Frank talk from Rep. Hyde (HT to Lost Nomad):
[A]sked whether he thought the Roh administration was capitalizing on anti-U.S. sentiment, the lawmaker warned that in the long term, feeding on anti-U.S. sentiment could backfire. “Some politicians find anti-Americanism profitable for them until they get into real trouble, then they come to us for money or military assistance,” Mr. Hyde said. “They always can count on the United States to run in and do what they have to do and then go home. It’s not fair. It isn’t. But the U.S. looks at these things not from a point of view of wounded feelings but what course of action will keep the peace and countries intact and stable.”
Of course, we don’t always go home after we do what we have to do, but that’s besides the point. As a commenter to this blog pointed out long ago, it goes without saying that the Korea-U.S. relationship is unequal—we give and they take.
72 Comments
Robert, is an emotional reaction from the US what is needed to improve relations between the US and Korea? I think Koreans could understand that.
Nah, hope is lost, just leave. Let ‘em have what they want. Just don’t come crawling back to us asking for help once they’re ‘reunified’ by military force.
Michael Green, until very recently a senior official in Bush’s NSA, spoke recently in Washington about the status of the US-ROK alliance. While I agree with him, some of you may be surprised with what he had to say.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/....._green.pdf
A correction regarding the previous comment: Green was in the NSC, not NSA. My apologies.
His profile: http://www.whitehouse.gov/gove.....n-bio.html
That was quite interesting Mingi. Thanks for the link. Mr. Green’s final recommendation is a good one, I think. Anything that involves rational thought is welcomed here.
Very interesting read, indeed. Unfortunately, as long as Roh is in office, rational thought seems too much to hope for.
Someone has to provide adult supervision in this neighborhood.
SFCC soon. See you there?
interesting read indeed, tks Mingi.
Shakuhachi - I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that copies of kenkanryu are available down under…they’re so damned popular at home
Going back to Hyde’s comments, I don’t think stating that the alliance is “not fair” is an “emotional reaction,” but a statement of fact. How that fact is reacted to is where emotionalism can come into play, i.e., ‘they hate us so we should leave.’
The US should have plenty of leverage in terms of the alliance. If it’s so unfair, the US should just say, enough’s enough, we’re outta here, unless you guys make some serious changes. Enough of blaming us for everything, we want this, this and this. And if South Koreans are unwilling to give support to US efforts, maybe it is time to walk.
Hi Marmoth, this is the first time I write a comment here so you don´t know me, anyway I have watched your blog for a couples of weeks and I never wanted to intrude because I just wanted to be a spectator, not participator, but today I felt like I had to leave you a message because I just can not agree with your points of view on korean issues, since for me lacks partiality in your comments.
As I said, I have been watching your comments for weeks and to me your comments were always tendentious, pushing always to the amerinca side, being unable to understand the korean point of view, although you live in Korea and have contact with korean people.
You may have heard this before from other non-american people but why is always america right and others wrong? why you are always intellingent and others dumbs? why is America always the “good guy” and the others “bad guys”, are americans the only people in the world interested in world peace, fight the poverty, defend the needed, the children, the women and the old people?
I know that I’m being common, repeating what non-american pleople keep shouting all over the world, but if you are really a smart guy and lead your opinion only by the reason, don´t you think that “probably” thay may have “at last” some reason? An important lesson I have learn in my life is that if more than one or two guys tell me the same thing over and over, thay may have at last some reason, and it’s worthy paying attention to what they say.
I’ll stop here because I’m sure you know the rest of the speech, but please, do not misunderstand me, I’m not trying to fight or contend with you, but is that I’m just so frustrated with your attitude, your way of thinking that I felt I neede to express my myself.
I’m happy that non-korean people are so much interested in korea, and I would like to encourage you and others to keep with the good job, but please, try to be more objective and realistic in your comments, unless you are frankly interested in doing only pro-american comments. If so, please forgive me and forget my comments since it is not my intention to “make your mind” or “fight” against america.
Last question: Do you believe that someone can be only good all the time, without self interest? preoccupied only with the others?
(small introduction on myself: Korean living in Brazil since 1982, born in 1970, christian, lawyer and love mountain bike)
I’ve never thought that The Marmot came across as exclusively pro-American. However, in this case he’s totally right. The US pours money and troops into the Korean peninsula and really gets nothing in return. It’s nice having troops in such a strategic location, but it may not be worth it any more and those troops and assets could be better used somewhere else. This isn’t about “good” or “bad.” This is about real-world politics and cost-benefit analysis.
Maybe you can give us some ideas of how the US-Korea relationship benefits both parties?
“…pushing always to the amerinca side, being unable to understand the korean point of view…”
Many commenters here fully understand various Korean points of view, and then go on point out where they are flawed. Disagreeing is not the same as not understanding.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone here saying that the U.S. is “always” right, but I’ll be the first to chime in that we’re mostly right. It stems from the founding principles and has been the key, along with plentiful resources, to our success. It comes down to a combination of pragmatism (what works), and the way things should be (what is right). As always, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions to the rule.
So we may not have the best educational system (K-12 anyway), but still come out on top (economy, standards of living). Immigrants voting with feet seem to agree, which also happens to be another contributing factor to the nation’s greatness – immigrants.
On the question of “being good all the time,” please note that many times an action that benefits the U.S. is mutually beneficial to other nations, but even when it is not, the U.S. often retains such policies.
I couldn’t find it in comments, but a commenter using the handle ‘Charles Kim’ wrote a good bit on how the USFK work with the ROK in financial matters. Clearly the ROK is getting a sweet deal and pays far less (percentage wise) than Japan. Koreans should stop complaining.
BFD:
The U.S. gets a stable NE Asia out of the deal, which save both blood and dollars in the long run. That’s the same thing South Korea (and others) get, but with even greater potential savings.
Dr Yu, I am also an overseas Korean residing in the United States who pretty much shares your viewpoint.
My understanding is that Americans, both on a national level down to the individual, tend to share a common belief that American society, institutions (such as democracy, freedom, etc), and way of life represents the pinnacle of civilization. American values and principles are held to be “universal” and applicable to all peoples, regardless of their widely varying cultures and historical backgrounds. The “American Standard”, if you will, is the yardstick by which Koreans are measured and inevitably leads to the overly moralistic and judgmental conclusions that you see often. It is an overly simplistic worldview, as epimotomized by our current Administration’s tendency to see things in terms of black and white, or “you are with us or against us”, as if we live in some kind of a binary world.
