3,000 troops in Iraq and one decapitated citizen, and not even a mention? That’s just wrong.
UPDATE: Andy the Flying Yangban suggests a rather interesting possibility:
Maybe someone already mentioned this in one of their [mine and Oranckay's] extensive comments sections but perhaps Korea does not want to be praised for its part in rebuilding Iraq.
Read Andy’s post to find out why.
96 Comments
Heh, first thing i noticed too! Sure, i can understand leaving out my little Portugal (only 130 troops dispatched) but South Korea? C’mon George.
What’s wrong about it? What has Korea done for the US that deserves a mention of thanks?
Has Korea finally, begrudgingly sent the troops? Are Koreans still burning American flags and scapegoating America for all of Korea’s internally-caused problems? Does Korea seek thanks for being a welfare state of America, benefiting from US military investment while demanding undeserved respect year after year?
Koreans see America as an ally only when it wants something. Otherwise they are foreign devils. And people like you and Oranckay are house niggers in Korea who will always be thought of as big nose racially inferior “guests” but still scrape and bow to us Koreans instead of telling the plain truth to us about who and what we are - ungrateful opportunistic American welfare cases.
Mizar5,
I think it’s plain wrong, that Mr. Marmot and Mr. Oranckay are anyhow viewed as “house niggers” by Koreans. Every person receives the amount of respect or disrespect according to personality and not ethnicity. Would both of them stay here in Korea for so many years, if they anyhow feel otherwise? And as citizens of the most powerful nation in the world, they simply don’t have to bow to lil “Korean welfare cases”.
When Korea was dirt-poor, nearly every Korean felt like a houseboy of the rich and mighty US guys here. Your soldiers had chewing gums and toilet paper - Koreans had only their shit to eat.
Ah, you want the good old times back, when Koreans had to bow to Americans… and when Elvis was alive and rocking ‘n rolling! “Suspicious Minds”
Inexcusable?
Maybe it was Georges’ way of showing his displeasure with Roh/Noh for failing/refusing to even show up last August 15 at a ceremony honoring those UN nations that helped repel the NK’s out of SK during the war. Let alone show any graditude toward those nations for the sacrifices they made.
That aside though, SK is sending 3,000 troops to help the US effort in Iraq. The US has 33,000 troops in SK now and has had hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops stationed there over the past 50 years to help defend SK. When was the last time this SK administration expressed any appreciation to the US for that?
The list of countries was not all inclusive and I don’t have any problem with South Korea being left off. The point was that Kerry was dissing our allies. A three-minute long listing of all countries involved would’ve buried the point. Although I’m in agreement with some of the sentiment above (e.g. Noh is a wanker) I doubt snubbing Korea was the intention.
I also doubt snubbing Korea was the intention of Bush’s speech, but then again, when thinking of reliable allies, Korea hardly jumps to mind.
the slight was intended and was in poor taste.
i’ve got bad news for the koreans; it doesn’t matter what they do to assist the us because any attempt to do so will be seen through the prism of the korean war and thus considered payback.
‘to defend korea…’
american troops in korea not only there to defend but also to promote and further us geo-political agenda.
‘no thanks from korea…’
kim ajummah respond:
willy? three thousand troop for mr shahng-nohm-ah in doh white hausoo, mista west. r-point ghostoo? faiboo thousand there in vietnam, mr pau-doh-poh-foo. deporence to arrogant western behavior? we only stop short time ago, mista busta. kohrean kiss american boot when american boot in kohrea? long time. now, no moh, mr beegoo stohfoo. ????œ?, ??´ ??œ?°œ?†????! (Ayoo, ee shibahlnohm-ah)
lastly, Mr Sugar Shin, maybe you know already but mizar5 claims to be korean.
“When Korea was dirt-poor, nearly every Korean felt like a houseboy of the rich and mighty US guys here. Your soldiers had chewing gums and toilet paper - Koreans had only their shit to eat.”
Hahaha! And now for the truth - by someone who was here and experienced it for real, not just conjectured it like you:
Koreans were thankful for having been saved from annihilation and then starvation. And they were aware that no country in history has ever treated us with as much respect as America. Instead of lip service they gave us freedom, billions of dollars of financial grants, special trade status, billions of dollars worth of military assistance, access to the most lucrative consumer market in the world and worked behind the scenes to promote democracy. Gee, I can’t think of what we’ve given them in return…Let’s see, there was Vietnam, but we recognized that as an opportunity to make money for ourselves. And now there’s Iraq, but again, it’s in our national interests to participate in stabilizing the oil-rich, construction contract-rich middle east.
About “house nigger” - You mightr not be familiar with the term. I suggest you read the The Confessions of Nat Turner by William Styron and educate yourself.
I don’t like the word “nigger” and I personally like Oranckay and Mamot. I use the word for literary effect as a demonstration of a concept they are educated enough to understand, especially since they are well-read. It’s not a reflection on them but on the tendency we Koreans have to only want to be told the good things about ourselves, our tendency to whine for “understanding”, while doing nothing to promote it. We only want to hear foreigners say “Korea is a beautiful country. The people are industrious and kind. The food is delicious.” But when they dare penetrate the surface we are quick to remind them that they are “guests” and “don’t understand Korea”!
Stop pandering to us - we’re not babies. Just tell us the truth about ourselves (which they usually do). That is the Oranckay and Mamot that serve Korea best.
Sugar Dhin “Ah, you want the good old times back, when Koreans had to bow to Americans”
Ahem, bowing is our custom, not theirs. They never required us to bow to them. But we did bow to our own leaders and pretty much ignored the Americans’ presence. And yes, we treated them with the respect they deserved then, not undeserved hostility.
So I suppose it would be good of us to bow to Americans. After all, we are hurt if that they don’t understand our customs and teach them to bow to us. When we get our inferiority complex out of the way, we’ll be able to treat them as human beings and not be so sensitive to every imagined slight.
One stupid thing our newspapers do is blow every nuance of every speech out of proportion. Even though there is nothing to justify the silly opinion that Bush’s ommission of Korea was a deliberate snub we naturally read that into the context of his speech because we are so self-absorbed that we want to be on the Americans’ minds all the time. How pathetic…
Alright, you want to be spoonfed the answers, Shin, or are you man enough to figure them out for yourself? Or are you so much in denial like the rest of us that you wouldn’t recognize objective truth if it hit you right between the eyes? When you’re ready to hear the truth I’ll continue the conversation. But I’ll need a sign that you are not just another false-pride filled walking inferiority complex.
If you’re a Korean, my dear Mizar5, than I might be Micky Mouse. Laughing my ass off right now!
Mizar5 at:
“The Flying Yangban” Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Is Korea just a victim of American bullying?
Let me kindly address some of Sugar Shin’s statements. First, I was not a privileged foreign “guest” during Park’s rule by any stretch, I was an ordinary person completely integrated into the fabric of Korean society, not an outsider. I witnessed the assasination, the Chun coup detat, the Kwangju massacre, the popular backlash against “peanut” Carter for attempting to pull the troops out. I personally know something of the times…
But, putting aside my American prejudices, I also learned that freedom is relative. Not discussing politics can be a small price to pay for rebuilding a nation from scratch. Even today Koreans do not discuss politics socially so it was not such a considerable sacrifice…
Posted by Mizar5 | July 28, 2004 10:34 PM
Which nationality is yours, Mizar5? You might respect Oranckay or Marmot, but you spit on a little thing called honesty.
Dude, you ain’t my cup of soju!
ah, i don’t know mizar’s nationality, but sugar shin, you don’t need to be american to have american prejudices. you for example, have american prejudices but are not american.
Thanks, eepobee, I don’t even dignify smallminded comments about nationality or race with a response, especially when, as in this case, it has no bearing on the issue and is simply a logically fallacious genetic fallacy argument.
