Anti-Americanism- the return

[Jebus]

Were the North Koreans the agessors?

True, the North Koreans were the ones who invaded.

I stopped reading after this, as the rest is bullshit. Come on. This is pathetically rank of doublethink; the North invaded the South. The North did not have anything near the popularity of the Communist cause as in Vietnam. This is relitivistic by your standards.

North invaded. North was agressor. Simple.

'Doublethink'? It's called 'Thinking', CCR.

Ironical you would use a word right out of 1984, actually.

Historical events never just, *poof*, happen. They have a background.
Both sides wanted war, CCR. The North Koreans just happened to be the ones with the military potential to do it, at that time. The South Koreans had been sending thousands of military foreys into North Korean territory beforehand, and it's only logical the North Koreans would've reacted to that. Both sides showed clear signs of agression.

Try to stop seeing the world so black-and-white, CCR.

 

[Bradylama]

"Why was the Civil War fought, CCR?"

"Becuase of slavery."

"But..."

"SLAVERY. EVIL. PERIOD."

 

[Jebus]

Hehe. This could be fun.


"Why did the Americans declare independance from England, CCR?"

"Becuase of teh Tea Act."

"But..."

"TEA. EVIL. PERIOD."

 

[John Uskglass]

Both sides wanted war, CCR. The North Koreans just happened to be the ones with the military potential to do it, at that time. The South Koreans had been sending thousands of military foreys into North Korean territory beforehand, and it's only logical the North Koreans would've reacted to that. Both sides showed clear signs of agression.

Try to stop seeing the world so black-and-white, CCR.

However, South Korea did not invade, thus it was ethical for America to defend it's ally. This was not an internal conflict, as was the case in Vietnam. Thus it was diffirent from Vietnam.

Are you arguing it was some how not ethical for the US to defend South Korea against a regiem so despotic that some manner of Pharonic revolution would be liberation?

 

[Jebus]

However, South Korea did not invade, thus it was ethical for America to defend it's ally.

*sigh*

I don't know why I still bother with you, CCR.

Are you arguing it was some how not ethical for the US to defend South Korea against a regiem so despotic that some manner of Pharonic revolution would be liberation?

First off all, 'Pharonic' doesn't seem to be a word.

Secondly, don't go pretending the Southern Korean regime was democratical.

Thirdly, try to get it through your thick skull that 'The US defending its ally' was nothing but a pretext.

Fourthly, 'ethical' had nothing to do with the Korean war. I'm not talking about ethics here. Where did I mention ethics? Were the South Koreans ethical? No. Were the North Koreans ethical? Hell no.

See, this is another example of you being unable to see the world in any other way than black-and-white. Perhaps it's your age, I don't know.

I'm not defending the North Koreans here, CCR. I'm not defending Communism here, CCR. I'm not shifting the blame completely, CCR.
Try to understand that. Try to understand there is no 'good' and 'evil' in politics, and certainly not in war.

 

[John Uskglass]

*sigh*

I don't know why I still bother with you, CCR.

Because I'm generally intellegent, and young enough to probably be impressionable?

First off all, 'Pharonic' doesn't seem to be a word.

Neither is 'democratical' for that matter. And Pharonic as a word, as in 'Pharonic' Egypt was the Egypt of the Pharaos. Get it? It's more despotic then the Pharao's rule in Egypt?

Secondly, don't go pretending the Southern Korean regime was democratical.

You are certainly right here. But you are not applying either hindsight or, for that matter, even then-day information on the matter. The South was never as bad as the North under the Kims, and today the South is one of the most prosperous countries in the world in large part (in all probability, totally because of actually) the Korean War.

Thirdly, try to get it through your thick skull that 'The US defending its ally' was nothing but a pretext.

So...if defending one's ally is not a Casus Belli, WTF is? Are you going to say it was somehow unethical or a ethical grey area for GB and France to declare war on Germany because they steamrolled Poland?

Fourthly, 'ethical' had nothing to do with the Korean war. I'm not talking about ethics here. Where did I mention ethics? Were the South Koreans ethical? No. Were the North Koreans ethical? Hell no.