As the rest of the world knows, things are a bit more complicated than that, but since America always insists on involving herself in practically everyone’s affairs around the world, inevitably it leads to disagreement or conflict.
If the “Mandate of Heaven” or the “Divine Right of Kings” was the rationale used by pre-modern powers to justify and maintain their authority, “Superior Morality and Reason” is the equivalent used by modern America to similarly justify their power and foreign policies. But the rest of the world understands it as “Might makes Right”.
How do you say “straw man argument” in Portuguese?
Dr. Yu, you ask some interesting questions, but to be fair to “the Marmot,” he himself seems to be fairly evenhanded in his observations…although he can sometimes be a bit cheeky. Many of the commenters—from all points of view, on all sides of the discussion—are usually much more cynical than the Marmot himself! Anyhow, although many commenters are critical of the strained relationship between South Korea and the US right now, most of them do it because they care about the relationship and would like to see it improve, for the sake of both countries’ well-being.
Also—with all due respect—since this website almost never strays away from topics directly pertaining to Korea, it seems that you may be reading too much into the Marmot’s or other commenters’ points of view on other issues that are beyond the scope of this blog’s subject area.
Well, it’s a blog. It’s not supposed to be impartial. But your welcome to express your disagreement. Many do.
The “Korean point of view,” eh? What point of view would that be? Last time I checked, Korea was a country of 45 million people with a diversity of views regarding most subjects, including North Korea and the alliance with the United States. It is a free country, after all.
I never said they were.
OK, if you say so.
Well, I hope you feel better now. Best not to keep things bottled up inside.
Different posts have different objectives—some are more objective than others. But, as I pointed out, this is a blog, and therefore you should not expect objectivity. Heck, the Korean newspapers on all sides of the ideological spectrum are hardly objective, and they, it could be argued, have much more of a responsibility to be “objective” than a humble English-language blog.
I’m not sure what exactly that has to do with anything, but since you asked, no. And in foreign policy, self-interest is paramount. As I’ve said on more than one occasion, if either party of the Korea-U.S. alliance feels its interests would be better served through relationships and alliances other than those they currently enjoy, then they have a responsibility to forge those relationships.
Bluejives—Perhaps you’re right. But the only “standard” I use to judge American foreign policy decisions—or any nation’s foreign policy decision, for that matter—is whether they accord with that nation’s national interests. Period. Morality—superior or otherwise—doesn’t factor into the equation.
Actually, Bluejives, we don’t always insist in involving ourselves in practically everyone’s affairs—see the Sudan, Rwanda, East Timor, Congo, and our belated response to Bosnia. Like most countries, we usually involve ourselves in only those affairs in which we have a direct interest. Unfortunately, as a major power with defense commitments around the globe, those interests are a bit more spread out than those of, let’s say, Ghana.
Burning the midnight oil again, Robert? Do you ever sleep!?
Sorry, not to trivialize your reply….
Was playing Ghost Recon…
Was playing Ghost Recon…
One would never know this, based upon my opinions, which I dont always take so seriously, but I’m still a pretty big fan of Tom Clancy. The books, that is.
Hey all, I’m new here.
I have to correct a few “facts” about our home, albeit being slightly off-topic, in reponse to the perpetual dream-world comments a few posters above made without any supporting references.
Please have a look at our own reality:
http://www.informationclearing.....le8191.htm
I realize that no one here is saying that we’re the absolute standard of humanity - but even suggesting that we’re ‘mostly right’ is the biggest pile of egotistical crap I have ever heard. Best economy? Standards of living? You’ve got to be kidding. We’d all be back home enjoying the golden smog-free sun if everything was THAT great - why stay in a country that is economically inferior, with low living standards, with disgusting local customs and cuisines, and behaviour that is totally beyond reason and logic by our standards? You wouldn’t. In terms of security and personal well-being, I feel MUCH safer in Europe or Asia.
“We’re mostly right”? In reality, we’re almost always wrong. Abu Ghraib. Israel-Palestine conflict resolution vetoes. Selling arms to Israel, yet giving aid in cash to Lebanon (absolute genius, not). Selling arms in general - yet want to impose restrictions on other arms dealers (from stealing our business). Half of us STILL BELIEVE that Saddam had WMDS (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq.....72,00.html, and http://www.informationclearing.....e14396.htm). We have violated NUMEROUS global humanitarian laws. We are in violation of the Geneva Convention (oh, we’re in the process of trying to rewrite it to suit our current activities). What have we been “mostly right” about? Eating too many Happy-Meals from McDonalds , is bad? Our corporations are honest, hard-working, and law-abiding unlike those “foreign” companies outside the great US of A? “Mostly right” hmm… seriously, it would help me dearly to know when we were mostly right.
Back on topic regarding the US-ROK alliance, all I can say is if there were no benefits for us to maintain a military presence on their peninsula - we wouldn’t be there. We, the civilians, will never know enough to make a sweeping statement like:-
“The US pours money and troops into the Korean peninsula and really gets nothing in return. It’s nice having troops in such a strategic location, but it may not be worth it any more and those troops and assets could be better used somewhere else.”
If this is fact, please show me your sources of information so that I may better educate myself. I don’t really know much about Korea, but I remember reading that S. Korea has supported the US with it’s Iraq objectives by committing a decent amount of troop support. I don’t believe Iraq has ever threatened S. Korea or it’s civilians - are the lives of those S. Korean troops that insignificant? Such that you would resort to making the “really gets nothing in return” statement? I believe we’ve jeopardized a multitude of countries for their support in OUR war. The World Wars? The Vietnam War? The Cold War? The Korean War? I won’t get in to those but the key phrases are “Proxy War” and “Investment Opportunity”.