I can fit in equally in either Korea or America because, disappointing as it may be to bigots, I don’t define myself narrowly by others’ expectations of the racial role I’m expected to play by bigots.
I nearly forgot for a moment that I can’t be Korean because I think for myself and subject my own notions to the scrutiny of objective logic and intellectual rigor rather than follow the lemmings
of group prejudice.
It appears to bother a certain class of bigot when people disregard their conceptual frameworks and act as human beings independent from their assigned stereotypical roles. Some people simply don’t care whether you lable them “banana”, “oreo cookie” or whatever other racial ephitet you can invent to circumvent their humanity in favor of a narrow role. The reason for this is that I don’t suffer from a racial inferiority complex and am frankly unperturbed by your fallacious judgements of me.
Mizar, it will help to tone down your indignant speech against US aid to Korea when it is the SK government, like the German govt, who actually pay the US in the billions, to support the military infrastructure and facilities in their respective countries.
You want to talk about a foreign “welfare state?” Well it would only do justice to begin an honest study of our foreign aid and budget and actual military support by troops as well as missile technology. After all that is done…..it is Israel that comes out on top above anyoneelse. No other foreign nation compares as much dependence as Israel Mizar. Do your research.
Secondly, very important, the Chosun editorial did not insinuate that the Bush non-mention was intentional. They just stated that Korea was not mentioned; that is it. It is VOA who has made the connection of 3000 troops and the beheaded justification, if there was any. Get it straight.
By the way, Micky Mouse, the ball is back in your court to address the issues rather than attack the messenger.
“Mizar, it will help to tone down your indignant speech against US aid to Korea”
What indignation? Keep emotion out of this; intensity of emotion does not justify an argument.
“when it is the SK government, like the German govt, who actually pay the US in the billions, to support the military infrastructure and facilities in their respective countries.”
I’m aware of what we are contributing. But our media has also carefully concealed the fact that the US is paying the lion’s share, not only for defense but for the move out of Seoul. Our newspapers even continuously convey the misinformation that Seoul is responsible for the entire cost of relocation, when, in fact, the majority of the funds are coming from the US.
“You want to talk about a foreign ?€œwelfare state??€? Well it would only do justice to begin an honest study of our foreign aid and budget and actual military support by troops as well as missile technology. After all that is done?€?..it is Israel that comes out on top above anyoneelse. No other foreign nation compares as much dependence as Israel Mizar. Do your research.”
No need, I’m already aware of this fact. I’m also aware of its irrelevence to the discussion.
“Secondly, very important, the Chosun editorial did not insinuate that the Bush non-mention was intentional. They just stated that Korea was not mentioned; that is it. It is VOA who has made the connection of 3000 troops and the beheaded justification, if there was any. Get it straight.”
And I neither brought up the editorial, nor made that connection. Get it straight yourself.
Comment by hweld
Bush and his speech writer had a choice. To list all the countries or some of the biggest contributers. Listing all 30 countries would be too long for this modern attention span world.
The correct choice was to pick a few of the biggest contributers which they did very well. Britian, Poland, and Italy have contributed much much more than Korea. Korea has thus far contributed the least out of any of the coalition except for the few that have done more harm than good like Spain.
All the coalition partners with troops have been in Iraq for well over a year. SK troops have been there for 2 weeks and have yet to really start contributing.
Simply they do not deserve a mention yet with the big contributing coalition partners of Britain, Italy, and Poland. To say that Korea deserves a mention is pure arrogance.
Look, I understand the way Seoul handled the deployment issue was terrible, and yes, I’ve blogged through two presidential Liberation Day addresses, and not once did I hear Roh mention which countries did the liberating. All inexcusable. Having said that, however, Korea is contributing a large number of men to the reconstruction in Iraq (and yes, I know they’ll be in relatively peaceful region and won’t be participating in border patrols and things like that), the gov’t itself bit the bullet during the Kim Sun-il crisis by announcing it would send troops, and even President Roh has had to pay politically — many of those who supported the deployment would never support Roh or Uri regardless, and many of those who would were opposed to sending troops. So yes, I thought Bush could have mentioned S. Korea’s contribution to what hasn’t exactly been one of the most popular U.S. conflicts. It would have been nice, and it’s telling that the Chosun Ilbo — not exactly a bastion of the anti-American left — was one of the first to react to the ommission. All the omission did was give ammunition to those who have been saying that the U.S. wouldn’t appreciate the assistance and hurt those who really did want to help an ally in need.
Just an aside, I’ve gotten 18 comments so far on this post. Meanwhile, a group of lawmakers submits a bill essentially calling for a significant chunk of Chinese territory (or Korean territory occupied by China, depending on your point of view) to be returned to Korea, and it gets three comments. And one of those was to point out a typo. Go figure.
I’ll get on it right away, Marmot…
Mizar5, it really doesn’t matter to me whether you are Korean or not. While some of your points may have some validity, your comments speak for themselves as biased and lopsided viewpoints that are contrary to the “objective analysis” you seem to value so much, and there’s no reason for me to recite everything that you’ve already written to explain this. Besides, I’ve already quoted a couple of examples. Congratulations on being a Korean who can “think for myself and subject my own notions to the scrutiny of objective logic and intellectual rigor rather than follow the lemmings of group prejudice.” Perhaps you need to keep better company to realize that you’re not such a special and unique Korean as you think you are.
overreactions of people like shin who are extremely sensitive to the possibility of having a foreigner display a penetrating critical insights into the culture.
I never see Sugar Shin overreacting unreasonably to some of the well-pointed insights on Korea that the Marmot and the Oranckay make. But then again, you’re the person who thinks they are “house niggers in Korea who will always be thought of as big nose racially inferior ‘guests.’” I sure don’t think they are big-nosed and racially inferior, nor does my mom, nor does any of my Korean friends whom I tell to read some of their stuff. “Psychological projection?” “Group prejudice?” I wonder if you notice that many of your accusations could be thrown right back at you.
You are right, of course, that the arguments themselves are what are important, not attacking the source. But again, the same could be said about you. Perhaps if you had separated some of your arguments from your condescending and borderline-racist rhetoric on Koreans you would have been met with a more civil response.
Mr. Mizar5, let us assume for a moment that you really are Korean, as you claim to be and use as your weapon of authority in making your distorted generalizations on Koreans.
It?€™s not a reflection on them but on the tendency we Koreans have to only want to be told the good things about ourselves, our tendency to whine for “understanding”, while doing nothing to promote it.
Your statement reflects how ignorant you are of the wide range of thoughts among Korean people, who are just as human and genetically diverse as any other race on this planet. You seem to have no idea on how humble and self-critical Koreans can also be. For instance, no Korean that I know thinks our country is a ????????” ?????¼(well-off country) or ????§???(advanced country), and most of them readily give their own criticism when asked about the problems with Korea and Koreans (although perhaps not so readily when talking to a foreigner).
To me, you merely come across as just another angry, raving foreigner(?™¸????¸). Even if you’re not, and even if you really are Korean, I suggest that you lose your air of superiority as if you’re above all Koreans, and dump your frustrations elsewhere instead of deriding your own country with your twisted assumptions.
I nearly forgot for a moment that I can?€™t be Korean because I think for myself and subject my own notions to the scrutiny of objective logic and intellectual rigor rather than follow the lemmings of group prejudice.
“Objective logic” rather than “group prejudice” indeed.
I second Sugar’s statement. If you’re Korean, I am Donald Duck.
On the contrary, it is very excusable.