Was allowing North Korea to betray peace and invade the South ethical? Hell no. That, again, is a Casus Belli; especially with the understanding that far into the future North Korea will have a Gini Coefficent so close to one as to make Persian mystics cream thier pants.

See, this is another example of you being unable to see the world in any other way than black-and-white. Perhaps it's your age, I don't know.

Straw+Man=Strawman! I am not arguing black-and-white. I am arguing very close to black-a lighter gray, as opposed to Vietnam's Shit-Darker Shit.

and certainly not in war.

Bull. There can occasionalyl be black-white war. See half a dozen wars against totalitarian regiems in this century.

Most wars, however, never approach that; still, some in this century are pretty fucking black and white.

 

[Brother None]

Because I'm generally intellegent, and young enough to probably be impressionable?

Ehehehe,

Neither is 'democratical' for that matter. And Pharonic as a word, as in 'Pharonic' Egypt was the Egypt of the Pharaos. Get it? It's more despotic then the Pharao's rule in Egypt?

The root term here is "Pharao", not "Pharo", hence the derative term is "Pharaonic" not "Pharonic"

Democratical is a word. It means democratic

Bull. There can occasionalyl be black-white war. See half a dozen wars against totalitarian regiems in this century.

Most wars, however, never approach that; still, some in this century are pretty fucking black and white.

Name any war and someone will argue against it being black and white. Yes, this includes WW II. "Black and White" seems to suggest it can not possible argued from any perspective. This is never true. Sure, some people will find it undisputeable that such a war is "black and white", others will bring in arguments about misbehaviour of the US and SU or go all overboard and speak of such thing as, gasp-o, the Dresden Holocaust (I like that term, neo-nazis are so funny in their demagoguery).

Half a dozen wars against totalitarian regimes seem to imply totalitarian regimes are a wrong form of government and hence the democratic UN is always right in fighting them. I don't think everyone agrees with this. Hence not black-and-white.

Which brings this back up;

I'd really like to know how the Korean war was evil.

I listed it under discussable evils. I think the string of posts following it more or less prove that is surely is debateable.

I thought Rice would make a good Secretary of State. =/

As popular as Powell was abroad, I'd really hesitate to call him the "token black guy."

And there are many more black people who would make fine heads of state. Yet Bush somehow manages to pick only one, leaving the rest open for his white buddies.

Huzzah. It's like Labour having no Jews in parliament. It amuses me.

Yes, I've talked about this several times before.

It's partially not relevant, though. Yes, France is protesting against Iraq. The government of France protested against de-Euronisation, very true.

Money is only a secondary concern of most governments, though. Especially in a tricky political system like France's one has to keep the elections, in the near or distant future, in mind. France's next elections are some way of, but Chirac still had to keep it in mind.

He couldn't instigate protests against the US based on money. Hence he turns to morality. The "anti-French" sentiments of the people of France, as opposed to their government, stems from moral problems, not money problems.

Kharn: Correct me if I am wrong, but you generally seem to take somewhat of a realist stance as opposed to another form of international relations theory. Respect territorial boundaries, sovereingty is inviolate, the world is anarchy, nations seek only power and the like. Is this accurate?

Uh...I dunno, maybe? I'm very Utilitarian, usually, and as such my opinion often seems to swing around from situation to situation.

When it comes to motives and movements of politics I say that I've moved around in politics long enough myself to take a bit of a realist stance, though, yes.

 

[Bradylama]

And there are many more black people who would make fine heads of state. Yet Bush somehow manages to pick only one, leaving the rest open for his white buddies.

Huzzah. It's like Labour having no Jews in parliament. It amuses me.

I never said that Rice wasn't appointed in part because she's black. But really, how many Republican, pro-Bush, African Americans are there on the political scene? And of those, how many have the skills, and experience, to make good cabinet members?

Powell doesn't count, he quit.

He couldn't instigate protests against the US based on money. Hence he turns to morality. The "anti-French" sentiments of the people of France, as opposed to their government, stems from moral problems, not money problems.

Which is why I said that if the French talking heads had revealed their ulterior motives, they would have eroded support.

 

[welsh]

Actually Jebus, I'd like to hear more about this view on the Korean War.

My take had always been that, while South was a dictatorship, the North move for war was supported by external patrons.