Military or civilian, we are guests in a host city. I consider myself to be extremely well traveled. The one major embarrassment I face when developing close relationships with multicultural people is the fact that once comfortable, they will almost always tell me that they do not like most of us. Why? Because as a guest we impose our nationalistic pride (yes, nationalistic - ‘patriotic’? Whatever you say. None of us are back home helping to fix the darn place). We always compare them to the great US of A and our American standards. “Hey, why the hell do the Chinese do that?” “Oh my god, how can they eat that crap - thats disgusting.” “Oh god, these people slurping their noodles is disgusting. Thank god we’re going home soon.”. Oh, it isn’t just Asia - Europeans aren’t particularly impressed by us either.
I really hope that all of us who have left our beloved country leave Asia and its citizens with a good impression of us. We have a lot to be proud of, but definitely not enough to start imposing our standards. We can learn a lot too - isn’t that why we’re out here in the first place?
Lastly to Robert - A friend introduced me to your blog for an expatriates view on S. Korea - and I thoroughly enjoy your thoughts. I hope my drunkeness hasn’t made me appear to be excessively incoherent.
Before I recede back to the void, I would like say that with my limited knowledge of Roh’s foreign policies and political etiquette - Our own president is hardly on par. Nor is he a shining scholar of foreign diplomatic missions and policies.
In fact, the things our president can do that the others can’t is:
1) Make up words.
2) Make up stories for an agenda.
3) Even with billions of our tax dollars in defense - he almost goes down on pretzels.
4) Have long holidays.
Enjoy.
Dr. Yu, Marmot tries to be neutral. However, one time he was called a “house nigger” by redneck Americans for stating somewhat pro-Korean side. It got to him.
About Americans’ giving and Koreans’ taking…Common, you mean Koreans are smart and Americans are dum-dums. I as an American think differently. Americans have been and are way ahead of Koreans.
It has been advantageous for the US troops to be in Korea, to train and to practice fights in Asian theater. However, since 9/11, priorities have switched to the middle east. Korea, as a training ground for the US soldiers, is not as important to America as it has been before.
Therefore, the US has reduced troop strength in Korea accordingly. And, it would do the same continuously, unless next Korean president request it to be otherwise. And, only if he asks it very, very nicely (with money and better treatment).
“Koreans are taking advantage of us” is such a stupid statement. International politics do not work like that. There is constant give-and-take going on between countries.
No country is an angel or a devil - NK is the only exception.
If you still insist on “Koreans are taking from us”, then you have to blame all past presidents and congressmen for allowing that to happen.
No Korean stole money from the US. The US “gave” to them, according to your assessment. Then, you have to blame American politicians for allocating the money.
You are blaming the US government and you are an anti-government wacko.
I believe the US government have acted and am acting responsibly about Korea. The mutual relationship has been profitable for both parties and good relationship should be strengthened in the future by Koreans buying more American beefs and agricultural products.
It is always give-and-take. If one party wrongly assumes the other is taking more from the relationship as it happens frequently in marriage, he/she(more often she) can wreck a good thing - a good thing that will never come back.
korea and english being the common denominator, its only natural to attract the people it does.. it includes mostly exp’s and mostly excludes all others. in a way.. it’s a special club.
and what robert-san said, this site is a “blog”
not your official “news” site nor your official “poll” site.
though robert-sans personal views may or may not be pro or anti korean in nature or motive..it’s not what he does. in a way i see robert-san as the great set up man… he sets’em up so many vistors to his site can knock’em down.. chutzpah
and no one is an “expert” in all areas. so let’s not make a mountain out of a mole hill..unless.. you want to.
why do i keep seeing thonged bikinis……..?
“The “Korean point of view,” eh? What point of view would that be? Last time I checked, Korea was a country of 45 million people with a diversity of views regarding most subjects, including North Korea and the alliance with the United States.”
Hear hear. Just as an example, today’s Chosun cites demands for impeachment of the president, referendum on war time command change, and even military coup de ta to stop the ‘commie sympathizers’ in the government from ruining the ROK-US alliance.
Roh’s popularity at the polls has sunk down to 20% and further sinking. Reading all the Korean newspapers, you can get the sense that many Koreans are fed up with the sunshine policy.
There is no such thing as a “Korean viewpoint”. There are only opinions.
It isn’t just expats either…there are a fair number of Korean-Americans and Korean-Canadians among the regular commenters if I’m not mistaken, so the collection of users is not as narrow as it might at first appear. On top of which, ethnicity and politics have very little to do with each other, since there’s a wide range of points of view within each demographic segment of the “Marmot colony,” as it were.
That was in reply to ghola.
The alliance isn’t fair when one side decides it’s worth it to end it and that hasn’t been done yet so it’s fair. Is there another way of looking at it.
For Jaso and Dr. Yu, debate hinges on agreeing on a certain set of facts and based on the set of “facts” you have brought to the table there isn’t any room for debate. You can make statements but there will never be an opportunity to discuss ideas with people if you insist on fanciful facts. Broaching the issues we face in the world is tough enough but to have to do it in the face of people who devise a different set of facts which we can only march past stoically is exceptionally troubling. To do so in the name of objectivity makes me all the more skeptical that those who claim a heritage of traditional american values can ever give credence to criticisms by those of anti-american values. Calls for cultural relativism are red herrings.
For the rest of you out there who are interested in facts and can discuss things objectively here’s a reminder. The United States government was founded on the cornerstone belief that human nature is utterly selfish, including every single human being and certainly every government official. We protect ourselves by balancing out that selfishness. That’s the same principle behind our checks-and-balance system, the emphasis on debate in the Senate, the founding fathers’ warnings against binding alliances, and Washington’s far-reaching decision to not accept a 3rd presidential term. It is also reflected in the bi-cameral congress based on both state soveignty and proportional representation. It’s also the reason behind the electoral college, a device used to protect large land owners from the “democratic” tyranny of urbanites. It represents our penchant for protecting minorities (attention nitwits!! don’t read ethnicities here - their philosophy referred to protecting political minorities). It’s also the driving force behind capitalism. It is the only government ever to be so constructed and it does make it an exceptional institution of which there is no equal in history. The greatest threat to the American government, American society, and American individuals is the age-old philosphy that human nature is basically good. The entire world outside of America is inundated with it and is slowly eroding our society. So forgive my being weary of anti-Americanism. For all of our faults and foibles, comparison to any other society paints that society in an ill light.
The greatest threat to the American government, American society, and American individuals is the age-old philosphy that human nature is basically good.
