| Quote: |
| It's a wierd tangent from the issue of human rights that was being discussed in these paragraphs. |
It's not a tangent. I was responding to your claim that North Korea's isolation isn't entirely self imposed. It is. The North agreed to follow Chona's lead, but Kim Jong Ill later wobbled because he feared that any exposure to the outside world might jeopardize his rule. The personality cult can only remain intact for as long as the North Korean people are kept in the dark about the gross lies on which the Kim dynasty was built.
| Quote: |
| The reasons you gave here refer to something else, not the question of an axis of evil and whether N Korea had some unholy alliance with Saddam and the mullahs in Tehran. |
The word "axis" might have been a stretch, but the word "evil" is without doubt applicable.
| Quote: |
| Can you provide a source for this? It's news to me. If you are going to say that they were not free and fair then you will have to explain why the US was a democracy under slavery. or, for that matter, why any country was a democracy until suffrage was granted to women. |
I have never claimed the US under slavery was a democracy. I asked you to post a quote which captures me saying that. So far, you have failed to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
Are you ready to admit that claiming the govt in Praetoria was not a democratic one was a pretty stupid thing to say? It's been nearly two years, you've had ample time to research the matter.
| Quote: |
| No. That government wasn't democratic because the elections weren't free and fair. Is the same person who made such a fuss of the 2000 US presidential electional really going down this ally? You are out to lunch. |
Can you provide a source for this? It's news to me. If you are going to say that they were not free and fair then you will have to explain why the US was a democracy under slavery. or, for that matter, why any country was a democracy until suffrage was granted to women. |
I have never claimed the US under slavery was a democracy. I asked you to post a quote which captures me saying that. So far, you have failed to do so. |
The source I was asking for was to support your idea that the government in S Africa was not a democratic one because the elections were not free and fair. I really am curious about it. From everything I had heard, the elections were as free and fair as in the US or England save for the fact that the disenfranchized blacks living there could not take part. As indicated, it seems analogous to the US before the Civil War - therefore, exactly why do you say that S Africa was NOT a democracracy but that the US was?
Wait a minute ... are you saying that the US was NOT a democracy prior to the abolition of slavery? What is it exactly that you did say about that? You seem very upset that I misquoted you or something, but I confess that even after all this time I'm very confused about what your position is.
| Quote: |
| I was responding to your claim that North Korea's isolation isn't entirely self imposed. It is. The North agreed to follow Chona's lead, but Kim Jong Ill later wobbled because he feared that any exposure to the outside world might jeopardize his rule. |
I was under the impression that there are trade restrictions and embargoes in place against doing busines with Pyeongyang, both in the US and S Korea and other Western countries. Forgive me. I must be mistaken.
| Quote: |
The Bobster wrote:
| Quote: |
| The word that comes to mind is diplomacy. The Agreed Framework was probably the first time it was tried. The Sunshine Policy was the second. The US has been lukewarm and hostile toward it - but in the end, it was a Korean initiative, and so the opposition the US has responded with just might support indiercj's contention that the US is the biggest obstacle right now to reunification. |
And are there not valid reasons for opposition to it? The US has been burned by the Kim dynasty before, and they might not be prepared to back initiatives which feed Kim Jong Ill's army. Soldiers who otherwise might become hostile to the regime due to chronic food shortages. The wait and hope policy has been a hallmark of successive governments in Washington. The appeal of such a policy is that the North Koreans themselves might grow tired of the Kim Jong Ill personality cult. The futility of the sunshine policy is that it fails to tackle the Kim dynasty's personality cult. |
Whatcer it's virtues or faults are, The Sunshine Policy is a Korean policy that intends to solve a problem among Koreans. You say here that there are valid reasons to oppose it, and we agree it is the primary vehicle at present that aims for unification ... given the above, how can you continue to deny indiercj's assertion that the US is the biggest obstacle to bringing the two halves of the peninsula together?
Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Wait a minute ... are you saying that the US was NOT a democracy prior to the abolition of slavery? What is it exactly that you did say about that? You seem very upset that I misquoted you or something, but I confess that even after all this time I'm very confused about what your position is.. |
I don't think neither apartheid South Africa, nor the US under slavery could be described as democratic.
| Quote: |
| I was under the impression that there are trade restrictions and embargoes in place against doing busines with Pyeongyang, both in the US and S Korea and other Western countries. Forgive me. I must be mistaken. |
Some of those embargoes are in place because Pyongyang refused to pay back vast somes of money that it had borrowed from foreign banks. Instead of paying back their debts they continued to build its army and prepare for events like the world youth festival in 1989 which sucked up huge amounts of cash. Den Xiouping's efforts to de-communise North Korea were also rebuffed, despite assurances that China would back any such plans to the hilt. Kim Jong Ill was afraid of exposing his people even to China because it might compromise the personality cult. It begs the question;if Kim Jong Ill is afraid of exposure to China - his closest ally, what chance is there of any opening up to the rest of the world?
| Quote: |
| Whatcer it's virtues or faults are, The Sunshine Policy is a Korean policy that intends to solve a problem among Koreans. |
Can you point to any aspect of the sunshine policy which has even remotely attempted to deal with the personality cult?
| Quote: |
| You say here that there are valid reasons to oppose it, and we agree it is the primary vehicle at present that aims for unification ... given the above, how can you continue to deny indiercj's assertion that the US is the biggest obstacle to bringing the two halves of the peninsula together? |
I can deny indiercj's assertion because I believe that the Kim dynasty's personality cult is the biggest obsticle to reunification. Just how do you suppose we tackle the personality cult? By feeding it's lifeline(the North Korean army) in the meantime? |
|
| 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