Most leaders have paid some sort of penalty for engaging in Iraq- SK is no different. But it still comes down to thus far Korea’s actual contribution is very very small compared to that of Britain, Poland, and Italy. Look what Blair has gone through. Yes it would be nice to mention Korea but it would be nice to mention all the coalition. Just wasn’t going to happen in a speech for a TV audience. The purpose of the speech was to show the audience that America was not alone and it showed that by highlighting the 3 main contributers. Thus far Korea isn’t even in the top 10.
B’ah, he left S. Korea out because he wasn’t about to name every country, and even after the fact he did mention “the countless other countries” or something along those lines. I think what he did mentionwas properly political though. The European countries he mentioned can be considered “New Europe” and then Japan because Japan has been longer the greater ally of the US in the East Asia region than Korea.
Basically it sounds like whining to my ears to hear people upset about Korea not being mentioned. I mean come on, think about it, why name every country? I thank the Koreans for their support and am grateful, but the fact remains the Mongols didn’t get named either. I would think you would be more mad about that Robert….
mizar5, please stop lying; you’re an angry lil expat who’s part of the angry expat brigade. i mean, you even got wooj slapping you and he almost never slaps anyone.
‘it’s very excusable..’ gerry bevers
why? you didn’t say. guess you couldn’t think of a lie fast enough, huh, gerry? couldn’t get to your japanese handlers, ain’t that right, gerry? listen, why not stick to your own site that nobody reads? most people seem to know that you a wacko. and a liar. and a miserable lil expat crying the koreans don’t treat you special. i’ll bet the other day when you saw one of marmot’s threads reached one hundred posts, you got a lil boner. wish you could be so popular, don’t ya, gerry?
ya fricking liar.
Comment by M:
“Just an aside, I?€™ve gotten 18 comments so far on this post. Meanwhile, a group of lawmakers submits a bill essentially calling for a significant chunk of Chinese territory (or Korean territory occupied by China, depending on your point of view) to be returned to Korea, and it gets three comments. And one of those was to point out a typo. Go figure.”
Seems a natural discrepancy on an English language blog about Korea. I don’t think there’s much of a constituency in the native-English speaking world for Manchurian affairs, though Asians may be puzzled by the title on the remake of the old movie (Manchurian Candidate) that’s just released, or about to be.
What’s your subjective estimate of the degree of native language (Korean/Northeast Asian) of the news coverage of Korean irredentism? Are Korean-language blogs burning up the wires over this, or are they disproportionately interested in the state of US/Korean relations as we are here?
non-Korean, Korea has over 400 troops from the beginning of the Iraq conflict (one of the few countries who sent troops from the start), based out of the southern part of Iraq. I’m not sure why you think they have been there only 2 weeks. The 3000 troops are additions to what is currently already there.
Also, Korea sent troops to Afghanistan and they still have hundreds of troops over there as well. Korea also sent troops to East Timour. As a matter of fact, Korea has sent troops to whenever US has requested from Korea - although sometimes begrudgingly and in most cases, in non-combat roles. This includes the first Gulf War.
You may think all this are minute token contributions that shouldn’t register at all, but at least it’s something other than the myth that Korea has never contributed at all to help the US (which is the current prevailing thought which are not entirely true and certainly are not accurate).
Despite all sound and fury, Korea is one of the very few allied countries (if not the only one) that are actually sending troops, at a time when many other coalition countries are pulling out and/or contemplating to pull out.
Sure, at first Korea’s motive was interested in Iraqi contracts but now I don’t think that is the case anymore. The illusion of many lucrative contracts in Iraq has long been vanished in the current climate of violent Iraqi insurgency that has no end in sight.
Even so, I dare you to name one country that does not act in their national self interest. Korea just happens to be a little bit more blunt and honest when it comes to this area. If Roh had came out and towed the standard US line, that Korean troops are going to Iraq to bring freedom and democracy, that may have fooled the US and it would looked good internationally, but it wouldn’t have been very honest thing to say. Certainly no one would have believed him.
Yes, Korea is going to a northern part of the country that are held by the Kurdish that are relatively peaceful. But don’t bet on the idea that the situation is going to stay static. Conflicts can quickly arise and go out of control and I would not be surprised if the US will be asking Korea once more down the road, to move the Korean troops into a combat role in the central part of the country. Remember in Vietnam, Korea at first started by sending in non-combat units, but ended up sending a total of over 350,000 combat troops for over 7 years of the conflict.
The Iraqi conflict is costing the US enormous amount of money and also lives. Before this is over, you may end up needing as much help as you can get out of all coalition countries involved. It’s a good ideal to lay down the foundations now.
Then it all comes down to what was Bush thinking when he made that speech? I think it’s a fundalmental shift in thinking that the US does not think Korea is a friend and an ally anymore. The blame lies with the Korean governments that failed to check the rampant anti-Americanism. What we are now seeing is anti-Koreanism.
This thought is illustrated well by Richard Halloran’s article that puts America’s Asian foreign policy with Japan as the central focal point, with Korea being in the peripheral role, which sounds almost like the US has given up South Korea to China. This is not a good sign for South Korea.
http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-.....0904a1.htm
Further, Japan has gotten much more milage out of their troop dispatch while Korea despite sending more troops, hardly gets any mention and a cold shrug. It didn’t have to be this way if Roh had handled this situation better.
wooj, Mizar is not the issue here. The core issue is to analyze what possible blame Korea might have in the current anti-Korean sentiment in the US.
My ignorance ignorance of “the wide range of thoughts among Korean people” aside, I believe the fact that there is such a wide range is precisely my point, thank you. Thus when people criticize one another as “not Korean” for expressing divergent opinions, they themselves are displaying ignorance.
“You seem to have no idea on how humble and self-critical Koreans can also be.”
This is a good statement. You qualify it with the word “seem”. You are in fact admitting to having made an assumption based upon inference and allowing me to dispell your misconception. Such intelectual honesty seems rare on opinion forums and adds to its quality. I would encourage you to do more of this.
“…and most of them readily give their own criticism when asked about the problems with Korea and Koreans (although perhaps not so readily when talking to a foreigner).
Alright, thank you again for helping making my point. We Koreans want to pretend to be something that we are not to the outside world, which is one reason we tend to be sensitive about foreigners, something you can see in the overreactions of people like shin who are extremely sensitive to the possibility of having a foreigner display a penetrating critical insights into the culture. What I am doing here is not deriding Korea but encouraging people with blind spots to overcome this tendency. One should view criticism with gratitude not recoil in anger and denial.
“To me, you merely come across as just another angry, raving foreigner(?™¸????¸). Even if you?€™re not, and even if you really are Korean, I suggest that you lose your air of superiority as if you?€™re above all Koreans, and dump your frustrations elsewhere instead of deriding your own country with your twisted assumptions.”
This is called imputation, and often serves as psychological projection - imputing motives and emotions into others’ words without any real knowledge of the truth of such assumptions. “angry, raving, superior”, “frustrations”, “twisted”. Aside from this it an example of the genetic fallacy arguement - a logical fallacy that attempts to disparage the source of the argument rather than address the argument itself and is, at best a distraction into irrelevence.
Another interesting technique is to intersperse your comments with ??œ?¸€, albeit in places where it is not needed for clarification, the apparent intent being to display superior understanding of the culture.
If anything I have said appears unreasonable, I would be pleased to have this pointed out. That way, I can either clarify the justifications for my conclusions or learn why such conclusions are unwarrented. But what this requires is objective analysis and calm. Argumentum ad hominem is often fun, but seldom instructive.
Kimbob, “Korea is one of the very few allied countries (if not the only one) that are actually sending troops”
This is just plain incorrect. Soldiers from 37 countries have participated in OIF, and troops from 68 countries have participated in OEF. Even French and German soldiers are taking bullets for the U.S. in Kabul right now.