A statement of the US defining it's security interests to protect Japan and Taiwan, but excluding Korea, suggested that the US would not intervene in a war on the Korean Peninsula, so Kim went for a fait accompli, a quick land grab, that nearly worked. That the North Koreans rolled over South Korea quickly, led by a rather small vanguard of World War 2 left-over russian tanks, would suggest that the South Koreans were not in a condition to wage war with the North.

As for the politics of reuniting the Koreas, that had been true in most countries that had been divided either as consequence of World War 2 (Germany, Korea) or decolonization (Vietnam).

That said, Rosh is right, that was a nasty war. There are some really good oral histories out there that are reminescent of World War 1 oral histories.

 

[Jebus]

Because I'm generally intellegent, and young enough to probably be impressionable?

Ehehe,

Secondly, don't go pretending the Southern Korean regime was democratical.

You are certainly right here. But you are not applying either hindsight or, for that matter, even then-day information on the matter. The South was never as bad as the North under the Kims, and today the South is one of the most prosperous countries in the world in large part (in all probability, totally because of actually) the Korean War.

That's not the point, CCR. What, would it have been allright for the North Koreans to invade if they did have a democratical regime?
Heck, if you want to use that criterium, even. It's all pretty relative, since no war-time government has ever been *truly* democratical, and the North and South Koreans were basically in a semi-state of war as soon as the division happened.

Thirdly, try to get it through your thick skull that 'The US defending its ally' was nothing but a pretext.

So...if defending one's ally is not a Casus Belli, WTF is? Are you going to say it was somehow unethical or a ethical grey area for GB and France to declare war on Germany because they steamrolled Poland?

"Casus Belli" is a pretty dated concept, CCR. But if you want to apply it to the Korean war, then the North Koreans certainly had a 'casus belli' too.

Fourthly, 'ethical' had nothing to do with the Korean war. I'm not talking about ethics here. Where did I mention ethics? Were the South Koreans ethical? No. Were the North Koreans ethical? Hell no.

Was allowing North Korea to betray peace and invade the South ethical? Hell no. That, again, is a Casus Belli;

Wait... I'm confused. Are we still discussing wether or not the North Koreans had a reason to invade, and the Southern Koreans were basically mongering war themselves too, or are we talking about wether or not the American (among others, there were alot of Belgians too there) invasion was justified? Because that's not what we were talking about, CCR.
And I honestly don't really care about that either.

especially with the understanding that far into the future North Korea will have a Gini Coefficent so close to one as to make Persian mystics cream thier pants.

Ehm...

Uh-uh.

See, this is another example of you being unable to see the world in any other way than black-and-white. Perhaps it's your age, I don't know.

Straw+Man=Strawman! I am not arguing black-and-white. I am arguing very close to black-a lighter gray, as opposed to Vietnam's Shit-Darker Shit.

No, you were debating black-and-white. You were basically saying that all North Koreans wanted nothing more than spread a cruel, despotic regime over the noble, peaceloving and democratic South Koreans.

And damn you CCR, there's no point in discussing this at all. The facts are there: South Korea had sent hundreds of military expeditions into North Korea before Kim Il Sung invaded. You can go check that everywhere you want, heck - even a site as bad and biased as Wikipedia mentions it. I don't want to talk ethics and political systems here - because experience has taught me that trying to debate that with you is like trying to play poker with a dog while being anally raped by a cactus.

Point was: South Koreans were assholes too, and they probably got what they trying to instigate themselves. Period.


*SQUAWK*

 

[cabeça]

My humble opinion.

The American elite is greedy, superb, belligerent, hypocrite! Very hypocrite! I said the elite.
Most of the American people is alienated. They don't know about politics. They don't want to know of politics.
The American people worry more about small subjects as the gay marriage than with subjects that tell respect the thousands of lives! (excuse my English)
The war of Iraq was a farce, the world knows about that.

Why the anti-Americanism?
I think the world doesn't like Bush!
I think the people feel hate of Bush and not of the USA. (At least here in Brazil.)
Ah, I miss Clinton!
Perhaps Bush needs a Mônica Levisnk.

 

[Tannhauser]

I never said that Rice wasn't appointed in part because she's black. But really, how many Republican, pro-Bush, African Americans are there on the political scene? And of those, how many have the skills, and experience, to make good cabinet members?