That’s a very interesting statement you made there, Mr Chips. You seem to be saying that American society and institutions rest upon a fundamental bedrock belief that human nature is basically not good (I dont want to use the word “evil”) and that this is what makes America great.
That’s a really fascinating thing you said there. Could elaborate more on that if you could?
Bluejives, I didn’t read the other comments so they may have addressed your “pinnacle of civilization” comment. The legal and gov’t systems of the U.S. are mainly based on a body of European jurisprudence that dates back to the Magna Carta. It’s a cumulative body of law, gov’t checks and balances, and maybe most importantly the legal recourse available to individuals that defines it. It’s a purposely flawed system, as it were, since the Constitution lays out the seperation of powers that keeps the president or the states from total control (the biggest issue in gov’t right now is Bush’s attempt to interpret the Constitution to favor the presidency).
So, if you think the democracy and legal system of the U.S. is based on“Superior Morality and Reason,”you’re not paying sufficient attention to the country you live in. The U.S. is defined by ongoing self-scrutiny and criticism. If you feel there is a better alternative to this we’d all like to hear about it.
As for the U.S.-Korea alliance, its “fairness” should at least be determined by Koreans in line with geopolitical realities, because the U.S. and China are not going away anytime soon. There is no way S. Korea can be a “balancer” while China threatens its sovereignity by propping up and possibly later taking over N. Korea, which should give Koreans pause for thought, although I don’t see it with the Roh administration’s naive comments.
And as for Mr. Chip’s “human nature is utterly selfish,” that is much different than “basically not good.” I think he’s saying that the U.S. systems of democracy and capitalism are predicated on the idea that the average person operates from a sort of rational self-interest that these systems codify, rather than say an authoritarian system that presumes that people are “state property” it can control.
Bluejives,
That ‘men’ are not basically ‘good’ is a fundamental Judeo-Christian understanding from Genesis. It’s called ‘original sin.’
That’s a really fascinating thing you said there. Could elaborate more on that if you could?
High school civics texts will help you there.
@Jaso
Ok, you’re a left-wing America hater. Understood.
Take a look at the global economy; while there are dozens of major players, which one, if removed, would devastative it? Which one draws flocks of immigrants and investment? Students? And why? Just thing about it, as difficult as that may be for you.
Yes, higher standards of living. Yes, yes, I see a few European countries ‘winning’ this distinction in various lists (hmm, who compiles those?), but living in a shoebox and paying 50 percent+ of my income in taxes for less freedoms is not my idea of a good living. Hint; socialism sucks, capitalism works.
First, there are many reasons to live overseas – want to see the world, enjoy something different some of the time, transferred, family reasons, etc. Second, unless you have warrants out and can’t face the time, you can always come back – it’s temporary. Third, you sound like an American who is from a coast and doesn’t know jack about the rest of the country. Take away both coasts (and Texas) and the crime rates for the rest of the country is comparable to Asia, lower than Europe. The U.S. is kind of, you know, large. You should see more of it. Fourth – and most important – you need to rein in the “we” and “us” and “our” generalizations; stereotypes don’t really help, and your arguments are lame enough to begin with. BTW, if you feel safer there, please stay - I have many heavy object and sharp pointy things laying around, a real hazard.
Only an imbecile would even attempt to use the illegal actions of a handful (Abu Ghraib) and portray them as some sort of American failing. If you don’t see that, I can’t help you; the ability to understand has to be there first.
On WMD in Iraq – munitions containing mustard gas and sarin (both offically defined as WMD by the UN - an authorityI know you will accept), albeit degraded, were in Iraq, thus Iraq technically did have WMD at the time we invaded. It was a very poorly worded question in the poll you refer to – bad question, wrong conclusions. Yes, fifty percent of Americans were wrong; those who answered ‘no.’
If you knew much about the Geneva Convention, you’d know that nation-less soldiers don’t have any protection – the U.S. is going above and beyond what is legally mandated. But you’re an America hater. I’ll bet you’re a Chomsky fan. If you were a Korea watcher, you’d be chomping at the bit to toss salad for Bruce Cumings.
Hope that in one hand and sh*t in the other – see which one fills up first. Good luck.
Wow. What an interesting thread. Lots of level headed discussion and no flames. I was surprised that Dr. Yu thought the Marmot was very pro-American. I think the good doctor might have mistaken other commentators for the Marmot as I’ve always considered Robert’s comments to be fairly even handed.
Dr. Yu and Bluejives do bring up some good points; namely that the current US administration does see the world in terms of black and white, us vs. them. This obtuse philosophy and failure to read the fine print has alienated many countries that have been our allies for decades. I don’t want to get into a deep discussion about President Bush; that is for a different thread. I just wanted to say that I totally understand Dr. Yu and Bluejives rational here. But they should also understand that the US, being the largest economy in the world does have vast interests around the globe and it would be foolish not to insure those interests.
As for the ROK-US alliance, it is true that both sides have benefited over the past 50 years. Both sides have also sacrificed to carry on the alliance. The US has shouldered the financial burden and the ROK has provided the physical location for numerous military bases. The results are a democratic and free South Korea and a stabilized East Asia. I don’t think any Americans really mind this type of relationship despite the fact that the US taxpayers are paying most of the bills. America has spent billions of dollars to ensure a free Korea. The thanks in return is a mostly closed economy and high tariffs for American products; but I digress.
However, what galls most Americans is the total lack of any gratitude from Korea for America’s sacrifices (including the thousands of US soldiers who died in the war) and the increasing amount of anti-Americanism that even seems to be encouraged by the current ROK administration. The ROK-US alliance really started going in the toilet back when there were countrywide anti-US protests and flag burnings over the two girls who were accidentally run over by the US military convoy. The Korean media went out of control to fan the flames of anti-US sentiment and to this day most Koreans, to my knowledge, are unaware that the US government apologized for the incident and compensated the families for their losses. It’s this type of one way reporting and spin doctoring where America is always the villain in Korea that has alienated not only the US government, but also many of the American expats living here who usually empathize with Korea. The ROK government sits idly by and lets this type of activity occur much to the dismay of the Americans who feel they should get a more honest treatment for the billions spent and American blood spilled here. President Roh used an anti-American/anti-Japanese platform to get elected and the ROK-US alliance has greatly deteriorated since he took office.