Kimbob, “Korea just happens to be a little bit more blunt and honest when it comes to this area.”
Then why has the Korean media agreed to not report on the 3,000-strong troop deployment this month?
Kimbob, “current climate of violent Iraqi insurgency that has no end in sight.”
The end of the insurgency is near. Najaf was pacified, and Fallujah and Sadr City will be soon. These nutcases are not getting any popular support from the people, and since Al Sadr surrendered, no leader of the insurgents has emerged. They’re just a disorganized mob ready to be wiped out.
Kimbob, “Conflicts can quickly arise and go out of control and I would not be surprised if the US will be asking Korea once more down the road, to move the Korean troops into a combat role in the central part of the country.”
The insurgency is getting weaker and the 200,000-strong Iraqi National Guard is getting stronger. After the ING is sufficiently trained by NATO, the Iraqis can deal with security themselves. Expect a drawdown of coalition troops after the January elections. Those are the reports I’m hearing.
Kimbob, “that Korean troops are going to Iraq to bring freedom and democracy, that may have fooled the US and it would looked good internationally, but it wouldn?€™t have been very honest thing to say.”
Why is this dishonest? That’s exactly what they’re doing - bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqis. I wish Roh had said this, then the troop deployment may have been better received by Koreans. After all, Koreans deserved liberation from brutal Japanese rule, didn’t Iraqis deserve liberation from a brutal dictatorship?
Paul Webb:
This is what I wrote:
“Despite all sound and fury, Korea is one of the very few allied countries (if not the only one) that are actually sending troops, at a time when many other coalition countries are pulling out and/or contemplating to pull out.”
Which is certainly very different and mean totally different from what you just wrote:
“Kimbob, ?€œKorea is one of the very few allied countries (if not the only one) that are actually sending troops?€?”
Can you tell the difference?
Here is the root of the problem:
Koreans feel they are doing the US a great favor by allowing us to protect their country. Furthermore, they resent it and feel it is the root of their problems (whatever they may be).
The US realizes that Korea cannot be relied on or trusted as an ally.
The solution is obvious:
America withdraws ALL troops from Korea and transfers them to other loations: Iraq, Guam, Japan, etc.
Korea withdraws any troops and assistance from Iraq.
This will leave the US free to focus on building mutual alliances, and Koreans free to focus on which bits of China they feel belong to them, or which bits of Korea the Chinese feel belong to China, or what great and humane brothers and cousins they have in the North Korean government.
In this way, these silly debates can end and we will not have to listen to the childish tantrums from the Hub any longer.
Paul, “After all, Koreans deserved liberation from brutal Japanese rule, didnt Iraqis deserve liberation from a brutal dictatorship?”
One of the ironies of history. Humanitarian sacrifices seldom make the news. Positive news seldom gets much coverage. People love apparent conspiracies and get off on the strong emotional feelings that evil stirs up - indignation, anger, furstration, helplessness and the range of moral issues that it brings on. It’s just more entertaining to indulge in extreme negativism.
Korean Buddhism encourages the cultivation of positive feelings, such as gratitude, compassion, fellowship and good will, and honesty in the form of frank self-appraisal and expression. It is amazing how much of this is lost on a people who are so proud of our Buddhist heritage.
My own thoughts are these. The strong religious currents in US politics is a mixed blessing/curse. On the minus side, it leads to narrow-mindedness and short sightedness. On the plus side, it leads to the commitment to some pretty lofty positive ideals which influence political and foreign policy.
It wouldn’t hurt us Koreans to re-examine our Buddhist heritage and hold ourselves to a higher standard in pursuing self interest. The fact is, we have no moral standard and are increasingly turning to negative expressions to project our sense of frustration onto the world. Our displaced anger is ever ready to explode, recklessly and without thought to the consequences to ourselves.
The newspapers are filled with stories about “our people’s anger”. It happened with the 2 schoolgirls, with the garbage mandu story, with the troop dispatch, with the historical revisionism of Our Open Party. There is no end to our anger and frustration. It boils over and then simmers down, only to resurface in a different form, while the underlying issues are seldom followed through on to completion.
I believe we in Korea, through the help of the international community, have built a legacy we can take pride in. It is time to express our heartfelt gratitude to the multitude of nations for accepting us into the fold and make positive advances toward world leadership. But first we need anger management. Only then can we set forth a positive agenda based on respect for ideals rather than the continueal reaction against percieved wrongs that dominates our national consciousness and policy.
Kimbob. Yes Korea had 400 aid workers such as doctors and engineers but not fighting troops. That is what I meant by Korea not having troops in Iraq until recently.
My point is Korea has contributed and that is great but to this point they have not contributed as much as the other countries mentioned in Bush’s speech.
I think Japan got a mention because they are the US’s closest asian ally, Japan’s constitution makes it very difficult to send troops but they did so much sooner than Korea, and the large sums of cash they have donated. This all equals more than korea has contributed thus far.
Roh could have sent troops to Iraq much sooner if he really wanted to. They tried to delay delay delay and never said anything about going to Iraq to do some good. It was always well I don’t want to do this but we kinda have to to keep our needed alliance with the US. Not exactly a nice selling job. He could have handled it much better and gotten the 3000 troops there in a needed place a year ago and would have done some good that would warrent a mention in the speech.
Maripkan,
Bush’s speech was carefully drafted, so Korea’s not being mentioned was calculated and intentional. Here are two possible reasons for her not being mentioned.
The first is that Korea did not want to be mentioned, fearing that it might remind terrorists in Iraq of the presence of Korean troops, who are essentially hiding out among the Kurds. Koreans want to keep a low profile in Iraq.
The second possible reason is that Bush does not consider Korea an ally in the war on terror, much less the war in Iraq. Polls have showed that 72 percent of Koreans were against the war of terror and 80 percent were against the war in Iraq. At the very best, Korea is a reluctant ally. Even when announcing that Korea was sending troops, President Roh said he agreed with anti-war advocates who said their was no good cause for going to war in Iraq. He said he was only sending troops there for “realistic reasons,” which meant he thought it would help Korea win favors from the US.
President Roh and the Korean people have said they are against the war in Iraq, so why should President Roh or Korea be mentioned among the leaders and the countries that support the war? In fact, if Bush had mentioned Roh or Korea as supporters of the war, Roh and Koreans could have called Bush a “liar,” as you have called me.
By the way, Maripkan, when have I lied? Please do not pull a “Jong-il” and lie about my lying. Quote one of my lies.
Also, you seem upset that I question some of the anti-Japanese propaganda that is propagated in Korea? Well, just because Koreans have accepted the lies and exaggerations about their colonial past does not mean that I have to also unquestionably accept them.
By the way, there is an interesting article in Ohmynews about a Seoul National University Economic History professor who said on an MBC discussion forum last Thursday that there is no historical evidence that Korea’s “comfort women” were forced to work as “sex slaves.” He suggested, instead, that they were simply enterprising, “licensed prostitutes.” Ohmynews article
A shocking statement, isn’t it? And isn’t it even more shocking that the statement was made by a Korean history professor at one of Korea’s top universities?
The professor has also had other interesting things to say about Korea’s colonial period, which I plan to mention on my Web site since I have not noticed the English press, the Marmot, or any other English blogger mention it.
Questioning the stories of Japanese abuses during Korea’s colonial period may be unpopular, but that does not mean they should be unquestioned.
The professor has also had other interesting things to say about Korea?€™s colonial period, which I plan to mention on my Web site since I have not noticed the English press, the Marmot, or any other English blogger mention it.
Gerry, it’s actually on my weekend “To Do” list, along with a couple other topics.