Powell doesn't count, he quit.

Powell, by the account of everyone in the State Department that I have talked to, was the best Secretary of State in their experience. He is an effective leader, who knew exactly how to lead the State Department as an organization. He made it more efficient (quite a task with such a bureaucracy), made it effective, and revamped a sorry institution that was neglected under Albright.

More importantly, he did not "quit." That makes it sound like he had a choice in the matter. Though Powell had said that he wouldn't serve a second term under Bush, he changed his mind near the election. However, Bush's administration did not want him to stay with them. He was forced to resign. Rice, on the other hand, is one of those people in the administration that agrees with Bush rather completely, something that Powell did not (though he carried through with his duties, he made his reservations clear). This is a theme with Bush's second term cabinet, appointing people who have no issues with Bush. In effect, "yes-men."

Rice will most likely do all right, but not great, with the State Department, but she won't live up to what Powell was able to accomplish. Still though, better than Albright.

 

[Fez]

It's funny how you can spot the similarities in Putin and Bush's actions and policies.

 

[Gonzalez]

I don't dislike all Americans, I just dislike only about the half of you guys.

Now, seriously, some of you may not know this, but it happened.
During the last dictatorship Argentina had, the US supported the dictators in my country granting them loans to buy weapons (we are still paying those illegally granted loans). The US also supported, and even in some cases trained and indoctrinated militaries in my country. This militaries hunted down tortured and murdered thousands of people 'suspected' of being communist subversives. Even my own uncle almost got arrested and he was not communist or had communist ideologies at all. And the government of the United States supported this.

…just in case you were wandering why Argentineans might have any reason to hate the Americans.

 

[cabeça]

During the last dictatorship Argentina had, the US supported the dictators in my country granting them loans to buy weapons (we are still paying those illegally granted loans). The US also supported, and even in some cases trained and indoctrinated militaries in my country. This militaries hunted down tortured and murdered thousands of people 'suspected' of being communist subversives.

Also in Brazil, in Chile, in Panama, and many other. To defend the interests of economic groups against the communism they financed the dictatorship in those countries. That is a historical truth.

 

[Gonzalez]

Also in Brazil, in Chile, in Panama, and many other. To defend the interests of economic groups against the communism they financed the dictatorship in those countries. That is a historical truth.

I am aware of that. Actually here in Argentina we study that as part of our history.

 

[Turnip]

I don't hate Americans.
Seriously.
I don't need any sort of comedy entertainment any longer, all because I discovered America.
I love the American dream, a dream that everyone in America is able to get to the top if only he tries hard enough, hugely supported by a private-school system and a public school system and a social service reduced to a minimum to give people a god reason to give their best.
I love the fact that America is a country where everyone works hard until he reaches the top, some even in two or three different jobs at one time.
I love that the wealth of the upper-class (self-mades and a lot of heirs) is shown on the TV (Americas new religion, Jesus and god included, separated in different churches as FOX or MTV) as a example on how nice life can get if you try hard enough.
I really love American politicians, and what they say.
The governor of California

>Winning< is a very important word. There is one that achieves what he wanted to achieve and there are hundreds of thousands that failed. It singles you out:the winner

Or all those little funny jokes told by the president:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

I love America, because it is so much fun to hate them.
The only thing I don't like if the US try to be entertaining somewhere near me, or want me to join in.
Expect of course a situation similar to the god old days when the US was very eager to support Westgermany to give it advantages against the Eastgermany.

*Drinks Coca-Cola, watches MTW and wants communism to rise again, so that America again will be our friend*

Edit: Thanks for correcting me Ashmo, stupid me.

 

[Ashmo]

IIRC GDR is English for "DDR" and FRG is English for "BRD". Better use the full titles tho (Federal Republic of Germany / German Democratic Republic) -- or even better "East Germany" and "West Germany".

 

[Bradylama]

*Drinks Coca-Cola, watches MTW and wants communism to rise again, so that America again will be our friend*

If you withdraw from the Union we'll be your friend.

 

[Brother None]

Your countrymen also shouted DOWN WITH THE UNION about 140 years ago, Brady.

SCHWING!