Getting back on topic now, nobody can deny that there haven’t been bumps along the way with the alliance but nobody, and certainly not the ROK government, can deny that Korea would not be the vibrant, free and powerful country it is today without America’s help and financial assistance. That might be a bitter pill for Korean pride, but it can’t be denied.
Like it or not, but the US has been like a big brother to South Korea. Like all brothers, they don’t always agree. But even the most caring big brother will eventually get pissed off when the little brother keeps running up and kicking him in the shins. How many kicks does big brother take before he kicks back? With the current US administration’s view of the world being an “us vs. them” mentality, little brother has maybe already kicked one too many times.
Maekchu, what isn’t “a bitter pill for Korean pride”? Why not take care of the business at hand, i.e. having a reckless military dictatorship next door, and drop the fantasy of “inter-Korean reconciliation,” which doesn’t exist? That doesn’t mean getting belligerent toward N.K., just stop capitulating in every way possible to KJI’s whims, demand reciprocity, and in general look after S.K.’s interests rather than the midget dictator’s.
Yes, S.K. is dependent on the U.S. for security, but it can’t be “independent” by just booting out U.S. troops while pretending that this does not exist: “about 600 short-range Scud missiles are based just 30 miles north of the paradoxically named demilitarized zone and aimed at all of South Korea’s strategic targets and industrial complexes. That’s on top of 11,200 artillery pieces, some apparently outfitted with chemical shells, ever ready to pulverize greater Seoul and its 20 million inhabitants.” (from Aidan Foster-Carter’s NYT piece)
Bluejives,
That ‘men’ are not basically ‘good’ is a fundamental Judeo-Christian understanding from Genesis. It’s called ‘original sin.’
That’s what I wanted to know, thanks.
Maekchu,
Man, you expect too much. It was good for the goose and the gander. The satisfaction was mutual.
Korea has bought billions and billions dollars worth of fighter planes from Boeing and McDonnel Douglas at overpriced rates. And, Korea will buy more military hardwares from the US, instead from France, Russia or China where things are cheaper.
If you keep saying “Korea owes to the US”, then you are saying the US presidents and congressmen are fools to give money away. They haven’t. And, your emotional approach to the problem is similar to Korean Commie’s view that America has taken more out of the relationship.
The satisfaction has been, is and will be mutual. So, stop saying “we are the big brother and the little brother owe us”.
I should clarify. That doesn’t mean that the Bible says humans only commit evil, but that all humans do commit evil. That is, humans can do good but cannot go through live without committing some sort of evil.
In this paradigm, good is an absolute (pureness) that if violated is null. Consider it like this, gold is pure or it isn’t; any impurity means the gold is not pure. Same principle.
This provides a brief explanation.
The point is don’t misinterpret and misuse this information. Perhaps a better summary is this; good people will inevitably sometimes do bad things.
you guys think Russia and China aren’t military threats? Why are their nukes still aimed at the US, and the US nukes still aimed at them, then? I think it’s pretty foolish to ignore the importance of having a US military base in South Korea.
Let’s revisit the Korean War, for instance. It may not have happenned at all, if the US didn’t withdraw from South Korea, saying that the US is ready to respond from Japan anytime.
That was the wrong strategy. If they stay put on the peninsula, all those men and women on both sides didn’t have to die, and Kim wouldn’t have had the balls to ram thru with the “advantage” of T-34’s. With US artillary and tanks on ground, there wouldn’t have been such a ridiculously easy advance or even the desire to start a war.
Any political person with foresight will not only leave bases in Germany and Japan, but also in South Korea. They’re already there, why start over if there’s a war for any reason down the line?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The definition of mustard gas and sarin as WMD is not debatable; per the Chemical Weapons Convention, mustard gas is recognized as a “schedule 1” (few, or no uses outside of chemical weapons) chemical weapon. In the case of Sarin, it’s “production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.”
Both are recognized WMD.
Accordingly, if one argues that Iraq did not have WMD in 2003 they would be in fact wrong.
However, if one tried to assert that Iraq had an active WMD program in 2003, they would be wrong according to the various official reports based on what we know now.
But those are two different things. As I said, flawed question.
religion to mankind is kinda like a security blanket is to a child. let’s hope one day humanity will outgrow the need for religion. rule of law and philosophy by man stands pretty good on its own. in my opinion that is…
its in the best interest for the two koreas to unite. but perhaps it wasn’t meant to be…perhaps korea is too big to be occupied by just one nation..
i have to agree with policy of engaement. as the money keeps rolling in… they won’t be able to resist. greed for money will be the eventual downfall in n.k as it was in u.s.s.r , red china, vietnam… holding your breathe for kji to die…. i don’t know.. i remember the days when people wished and prayed kis would die..
i would love to see in person how all of this will unfold. unfortunately, i don’t see anything resolving for the next couple of millenias. stalemate remains until the next ultimate weapon.
as far as the equation of who benefitted more by u.s military presence…if you have to ask that ($ wise).. either you are very stupid or very petty. or both.
And continuing to snub me. C’mon Robert, let’s be friends!
I’ll even let you win a game now and then.
Strange complaints from Mr. Yu and Jaso and others about the US. I haven’t seen much in the way of American chest-thumping on this site. Of course, many of the posters are tired of the anti-American bias of Roh’s government and of the various North Korean sympathizers, from the teacher’s union to ‘civic groups’, but I can’t say I’ve seen much that really says what posters think about America, in terms of rhetoric such as ‘home of the free and brave’, etc. I don’t remember anyone giving the political speech about, ‘we must do it for freedom and liberty’, though someone may have commented to this end occasionally.
I’m not American, so I don’t really think about the US in the same way that many Americans might. I just want Canada to remain a very good friend to the US, as it is definitely in Canada’s best interests to be close to such a powerful, effective, innovative and dynamic place (yeah, yeah, I know it’s got lots of flaws, too, which country doesn’t? Euros? Asian? Don’t make me laugh/vomit).
It’s in my best interest to see a strong US, so I support US actions that are in their best interest (except for a few things that are not in Canada’s best interest, such as the blocking of Canadian timber, and other anti-free market measures). Every country should be looking out for its best interests and I really don’t think that people like Roh are acting in the best interests of South Korea (though he may believe he is). Roh is reflexively anti-American, and this is not in the best interests of Korea.
