Comments on: War Talk Open Thread

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:00:08 +0000

Wedge, “gunboat diplomacy” is closer to the mark, except it’s usual connotation is that the dispatcher of the gunboats is looking to coerce some unfair territorial or commercial concession. The US punitive expedition against Korea in 1871 aimed only to assert US interest in defending the interests of what later would be called US flag carriers (The Sherman was flagged in the US, but in fact had been chartered to a german/english trading venture and carried a Chinese crew commanded by a German with an English missionary on board) and to compel Korean complaince with accepted international practice - in this case, not providing succor to shipwrecked sailors, but having the common diplomatic courtesy to substantiate the reasonableness of the action that was taken against the Sherman when it ran aground near Pyongyang. Most people, especially Korean chauvinists and their US dupes, like Ms. Shaw, tend to forget that the 1871 Expedition would never have taken place if the Koreans had not basically rudely blown off two previous American requests for satisfactory explanations.

By: Wedge

Wedge — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:49:01 +0000

It’s called gunboat diplomacy and it was the way of the world at the time. You sink an American ship and kill its crew, or you kill French priests, you pay for it. You don’t send diplomats with firewood and guitars to sing “Kumbaya” around the campfire.

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:43:19 +0000

“imperial Overreach”

in 1871? I think not; this is the most egregious sort of sentimentally (I’dd say “ideological”, but that would be too dignifying) anachronistic drivel imaginable.

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:40:59 +0000

Let’s not and leave them to be remembered by their compatriats.

By: swlee

swlee — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:17:53 +0000

While we are remembering the veterans, lets also remember those brave members members of the North Korean and Chinese militaries who fought in the Korean war, especially the many who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their nation.
Sons, fathers, brothers, too.

By: Robert Koehler

Robert Koehler — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:56:22 +0000

“Punitive assault”; right, the natives had to be punished for firing on uninvited foreign warships sailing towards their capital.

Well, you can’t very well have the savages thinking they can take shots at the white man without retribution, now can you? I mean, shit, next thing you know, they’ll be demanding the right to decide their own national destiny.

Also these guys in white must have misunderstood the intentions of those who came down the road in December ‘39.

Damn straight you misunderstood. The Soviets were just visiting to see if you were OK and if you needed anything.

By: Antti

Antti — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:52:03 +0000

An engagement in an important area of American interest or an example of imperial overreach?
Latter definitely, but it doesn’t exclude the former either.
In the link: “Friendly gesture” of exploring Korean coastal areas with five warships?
“Punitive assault”; right, the natives had to be punished for firing on uninvited foreign warships sailing towards their capital.
Also these guys in white must have misunderstood the intentions of those who came down the road in December ‘39.

By: mjw

mjw — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:19:03 +0000

nice.

By: Andy Jackson

Andy Jackson — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:46:38 +0000

mjw,

Noted.

By: mjw

mjw — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:17:33 +0000

What’s with all the deleting of comments these days?

Andy, I understand why you wanted comments to the war hero post posted here. You made it crystal clear about that and the poster who transgressed your rules even apologized. Ok, fair enough.

But one of the things that I like about this blog is that by and large it is not moderated. There are some flareups, and god knows there’s a lot of BS that gets posted, to which i’m sure I’ve contributed. But one of the reasons, IMHO, why this is such an interesting community is that we don’t need moderation.

You’ve shown some a very strong sense of ownership over your post. That’s surely your right, and you obviously have some strong political opinions that come through your posts loud and clear. But I’m of the opinion the written word ceases to be our own after we’ve set it down for others to read and that there is a virtuous circle set in place when someone write something and others react to it (even when still others look in and call it BS). Again, the relative lack of moderation here, and the cohesiveness we all show when we more or less play by the rules, is why this is a cool blog. It is not “OWNED” by anyone.

The host of the blog himself has set this standard by encouraging a diversity of posters. Whatever I might think of some of his guests, I respect him even more for creating the community and for the most part letting them do their thing, and letting us take pot shots. It’s cool that way.

Guest bloggers here have the ability to delete comments that aren’t even their own. IMHO, they should either not have that authority or abstain from using it unless under certain conditions.