‘another intersting techinique is to intersperse ??œ?¸€, albeit in places where it is not needed.’ mizar5 sept5, 2004 0957 hrs.
are you insane? you just did what you say others do! you wrote ‘hahn-gool’ in ??œ?¸€, you twit! no reason for the korean letters. man, you must still be in college trying to absorb it all. read on, tyke:
‘in korea, the more appropriate term is tribalism
(??¼??¼??¼???)…’ mizar5, august 256, 2004 1212 hrs
you remind me of the french, mizar5. nice window dressing above but soiled linen below.
*****
i don’t need to get your specific quotes, gerry. you’re just trying to play games. deny what i’ve written. let me refresh your memory:
you contend that tokdo is being occupied, that koreans wanted to be ruled by the japanese, and that koreans weren’t forced to change their names during the japanese occupation.
what’s not true there, gerry?
Gerry Bevers:
By the way, there is an interesting article in Ohmynews about a Seoul National University Economic History professor who said on an MBC discussion forum last Thursday that there is no historical evidence that Korea?€™s ?€œcomfort women?€? were forced to work as ?€œsex slaves.?€? He suggested, instead, that they were simply enterprising, ?€œlicensed prostitutes.?€?
Gerry, I’d suggest you reread (or read) the lengthy verbatim quote of the discussion given in the Ohmy article before claiming that it was professor Lee Yeong-hun (??´??????) who said that the comfort women were licensed prostitutes.
Following is a quote from Song Yeong-gil, who quotes the view of the Japanese far right, according to which it was not forced but voluntary prostitution to make money. ?†¡????¸¸ “?§€?????? ?²Œ ?????¤. ??¼??œ ??œ?Œ€ ???????Œ€??? ??¸??œ?™€ ?§€?¸? ??¸??°?¶€?Œ€??? ??¸??œ??¼ ?“±?¹???œ??¤??” ?²???€ ????ª???´??¤. ??¼?³¸??°?????´ ?§€?¸???? ??¼????????” ?²???€ ???????Œ€?°€ ?´???…?¶€?™€ ???°€ ?¶Œ?????? ?????´ ?°???œ?¡œ ??™?????œ ?²???´ ????????¼ ?????…????œ¼?¡œ ?????? ?²Œ?¸° ?œ???´ ??¼??…??? ?³??°½??? ?????œ?¡œ ????°œ????œ¼?¡œ ?°¸????????¤??” ?²???´??¤. ??´??‡?²Œ ?¶¤?³€??? ?????´?†“?³? ?????¤. ??´??¸ ????±°?????Œ??? ?????´ ???????Œ€??” ?¡°????´???…?¶€ ?¶Œ?????? ?????´ ?°???œ?¡œ ??Œ??¤?°€??œ ??¼??…??? ??±??? ?…¸??? ?????œ??? ?†“??¸ ?²??œ¼?¡œ ?·¼?³¸????œ¼?¡œ (??¸??°??? ?²½??°?™€) ?°¨?????´ ??¤??´??¤.”
What prof. Lee points out is the responsibility of the Korean keepers of places of forced prostitution and Korean users of those “services”. Also by telling that the Government General didn’t issue an explicit order to force women into prostitution he doesn’t mean that the prostitution wasn’t forced.
Here prof. Lee says the word “sex slave”:?…¸??Œ?°?”??¼?³¸??? ?±…??? ??†??¤??” ?²???¸?°€.” (Do you mean Japan has no responsibility?)
??´?????? “??±?…¸?????¼ ?´€?????œ ?±…?????´ ?????¤. ?·¸??‡??¤?³? ??¼?°???¸ ??¸??œ??¼ ?”°?§€?§€ ?§??????” ?±´?°€.” (It has the responsibility of operating sex slavery. But does that mean that we shouldn’t mention the responsibility of civilians?
Sorry to continue this topic under an unrelated posting, but now that the word is out, I’ll also give the link to prof Lee’s statement quoted in Chosun Ilbo concerning how his words had been distorted. It’s also good to check his statement before thinking of using him to claim that the prostitution we’re talking about here was “lincenced prostitution.”
Koreans Upset With Bush Speech
My take is that presidential speeches are customarily vetted up the wazoo so, if some group or country was offended, quite possibly it was intended. However, I don’t discount the likelihood of a screwup and, if so, the situation with overlooking South…
“You are right, of course, that the arguments themselves are what are important, not attacking the source.”
Of course I am. This is what I endeavor to do and encourage others to do as well - for their own sake. Arguments that rely on logical fallacies such as argumentum ad hominem, genetic fallacy and straw man arguments are simply a waste of everyone’s time. This is why, when I take issue someone’s representations, I make it clear what my reasoning is for doing so. I’m also pleased to hear what others might have to say if they disagree with my own personal assessments. Unfortunately, I have been dissappointed by the lot of you, who have yet to offer a valid argument and merely attempt to assasinate my character. For instance, you write:
“Perhaps if you had separated some of your arguments from your condescending and borderline-racist rhetoric on Koreans you would have been met with a more civil response.”
Here is an interesting example of an assertion that is self-invalidating by virtue of shirking any burden of proof. Even a scant thread of supporting evidence would be preferable to simply resorting to namecalling.
It is an example of baiting. Knowing that the core of my argument is anti-supremecist (anti-racist, anti-condescention), you attempt to turn such accusations onto me to deflect attention from my argument instead of addressing it.
As for a civil response, do you think, given the pattern of the dialogue here, that a logical person like me would be given to expect or demand it? I am content to to discuss the issues with continued civiliy and objectivity regardless of what responses it provokes. And I am also always looking for opportunities to augment my own perspectives by listening to contrasting views. When people present valid arguments refuting my own perspectives, I listen, request clarification and learn.
I don’t believe you are hopeless, perhaps just a bit rash and untested. You maintain that my viewpoints are “lopsided” and contrary to ?€œobjective analysis, which is interesting and provocative, but you then disappoint in refusing support your statements with factual evidence. You state “there’s no reason for me to recite everything that you?€™ve already written to explain this. Besides, I?€™ve already quoted a couple of examples.”
However strongly you may feel about this, I feel that I am obliged to instruct you about burden of proof in argument. What you are doing here is known as “ad ignorantiam” (appeal to ignorance), a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. “Burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it. It is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”.
I will conclude for thanking you for your most objective statement. You do show promise and I hope you will continue in this vein: “Congratulations on being a Korean who can ‘think for myself and subject my own notions to the scrutiny of objective logic and intellectual rigor rather than follow the lemmings of group prejudice.’ Perhaps you need to keep better company to realize that you?€™re not such a special and unique Korean as you think you are.”
Thank you. I believe we are all special and unique, and we are all attempting to keep better company. But my assertions here are strictly reflections on the news and have no bearing on personal life. You may be aware that politics is not often discussed in polite Korean society, and I like and enjoy people so much that I get along with all kinds of people regardless of their conceptual boundaries. When it comes to interpersonal affairs, idiology and abstractions just don’t matter - humanity does.
That is why forums like this exist - so that we can bring issues into the open that we normally do not dwell on. I personally look forward to meaningful exchanges of opinions, insights and observations, the sort that the Marmot, Oranckay, Kimbob, Paul Webb offer. In the meantime I am willing to sift through irrelevent personal arguments without responding in kind to get to those rare gems.
And, being an optimist, I would say things can only improve. In my experience, people who start off on the wrong foot often become more understanding of one another because of it. If you do not take offense at those who assert contrary positions to yours, you may delight in conversation with those who have other perspectives to offer.
If you have alternate views to present, let’s hear them! Argumentum ad hominem is amusing for a moment but becomes boring very quickly, but hearing contrasting and well-presented views on the issues is sheer delight.
The Marmot
We agree that this Roh administration has handled the troop dipatch terribly and Roh has shown no graditude toward the US or any other country that helped SK during the war.