Koreans always go on about how the alliance benefits US companies. No doubt it does.
But what the Koreans don’t realize is that the American people do not support alliances for the sake of US companies (nor for strategic military reasons). They support alliances out of a perception of friendship and shared values. And every time the Koreans burn the US flag on the nightly news, tens of thousands of Americans decide that it’s time to end this alliance. And sooner or later America’s leaders will reflect the will of the electorate on this matter.
The alliance benefits Korea economically, by acting as security for foreign investment. This is of great benefit to Koreans in general. Foreign investment has made Korea what it is in recent years-a strong, increasingly modern international economy capable of competing in world markets (at least there are growing numbers of Korean companies that are capable). So to want to throw it all away is little short of craziness (not that the alliance would mean the end, but it would certainly dimish the security for foreign investment), especially since the South is not prepared to step up to the plate in terms of taking over full responsibility, and seems incapable of dealing with the North in any way other than through appeasement.
To be absolutely honest with you, the only time in the year I’ve been here that a Korean guy was shown interfacing with a flag on the nightly news, it was Bee Man, and it was him jumping onto a Japanese flag with a bloody thumb, covered in bees. My bet is that Americans could care less about anti-Americanism from South Korea. After all, the anti-Americanism coming from the Middle East and North Korea is just much more relevant.
@Richardson
Typical of an ignoramus. I like to objectively view the country we’re proud of based on how our host countries are typically ‘measured’ on these blogs - yet I’m now labeled by you as an left-wing America hater? Our Freedom of Speech in action right here. I’ve obviously struck a cord. Here we go;
“Take a look at the global economy; while there are dozens of major players, which one, if removed, would devastative it? Which one draws flocks of immigrants and investment? Students? And why? Just thing about it, as difficult as that may be for you.”
As a matter of fact, the answer to your own question is China. Flocks of immigrants and investments? You mean from South America, right? How would stopping that topple the global economy? And you did not just try and support your claim about the US being the ‘core pillar’ by including STUDENTS - we’re increasingly falling behind Europe and Asia. Way to measure our success.
Why would thinking about it be difficult for me? You aren’t even able to back up your statements! Is this your opinion? I guess personally attacking my oh-no thinking ability must satisfy your need to be correct? Oh, apologies - “mostly” correct?
Oh, and by the way - “devastative” is not a word. See? I can make petty personal attacks too. Fun. Way to go you well-educated American.
“Yes, higher standards of living. Yes, yes, I see a few European countries ‘winning’ this distinction in various lists (hmm, who compiles those?), but living in a shoebox and paying 50 percent+ of my income in taxes for less freedoms is not my idea of a good living. Hint; socialism sucks, capitalism works.”
I’m sorry - living in a shoe box? Who in Europe lives in a shoebox? Paying 50% of their income in taxes to directly impose less freedoms? Who in Europe lives with less freedoms in return for 50% income tax? Do you understand the benefits they receive in turn for their tax? Health care subsidies, education costs, emergency support funds, the list goes on. “Good living”? You are definitely confused. Standards of living, using the standard economic definition, ranks us consistently in the Top 10 (we’re usually 10th though). This purely means that our access to goods and services are high - “Standard of living” DOES NOT equate to “Good living” or “Quality of Life”. In fact, due to the large gap between the ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ (almost a quarter of us live below the poverty line) and from definition of “standard of living” our access to goods and services may be high, but there’s a crap load of us who can’t get it. But I guess we should be proud of it anyway since “socialism sucks, capitalism works”. Sigh.
See http://www.cepr.net/publicatio.....006_08.pdf
“First, there are many reasons to live overseas – want to see the world, enjoy something different some of the time, transferred, family reasons, etc. Second, unless you have warrants out and can’t face the time, you can always come back – it’s temporary.”
I totally agree with you. But this is all stating-the-obvious. Did you know that we can buy food-stuff from stores in the US? If the product is bad, you can RETURN it too! It’s true! Ok, great.
“Third, you sound like an American who is from a coast and doesn’t know jack about the rest of the country. Take away both coasts (and Texas) and the crime rates for the rest of the country is comparable to Asia, lower than Europe. The U.S. is kind of, you know, large. You should see more of it.”
Actually, I’m not from the coast. Take away both coasts and Texas? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Ok, lets apply your logic to any other country. Let’s take away their coastal districts/regions/provinces/municipalities and one arbitrary larger districts/regions/provinces/municipalities - now show me the proof. Again, is this your assumption? If it is, just say so rather than making it sound like fact.
I guess the coast-line states and Texas aren’t part of the US? Or does it depend on what we’re measuring.
“Fourth – and most important – you need to rein in the “we” and “us” and “our” generalizations; stereotypes don’t really help, and your arguments are lame enough to begin with.”
You’re right about the generalizations - I should’ve defined “we”, “us” and “our” as objective, Americans. Apologies. How are my ‘arguments lame’? I presented the international view of us, backed up by our own in published articles. Surely it’s better than parading around like a blind fool constantly repeating the usual “Oh you left-wing, anti-American!”, “No no no! WE ARE THE BEST AT EVERYTHING. SHUT UP!” and the “Back up my statements? I DON’T HAVE TO! I HEARD IT ON THE INTERNET ON SOME BLOG” cliches?
Again, can you please counter the facts I’ve presented in my previous post rather than ‘my arguments’ and myself? You really are ignorant and angry.
“Only an imbecile would even attempt to use the illegal actions of a handful (Abu Ghraib) and portray them as some sort of American failing. If you don’t see that, I can’t help you; the ability to understand has to be there first.
On WMD in Iraq – munitions containing mustard gas and sarin (both offically defined as WMD by the UN - an authorityI know you will accept), albeit degraded, were in Iraq, thus Iraq technically did have WMD at the time we invaded. It was a very poorly worded question in the poll you refer to – bad question, wrong conclusions. Yes, fifty percent of Americans were wrong; those who answered ‘no.’
If you knew much about the Geneva Convention, you’d know that nation-less soldiers don’t have any protection – the U.S. is going above and beyond what is legally mandated. But you’re an America hater. I’ll bet you’re a Chomsky fan. If you were a Korea watcher, you’d be chomping at the bit to toss salad for Bruce Cumings.”
