home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ousrvr.oulu.fi!tko.vtt.fi!dfo
- From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
- Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
- Subject: Re: Korean War (Was: Re: A pacifist's call for conditional ...Somalia)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec30.094848.5104@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
- Date: 30 Dec 92 09:48:48 GMT
- References: <29DEC199220345961@reg.triumf.ca>
- Sender: news@ousrvr.oulu.fi
- Organization: VTT
- Lines: 69
-
- In article <29DEC199220345961@reg.triumf.ca> orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON) writes:
- >Douglas Foxvog (dfo@tko.vtt.fi), commenting on my reply to Bud Hovel's
- >comments on Doug's original posting (got that?) [my ** emphasis] :
- >>>(e.g. as
- >>>a front for the U.S. invasion of South Korea) when it did not (e.g. was
- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- >>Misleading phrasing. The US invaded the occupied South Korea in the
- >>**same way it invaded France** on D-Day in the refered to invasion [It also
- >>invaded Japanese-occupied Korea at the end of WW II.]. It was sheer
- >>Soviet stupidity to allow this to have the imprimitar of the UN by
- >>walking out of the Security Council, allowing the US with its allies
- >>(UK, Taiwan, and France) to have their way.
-
- >This comment relates to a point also raised by John McCarthy.
-
- >Security forces installed and directed by the U.S. killed about
- >100,000 people in South Korea before the beginning of the Korean
- >War (I believe a modern reference is "Korea: the Unknown War" by
- >Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, 1988).
-
- I have not heard these figures and am surprised that they are so
- high, but do not doubt them. I did not argue that the South Korean
- govt. was praiseworthy.
-
- >The U.S. intervened in
- >support of a murderous right-wing dictatorship, hardly analogous to D-Day.
-
- The invasion was similar, landing troops into an area occupied by an
- invader. The allied government being supported was far different.
-
- >I haven't yet studied the history of the Korean War in sufficient
- >depth so as to be able to refute all the "standard lies" in detail (I
- >*have* done this for the U.S.-Vietnam War), but I know enough to
- >recognize them.
-
- I stated no opinion on US involvement in Korea. My comment in no
- way supported it, i just was noting a misuse of terminology. As a
- matter of fact, i do not support that US intervention, which should have
- been clear in my original article.
-
- >The U.S. support for the feudal warlord Chiang
- >Kai-Shek in China is discussed in some detail in Gabriel Kolko's "The
- >Politics of War: U.S. Foreign Policy 1943-45"" (1968, reprinted 1990),
- >and it would be a startling anomaly if the situation was markedly
- >different in Korea during 1945-50.
-
- >>>whatever one
- >>>thinks of the state of U.S. domestic democracy. (BTW, this is true generally
- >>>of *all* the Western industrial democracies.)
-
- >>And all other nations as well, no need to single out "Western"
- >>"industrial" "democracies". Negate any or all of those terms and the
- >>statement will apply.
-
- >True, but then the point I was trying to make is lost -- which is that
- >*even* in (approximate) domestic democracies, there is *no* democracy in
- >the conduct of foreign affairs. This is generally assumed *a priori*
- >for countries which are not domestic democracies.
-
- Then you should have made that point. It appeared to me that you were
- indicating something that was especially evil about "Western industrial
- democracies".
-
- >Ron Balden
-
-
- --
- doug foxvog
- dfo@tko.vtt.fi
-