Where we don’t agree is the political price issue. I don’t agree that Roh has paid very much politically as I believe most of the people and parliment recognizes sending the SK troops is in SK’s best interest. And even if Roh did lose some political support, I don’t think it’s anywhere near as much as he’s gained through his pro-NK/anti-US position.
I understand what you mean when you say it would have been nice if Bush mentioned SK in his speech, but given the situation, to call the (intentional or not) ommission “inexcusable”? I guess that’s something else we don’t agree on.
Hi, nulji maripkan, nice to make your acquaintance. While I apologize for the typo, and my fallibility in two languages, ??¼?¡±??¼??? is an essential concept that I often have to explain, rather than a gratuitous use of ??œ?¸€. If you speak both languages, you will understand that there are some terms and concepts that do not precisely translate and in such cases, it is better to explain them from the perspective of the culture from which they arise. Korean Americans and others who are not intimate with Korean culture often comment that Koreans end to be racists. But this is not strictly precise. Racism doesn’t really translate here. Korea does not have the depth of experience in interacting with people of other races, and has not faced and overcome the challenges that people of the US have.
To understand how we feel about ??¼?¡±, you have to penetrate deeply into our psychology, history, sociology, economics and so forth. To discuss intercultural issues requires sensitivity to both sides of the fence. This is what I promote, because I believe it is important for people to open up their minds to one another.
Criticism is always tricky in this context. Oranckay and Marmot get it right a great deal of the time and it is likely that they have lived in Korean society nearly as long as I have. I credit their perspective because it recieves light from both sides of the fence.
There are also people who enter a culture on the outskirts, having minimal contact or contact for a brief period of time, who misconstrue what they see because they filter it throught their cultural prejudices. But these people may also have valid perspectives to offer at times, and also deserve a voice.
Finally, there are those people who are so mired in a single perspective that they will spend their lives in denial and self-deceit. These people are victimized by the media and the other mechanisms of cultural brainwashing. It is these people, the Marmot, Oranckay and Koreans like myself criticize. If it does not describe you, then there is no need to feel threatened.
Other than dismantling the yangban system, imposing universal education, ending slavery and building railroads, what have the Japanese ever done for us?
Oops, sorry, another off-topic message.
Other than dismantling the yangban system, imposing universal education, ending slavery and building railroads, what have the Japanese ever done for us?
Or we talking about Korea or Reconstruction?
Sorry, just being goofy.
Arguments that rely on logical fallacies such as argumentum ad hominem, genetic fallacy and straw man arguments… or ..I don?€™t even dignify smallminded comments about nationality or race with a response, especially when, as in this case, it has no bearing on the issue and is simply a logically fallacious genetic fallacy argument. Mizar5 and penetrating this and penetrating that, blahblahblahyadayadayada…breathless & endless.
WOW, typing over-long, unentertaining posts in a language style ought to sound academic and intellectual is BORING, brother.
Now, everybody has received your message. You’re an enlightened Korean, Koran-American, long-time US expat in Korea or whatever in the same league of Oranckay and Marmot (congratulations for your self-promotion!). I’m really an ignorant guy with an ungrateful inferiority complex towards whomever and your repetition of the same commet content reminds me of Cato, the Elder. In contrast to you, he was really successful with his superb rethoric and convinced his audience - if you want to influence the Koreans to change, than you should use a litta bit more intellectual modesty and better fitting rethoric techniques.
Si tacuisses, philosophus fuisses - mansisses.
Yeah, I know, you’ll surely reply with two or three multi-pages long comments about my fallacies or fallacious arguments or trying to penetrate my Korean central nerve system…
Antti-Leppanen,
I read and have reread the verbatim conversation in the Ohmynews article. Now I suggest you reread what I wrote because I did claim that Profession Lee said that “Korean women were licensed prostitutes.” I wrote, “He suggested….” See if you can find where he suggested it in the conversation below:
Song Yong-gil: ?€œI have something to point out. It is a mistake to equate the ?€œcomfort women?€? issue with the current issue with the US bases. The Japanese right continue to claim that the ?€œcomfort women?€? were a kind of licensed prostitute who voluntarily participated as a means to make money, not forcibly mobilized by the governor-general and government authorities. This is how such sophistry is spreading. Evidential data show that the ?€œcomfort women were forcibly dragged off under the authority of the provincial-governor of Korea and made into kinds of sex slaves. That is fundamentally different (from that of the US military).?€?
Lee Yeong-hun: Who made such a claim? Is that a claim made by some scholar? You said that it was clear that the governor-general of Korea forcibly mobilized them?€?.
Song Yong-gil: You do not know about such data existing?
Lee Yeong-hun: You are saying that without having read the ?€œComfort Women Report.?€?
Song Yeong-gil: If the governor-general did not force them, then did they go voluntarily?
Lee Yeong-hun: I approve of the expression, but stating it as fact ?€?. (I am not sure of this translation.)
Song Yeong-gil: So are you making the same claim as Japan?
Lee Yeong-hun: Are you making your judgment based on good and evil?
Son Seok-heui: This is not a question of good and evil; it is a question relating to historical facts.
Lee Yeong-hun: Why are you saying I am like Japan?
Son Seok-heui: Let?€™s forget about that and move on. Professor Lee, how do you see the problem with the ?€œcomfort women?€??
Besides the quote you mentioned, which I have translated above with Professor Lee’s reply and more dialog, there is also the following conversation:
Lee Yeong-hun: In Japan, there are 2000 documents related to the comfort women. I respect such Japanese scholars. Korean scholars have also done much work, but they rely a great deal on those documents in Japan. If you look at those documents, they show that not one criminal act was committed based on authority alone. There were many civilians involved. And those civilians were the so-called, pimps, the Korean prostitutes, and the Korean business owners who managed the Korean women. There is that kind of list.
Son Seok-heui: There is that kind of list in the Japanese documents?
Lee Yeong-hun: Yes. All the businesses in the Shanghai area of China are on it. And there are few countries in the world where women are put in showroom windows in the center of the capital and buy and sell sex. When dealing with the problem of pro-Japanese, we can achieve historical cleansing, in the true sense of the word, if we also reflect on ourselves.
Son Seok-hui: Aren?€™t you going too far by linking the ?€œcomfort women?€? problem with the sex trade?
Lee Yeong-hun: You are saying that the ?€œcomfort women?€? problem and the comfort women supplied to the the US military after liberation and during the Korean War are not at all related. If that is your view, then it is a real pity.
No Hoi-chan: So Japan has no responsibility?
Lee Yeong-hun: She is responsible for managing sex slaves. Now given that, are you saying that we should not deal with the problem of the civilians (involved)?
As for the Chosun Ilbo article, I think Professor Lee is trying to backpedal, somewhat, after the “Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan” threatened to go the Seoul National University president and demand that Professor Lee be fired.
When it comes to issues dealing with colonial Japan, academic freedom seems to still be a developing concept.
(If there is a problem with any of my above translation, it is done in error, not intentionally.)
I’ll probably post on this tonight (along with my “Lincoln is a war criminal” post), so you might wish to comment on this issue then. For now, I’d appreciate it if the thread remained somewhat germane to the topic.
As marmot mentioned in post 19, I can’t believe something this innocuous has generated so much heated discourse. To throw in my 2 pence, I don’t think Bush was generally trying to insult Korea. Yes his speeches are carefully worded and engineered for political effect, but that doesn’t mean that insulting South Korea was the purpose. I tend to believe that the message was tailoured for domestic consumption and generally speaking, I have to say that South Korea is not at all associated with the war in iraq in the minds of most American voters. Britain and Poland were mentioned, naturally, because they are European and the highlighting of those two are meant to engender the perception that Europe stands with the U.S.