Again, introduction with a personal attack rather than a counter to the facts I posted in the intial comment. You don’t seem to understand that stereotypes are created by observing the actions of those military personnel in the host country. What would your opinion of Germans be if they had invaded our country and “a few” soldiers were found to have committed those atrocities? Raped and then killed the victim and family in your home town? Still love the Germans? You wouldn’t because those Germans are representing Germany, and ultimately this experience will forever stereotype Germans. Look at the social problems we faced almost immediately after 9/11. More to the point, the actions of those military personnel and their management is an American failing to the international world. If you know how we can fix that view and perception - I’d support you all the way. Yet as long as it’s OK in our eyes, all is dandy?
This has been discussed over and over in the media all over the world. The Iraq war was initiated on the knowledge that they have WMDs with ties to Al-Qaida. Regarding your blog-post about the 50-50 poll knowledge, you presented a link to this Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528_2.html) as a reference to why the point the polls highlighted were incorrect. This same link, if you continue to read the entire article, it says:
“But under questioning, Maples acknowledged that the shells were “a potential risk to our service members in Iraq” but not to 275 million Americans.”
We initially supported the war because WMDs (with the definitions you’ve correctly provided) were a threat to our homes. I agree with the article that these could be smuggled in to our countries to a devastating effect. But this is not how they convinced us. Again, from your own reference the article concludes:
“The smoking gun and mushroom cloud image, he said, “sounds a lot better than 500 artillery shells of various amounts of degraded material that fit the technical definition of chemical weapons . . . buried in various bunkers in various states of disrepair that we are not even sure Saddam Hussein knew about.”"
Regarding the Geneva Conventions - I actually do know a lot about it. Thanks for insinuating that I don’t, however, and the gratis personal attack. I am convinced that you, unfortunately, do not know about the Geneva Conventions and I am willing to provide you with a starting point (For Newbies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions). These conventions are about war related humanitarian issues, more directly - treatment of prisoners of war. It even includes civilians. Here you go, a recent article just for you (Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01276.html). If you can’t be bothered, here’s a reference quote:-
“The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration’s policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.”
“Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy’s top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is “don’t trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.”"
We know that if we compile a list of all violations of Geneva Conventions, there are numerous, heinous violations along with our own. Naturally, as an American, I’m appalled that we have violated these conventions without comparing “who’s done more bad things than us!?”. If you don’t read the news, please say so - I’ll be more than happy to provide you with articles for both cases. Nothing is black and white. There are points I agree with and some I don’t. But your justification for violating basic human rights on war prisoners is OK for our soldiers because they’re considered nation-less (by us) is preposterous.
“But you’re an America hater.”
How so? Because I see these problems and want to support those who have the means and funds to fix it rather than saying these problems are the end of all ends? Because I am proud that our people make the largest private donations globally to charities and support groups? Because I believe that these international actions by those representing the US provide nothing but negative views to the international community and hope that the next administration does a better job of it? If anything, I’m a Bad-Behaved-American hater. ie, I don’t like Americans who behave in certain ways that continually pertuate the negative perception of us as a people. Politically, culturally, or otherwise. It is why I believe that many immigrants to our country decide to stay because they realize that we’re not all like those they’ve encountered in their countries.
“I’ll bet you’re a Chomsky fan. If you were a Korea watcher, you’d be chomping at the bit to toss salad for Bruce Cumings.”"
Chomsky, in my opinion, is good at highlighting the perception of media and their objectiveness - in particular with their choice of language and the result on the listeners/readers. After all he’s a linguist specialist. He rarely makes a case for a solution, but hey, I don’t know how to solve all these problems either. If I did, I’d run for a political position to gain power for change. Wouldn’t you? So according to you, in addition to the other personal attacks, I am an America hater and a Chomsky fan. You’re going for gold.
If I were a Korea watcher, perhaps, then again perhaps not. I read a number of Korea, Taiwan and India-based blogs - since these places are my next intended destinations. If I do end up in Korea, where I’m assuming you’ve been, perhaps I may be equally frustrated about our portrayal in their media or popular culture - but rather than making sweeping generalizations I’d rather find their source for such actions and learn their views. We aren’t any better at providing objective-media either. We aren’t better at making stereotypical views either.
So after your post of personal attacks and attempts to state incoherent opinion as fact, what was the overall counter point to my post?
Or are you equally hoping that “(your) drunkeness hasn’t made (you) appear to be excessively incoherent.”
At least I have a sense for self-humility.
And your final retort,
“Hope that in one hand and sh*t in the other – see which one fills up first. Good luck.”
All I can say is that I’m glad you’re back home. Maybe now you’ll realize the old adage “the grass is always greener”.
“So stop saying “we are the big brother and the little brother owes us.”
Hi Baduk. I was wondering when you would pipe in. And as usual you added words to my comments that were not there. I did not say Korea owed the US anything except maybe a little gratitude.
My point was that the anti-Americanism, ingratitude for money spent and blood spilled and constantly portraying America in a negative light may be the true culprit behind the souring of the ROK-US alliance. You always add things in your interpretations that were not stated.
I never said little brother Korea needed to pay up for anything. I said little brother Korea needs to stop kicking big brother USA in the shins.
You in some ways remind me of my cranky uncle. He would ask me “Do you want a ham sandwich”. I would say “No thanks, I am not hungry right now”. His response would be “Oh, I did not know you hated ham.” Never did I say I hated ham. You do the same thing my friend.
@ MrChips
“For Jaso and Dr. Yu, debate hinges on agreeing on a certain set of facts and based on the set of “facts” you have brought to the table there isn’t any room for debate. You can make statements but there will never be an opportunity to discuss ideas with people if you insist on fanciful facts. Broaching the issues we face in the world is tough enough but to have to do it in the face of people who devise a different set of facts which we can only march past stoically is exceptionally troubling. To do so in the name of objectivity makes me all the more skeptical that those who claim a heritage of traditional american values can ever give credence to criticisms by those of anti-american values. Calls for cultural relativism are red herrings.”