When American voters think of Korea, they don’t think of South Korea or South Korean troop deployments to Iraq (Most americans probably aren’t even aware of this). They think of the danger posed by the North.
p.s. On the other hand, the thought just occured to me that the ommission of South Korea was on purpose, though for another reason than insult. Perhaps Bush simply does not want attention focused to the Korean peninsula, where suffice it to say, his foreign policy has not been as direct and has not acheived any signficant breakthroughs yet.
” Polls have showed that 72 percent of Koreans were against the war of terror and 80 percent were against the war in Iraq. At the very best, Korea is a reluctant ally.”
Hmm… I wonder what the public polls on the Iraq war are like for other closer allies.
“Koreans Upset With Bush Speech”
A short blurb in the Chosun Ilbo that notices this makes this into Koreans upset with bush speech?
I think this is Bush’s way of telling Korea, go to hell who needs you. The problem with this is that this isn’t nothing new. The relationship between the US and the rest of the world (particularly with “old Europe”, not just Korea is going to the birds under this administeration. George Bush is deeply unpopular outside of the United States and Korea is just a small component of the thought that is prevailing in the rest of the globe.
Martin should buck pressure to cozy up to Bush
DAVID CRANE
LONDON?€”Watching the Republican convention from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean was a chastening experience. It revealed just how much the Bush administration is loathed in this part of the world.
Even the conservative Financial Times this week editorialized that while the prime time speakers at the convention were, for the most part, chosen to present a moderate view of the Bush administration, they were really “cloaking one of the most conservative presidencies of modern times in the garb of moderation.”
Labelling this Republican appearance of moderation “misleading,” the Financial Times underscored the “reality” of George W. Bush’s first term, “marked by restrictions on stem cell research (a totem of the religious right), the president’s support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a series of tax cuts skewed towards the rich that have contributed to a massive federal deficit in the short term and worsened America’s fiscal policy down the line.”
An editorial in one of Britain’s most moderate newspapers, The Independent, asks: “Will American voters fall for the confidence tricks of President Bush a second time?” It argues that “the amiable candidate touting `compassionate conservatism’ has emerged as the most divisive president of modern times,” adding that “today, America’s standing in the world is at its lowest ebb in a generation.”
Yet there remains at least a 50 per cent chance that Bush will win a second term.
This raises difficult questions for much of the rest of the world, faced with a prospect of four more years of wilful unilateralism; contempt for alliances and diplomacy; hostility toward the United Nations and other multilateral institutions; and an arrogant belief that the United States can do whatever it wants.
As the Republican convention showed, the Bush administration is relying heavily on military power to pursue its aims. It is using third-party groups to blemish Democratic candidate John Kerry’s courageous war record, ignoring the irony that none of the neoconservative hawks ?€” Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle or Karl Rove ?€” has ever spent even one second in combat.
There’s no doubt that the United States is a military superpower, but even that has limits. Despite military victory in Iraq ?€” and Iraq was attacked because it was so weak and had huge oil reserves, not because it had weapons of mass destruction ?€” the United States lacks the military manpower to effectively occupy and police Iraq. In large parts of Iraq, it doesn’t even make the effort.
But there is a bigger constraint emerging for the United States. The growing level of U.S. foreign debt, and its need for continued access to foreign savings, matched by huge increases projected for the next decade in the size of its public debt, means the United States cannot ignore the rest of the world.
At some point in time, the United States will have to face up to its deficits and debt. Already, the occupation of Iraq is testing its fiscal capacity.
How Canada would deal with a second-term Bush administration will take some careful thinking. While he was careless at times in his approach, former prime minister Jean Chr??tien took the right position by maintaining a businesslike but independent relationship while not becoming too close.
The Martin government should exercise similar caution, though it appears almost certain Canada will support ballistic missile defence ?€” even if it makes little sense ?€” in order to mollify a Bush administration and support the pretence that this gives us “a voice” in Washington.
There will be intense pressure from business elites, their think-tanks and the Conservative Party opposition to cozy up to the neoconservative hawks of a Bush White House even further, just as these groups pushed for Canadian participation in the invasion of Iraq.
Prime Minister Paul Martin should resist such pressure. The relationship with the United States should be businesslike and professional. But Canada’s long-term interest lies in a multilateral world with healthy multilateral institutions, not toadying to the right wing of the Republican Party.
Should the Bush administration win a second term, it will be more important than ever that Canada work with its allies in other parts of the world to sustain multilateral institutions, despite the contempt that the Bush administration appears to hold for them. In the long run, this is the only way to build a safe, sustainable and prosperous world.
Canada is a joke, with no foreign policy to speak of unless you count anti-Americanism. Please refer to the following:
“SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A SMALL TWIG”
http://www.theaustralian.news......83,00.html
Correct link, re: Canada is a joke:
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=23
Kimbob, “Hmm?€? I wonder what the public polls on the Iraq war are like for other closer allies.”
Back in March 2003, the public in only four countries supported the invasion and liberation of Iraq:
1. USA
2. UK
3. Australia
4. Kuwait
Then in March 2004, another country was added to this list - Iraq!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
Iraqis themselves favored U.S. military action and its own liberation, but countries like Canada, Korea, and the Netherlands said they couldn’t have their liberation. I’m still trying to figure out a logical reason for this. This makes no sense to me. Imagine how Koreans would feel if the Dutch disapproved of their liberation from Japan.
John, “the Financial Times underscored the ?€œreality?€? of George W. Bush?€™s first term”
America’s unemployment is 4.5% and its GDP has grown 4.5% in the past year. France’s unemployment is 9.5% and its GDP has grown 1.5% in the past year. What does the Financial Times say about France? Or do Europeans just automatically bash America without looking at data?
John, “Yet there remains at least a 50 per cent chance that Bush will win a second term.”
More like an 80% chance for a Bush victory. Time and Newsweek polls both show Bush with a 52% to 41% advantage after the RNC. This election is following the exact trends of the Clinton-Dole race in 1996.
John, “multiple institutions…this is the only way to build a safe, sustainable and prosperous world.”
Americans, Australians, and the Brits wanted to end the Iraqi holocaust. Canadians and Europeans wanted it to continue. Iraq and Afghanistan no longer have brutal dictators who sponsor terrorism. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan now have sufferage and freedom of speech. Rape is no longer legal in these countries. Women in Iraq and Afghanistan can now receive education and health care. 70% of Iraqis say their lives are better now than under Saddam. This looks like a more safe and prosperous world to me. Fortunately, a majority of Americans see it this way too.
Ahh, King Chickenhawk speaks again. Paul, at least 10,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US invasion. That is hardly “liberation.”
I might add, Paul, your link is from March. Things have changed a lot since then. America cannot ever “win” in Iraq.
kpig, “at least 10,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US invasion.”
War is not pretty. There is collateral damage. Saddam killed 300,000 of his own people. Your non-combat option would have resulted in far more bloodshed.
Kimchi, while I agree with most of what Paul Webb says, he is not me.
Unless you’re being fickle with the title you bestowed upon me? Remember only one at a time can be the “King”.
Mizar5 -
Please tell me you were either intoxicated or just trying to be funny in that last comment of yours, because I find it amusing how hopelessly lost you are in your own long-winded and self-possessed logic and seem to have completely missed the whole point of my response to you. Do I need to spell them out to you or can you go back and read my comment again to see for yourself?
Here, let’s try this just one more time, shall we?
I will conclude for thanking you for your most objective statement. You do show promise and I hope you will continue in this vein: “Congratulations on being a Korean who can ?€?think for myself and subject my own notions to the scrutiny of objective logic and intellectual rigor rather than follow the lemmings of group prejudice.?€™ Perhaps you need to keep better company to realize that you?€™re not such a special and unique Korean as you think you are.”
Thank you. I believe we are all special and unique, and we are all attempting to keep better company. But my assertions here are strictly reflections on the news and have no bearing on personal life. You may be aware that politics is not often discussed in polite Korean society, and I like and enjoy people so much that I get along with all kinds of people regardless of their conceptual boundaries. When it comes to interpersonal affairs, idiology and abstractions just don?€™t matter - humanity does.
WTF? I mean, LOL, man, I am speechless. ????†Œ????°€ ?????´ ???????????¤. The whole point of my citing your “I can’t be Korean because I think for myself” comment was to give an example of your condescending and borderline-racist attitude and your self-contradicting criticism on Koreans for being “lemmings of group prejudice” when you yourself express such strong prejudice against Koreans. But reading comprehension issues aside, your ability to drift into your own delusional maze of thought and state so confidently and believe so firmly in your “reasoning” is quite impressive.
Paul Webb-
Iraqis themselves favored U.S. military action and its own liberation
That’s a pretty strong statement there, and I don’t know how you formed this conclusion. The full survey PDF report states that 41.2% of Iraqis think that the invasion humiliated Iraq, while 41.8% think it liberated Iraq. 41.8% is not a majority, but what is more important is the interpretation of the words. “Favoring the liberation of Iraq” cannot be equated with “favoring U.S. military action.” Just because somebody thinks an invasion liberated Iraq, it doesn’t necessarily mean he or she supports that invasion. Nobody doubted for a moment that Saddam was a monstrous dictator who needed to be deposed. Rather, it was the means of deposing him that was in question. Besides, whether Iraq has been truly “liberated” or not cannot be settled in the short term. Remember that many (or most) cases of U.S. intervention in other countries in the past resulted in the eventual mutation of U.S.-established governments into other tyrannical regimes.
Oh yes, it’s treasonous and it’s Anti-American if you don’t swallow every line sink and hook what the American neo-cons tell you. The United States is a very angry nation right now. I think what made the US so great, is dissipating with their gradual and silent decrease of personal liberties. We can no longer look up and ask them lead the world. I just hope the American people can see this through and do something about it with their votes before it’s too late. But I’m not holding my breath. Four more years of Bush rule will be a disaster for the world.
All I can say is join the club, Korea. Canada, France, and Germany have also fallen out of favour with Washington. You know, it’s funny because back almost a year ago, similiar feelings of disappointment, apprehension, shock, and annoyance gripped Canada when then Prime Minister Jean Cretien was not invited to George’s ranch with other leaders whom George considered close allies. That was after Canada decided Iraq war was a bad ideal so decided not to send troops, and after one of our politicians called George, a “moron”. Like George said, “if you aren’t with us, you are against us”. In the world of the neocons, everything is black and white.
wooj, “The full survey PDF report states that 41.2% of Iraqis think that the invasion humiliated Iraq, while 41.8% think it liberated Iraq.”
The full PDF survey is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shar.....survey.pdf
48.2% of Iraqi thought that the U.S.-led coalition to invade Iraq was right, and 39.1% thought is was wrong. 71.0% of Iraqis think they’ll be better off in a new Iraq without Saddam. Don’t you think these poll results are amazing for an Arab country? For 15 years, Saddam’s school textbooks and propaganda said America was the “Great Satan.” The Koran says infidels should be killed, and more Iraqis think they are better off after an invasion by infidels. That is extraordinary. It shows that Iraqis are ready to become a modern democratic nation. Whereas 90% of Spaniards wanted Iraqis to continue living in a holocaust.
wooj, “Nobody doubted for a moment that Saddam was a monstrous dictator who needed to be deposed. Rather, it was the means of deposing him that was in question.”
And what was your plan to dispose Saddam? The U.S. was technically still at war with Saddam due to his failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions in regard to WMDs. Sanctions were devastating on the Iraqi people, but Saddam skimmed from the UN’s oil-for-food program and used oil revenues to build palaces and fund terrorists. The U.S. had to maintain a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds. How much longer were we supposed to do that? Saddam had 12 years to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and he never did. Did you want to give Saddam 12 more years to hold 27 million people a hostage to terror?
wooj, “Besides, whether Iraq has been truly ?€œliberated?€? or not cannot be settled in the short term.”
What are you talking about? They are liberated right now. Iraqis for the first time have freedom of speech and freedom of press. They can now criticize their government without having their tounges chopped off. Every day a new Iraqi blog pops up. Schoolgirls can now walk the campus without having to fear being raped by Saddam’s goons. In January, Iraqis will vote! You need to diversify your news sources, and watch something else besides “Fahrenheit 9/11.” PBS, FOX, and BBC are good sources.
“WTF? I mean, LOL, man, I am speechless. ????†Œ????°€ ?????´ ???????????¤. The whole point of my citing your ?€œI can?€™t be Korean because I think for myself?€? comment was to give an example of your condescending and borderline-racist attitude and your self-contradicting criticism on Koreans for being ?€œlemmings of group prejudice?€? when you yourself express such strong prejudice against Koreans. But reading comprehension issues aside, your ability to drift into your own delusional maze of thought and state so confidently and believe so firmly in your ?€œreasoning?€? is quite impressive.”
I beg your pardon for chosing not to respond to unsubstantiated personal insults and race baiting. When you raise a single substantiated argument, I will be pleased to respond.
John, “That was after Canada decided Iraq war was a bad ideal so decided not to send troops”
John, can we make a deal with you? You get Massachusettes, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and New York. We get B.C., Yukon, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The U.S. gets more land and the People’s Republic of Canada gets more people. Sounds fair, right? And U.S. Republicans won’t be denied the weapons they need to defend the free world and liberate the Middle East.
I find the neo-con rhetoric laughable. Even more interesting is the paralell of said rhetoric to that during the Vietnam war, yet another fiasco that we Canadians declined to participate in. History showed us to be correct in that war and will show us correct when the USA finally gets out of the Iraq debacle.
kimchipig, what worries me is your comment:
“when the USA finally gets out of the Iraq debacle”.
And according to Sen. John McCain, the US will be there for 10 to 20 years. At the rate of $250 billion every year spent on Iraq, the US foreign debt is now up to $550 billion per year. Surely, even the mighty US economy can’t last forever without dire consequences. And those consequences worry me deeply. Because inevitably, we will also be negatively affected. You are right, history will prove us right, but at what cost?
kpig, “Even more interesting is the paralell of said rhetoric to that during the Vietnam war”
In Vietnam, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. After Tet, the VC was destroyed, and only the NVA remained. When America completed its troop withdrawal in March 1973, Vietamization was complete and South Vietnam was secure. A Korean War-type armistice was in the works at Paris. Then in June 1973, the Democrat Congress passed the veto-proof Case-Church Admendment (thanks to testimony like John Kerry’s!) that forbade any military involvement in Southeast Asia. Only after that did the NVA make progress against the SVA, because the Soviets continued to arm the NVA and we failed to arm the SVA. Hell, U.S. air support alone would have kept the NVA in their box.
As a result, 100,000 South Vietnamese were executed without trial, one million marched off to the Commie gulags, two million boat people tried to escape, and 3.5 million were later killed in Cambodia. The Case-Church Amendment was America’s greatest crime in the Cold War. Sorry to all the South Vietnamese and Cambodians out there. What we did was a disgrace.
John, “And according to Sen. John McCain, the US will be there for 10 to 20 years.”
McCain was smoking weed when he said that. First, the Iraqis won’t tolerate foreign troops on their soil for that long. Second, it’s completely unnecessary to stay that long. The ING will be sufficiently trained to police their streets in six months. Expect the drawdown of the MNF to begin after the January elections next year.
John, “At the rate of $250 billion every year