I agree with you on your overall point - that we must be careful in our fact selection since showing a result without context leaves no room for critique. However, I disagree that there isn’t any room for debate for the facts presented. My original post was intended as a counter at a few comments made by posters that insinuated our superiority over other nations. The intention of the post was not to provide one-sided American policy bashing but highlight that we, too, face similar issues with those internationally and that such material is the foundation on which citizens of other nations will ultimately develop their opinion of us.
With regard to Robert’s post however, I was only able to make a simple contribution stating my position on the matter involving ROK-US military alliances - that we wouldn’t be there if it was a one-sided deal.
brokeback mountain finally gets his playmate.. how sweet.
Bluejives, sorry I couldn’t respond right away. I’m way out in boondock America right now with sporadic access. Michael pretty much covered what I meant regarding America’s political background. I purposively did not use the word “evil” since the actual constructor of the constitution took a slightly different approach than many of the members of society at that time might have. Many Americans at the time were deeply religious but many of the landowners and educated elite had deist sentiments that were more inclined to intepret “evil” in a secular light. “Selfish” is a better term but in any case it indicates the paradigm of how the American system can function. I should point out that this view by our founding fathers was not unanimous among them. That men like Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, and Sherman believed in man’s tendency to screw people over given motive and opportunity can be taken as fact. They viewed government’s one essential role as being the stifling agent of such tendencies. Jefferson and Franklin on the other hand did not view human nature with such skepticism yet they agreed that human nature tended toward corruption when power began to multiply. So yes, I would say the key feature of American politics is the underlying assumption that people are willing to do bad things to each other out of selfishness. Including government officials. Take this quote from Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
If I have one criticism of George Bush it is not what he will do (or has done) with the power he is wielding, it is the precedent he has set for other presidents who come later. When constitutional restrictions can be so easily side-stepped there is little to stop a president from forging law and enforcement of it on his own. I fear what someone like Hillary Clinton can do with that power when national security can be made to include just about anything under the sun. It’s ironic that Abraham Lincoln went through many of the same criticisms. And, we can point out that his use of his “seized” power was efficient and masterfully pointed. BUT, what was its long term effect concerning the power of the executive branch? In light of that perhaps the best thing that could have happened was Johnson’s near-immediate impeachment proceedings to re-establish some modicum of power with the Congress.
But I digress…my apologies.
constructor should have been plural (s) Sorry.
Goddamn,some of you people are windbags.I’ll bet my dad can beat up all your dads.
I wouldn’t want to be a citizen of any other country,but I hate that big money owns U.S. democracy.And I dislike the sockpuppets they put in the Whitehouse,republican and democrat alike.America ain’t for the little guy anymore.We’re a means to an end(more money) for the ruling class.
It’s ironic that Wookinponub takes his name from the Eddie Murphy character on SNL who also has this quote which perfectly frames the value of comment no.59 - “Not worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit.” Sounds like a case of middle school superciliousness.
America was never for the little guy; it was for the man who believed in individual responsibility before individual rights. Focus only on rights and the “little guy” becomes corrupted. What ruling class? 90 percent of the upper class in America started out in a lower to lower-middle income class; that doesn’t happen where “ruling” classes exist.
wookinponub,
Someday you may become the rich “ruling class”, listening to Rush Limbach and voting for the Republican party.
You may go to one of their $10,000 per plate dinner and rub shoulders with Bush, Bush and Arnold.
Who knows? Even Condi may give you a peck on the cheek. I mean “face” cheek.
You just described perfectly what has been happening over the past five years, only it’s not Hillary in the Oval Office.
@Jaso
Of me you say, “Typical of an ignoramus,” yet you attempted to link the illegal actions of a few in Iraq to all Americans, and then tried to portray China (a nation that can’t even let it’s currency float) as having the world’s central economic role. A major disconnect in logic, intelligence, or both. Again, if you don’t see the problem with that, I see why you don’t. Please feel free to attack one of my typos to make yourself feel better.
If you don’t want the answer, don’t ask the question. Very simple.
Actually Americans who are considered to be in “poverty” have much more living space than the average European (no need to find stats for Asia - we all know spaces are even smaller there):
As I said, shoeboxes. And mostly not air-conditioned either, which is fine in the north but can be hellish in the south – it was this summer.
High taxes, mandatory unions in many cases, less or no choice in medical care, high unemployment, low productivity, etc. are the benefits of a socialistic welfare society. If you’ve ever dealt with a powerful union, you will know that you defiantly loose freedoms (and money). That entire structure makes you depend upon the government and its regulation. Yes, I absolutely qualify that as less freedom.
Ireland, however, has broken free from that mold. I’ll give you a hint, LOW TAXES. Others can learn from that or not. Seems like most are not, including you. So yes, socialism is broken, and the cure is capitalism.
The reason I say it’s wrong to look at the U.S. crime rate and think of the entire nation as ‘dangerous’ is due to the fact that it is so large and diverse, making the average useless for blanket statements about the entire nation. A comparison of rates in the U.S. to say Hong Kong is completely meaningless in practical terms.
It’s a fact that the coasts and Texas have much higher crime rates. Midwestern metropolitan areas also have lower crime rates than U.S. coastal urban areas. This is common knowledge for educated people and is not controversial. Google it and I’ll explain any data you have trouble understanding.
Information Clearinghouse? Why not save time and just refer directly to the CPUSA website?
The Geneva Conventions, as written, do not cover al Quada or other terrorists as they do not meet the criteria to be considers “prisoners of war,” which is (Article 4:2): b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. . . d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. The Supreme Court can make its decision, but it is not based on the text contained within the Geneva Conventions.
Crimes have been committed, some violations of the Geneva Conventions, some not (but still illegal under the rules of war that U.S. soldiers operate under). The people who did those things are responsible and should be punished. As should more of those of the command structure of Abu Ghraib. But their actions can in no way be blamed upon the U.S. as a whole. Those who try to are fools.
If you believe Gitmo violates any rights prisoners might have under the Geneva Conventions, you would be wrong:
Enough, for now.
Sonagi, you’re a pretty bright gal but you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Whatever systemic problems Bush is creating - and he is creating them - it’s Hillary’s ideological venom that I fear when she can take advantage of Bush’s excesses. Hence, the one thing I CRITICIZE about Bush. Whatever power he accumulates will be adulterated through her liberal machinations. Beware all cookie baking moms!!