baboon Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yes, but the two Koreas are not soveriegn states, not really. There is no border, just a demarcation line, which is not the same thing: Cross from one side to another and you are still in Korea. As for who was at fault in their creation, I blame all the parties you named above, including the USSR, none of whom really had the interests of the Koreans themselves at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yes, but the two Koreas are not soveriegn states, not really. There is no border, just a demarcation line, which is not the same thing: Cross from one side to another and you are still in Korea. As for who was at fault in their creation, I blame all the parties you named above, including the USSR, none of whom really had the interests of the Koreans themselves at heart. Of course they are sovereign. Not really? Says who? Whether you (or I) agree with it or not, it is the reality. No border? That's just semantics. Try telling the guards on either side that there is no border. Still in Korea? Only someone quite stupid or ignorant - which you don't appear to be at all -- would think there was no difference from one side to the other. Blame them all? Sure, that's not unreasonable as far as it goes. However, you've apparently overlooked someone: The Japanese. Brutal occupiers for 45 years. THEY were the ones that led Korea to being in the situation it was. The US made decisions based on the reality on the ground at the time of the Japanese surrender (not the least among many factors was the well organized resistance organization that was a Soviet proxy)and geopolitical strategics (despite having at one point plans for an independent Korea _FDR had a different (more independent and free) idea for post war Asia than what came to pass - whether it ever could have been even if he had lived, is debatable). But the US had no doubt that the Soviets would take ALL of Korea without careful maneuvering on the part of the Americans and the Soviets certainly could easily have done so with ease. Once they managed to get their sphere of influence, the US proceeded to make blunders and at times be callously inattentive or uncaring (I'll not go into all the reasons, many of them mitigating)but it was the USSR that refused to cooperate with the UN plan for elections... I've just realized that I'm streamlining and skipping way too much to rally explain all this takes much more work to do it right than I'm willing to do. Suffice it to say I feel you are hugely oversimplifying at best and even distorting the truth. At worst you are being deliberately dishonest because of a specific political viewpoint and certain biases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 This is not Fox News and I am not a patsy to be abused by Sean Hannity, or yourself. Good evening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) This is not Fox News and I am not a patsy to be abused by Sean Hannity, or yourself. Good evening. <deleted>?! That's all you got as a response? I'm sorry but really -- that was literally pathetic. FOX? I do not watch that tripe and never have. And the clips I've seen of Hannity invariably disgust ad enrage me other than when on occasion they make me laugh in derision. I'm a liberal who has never voted Republican and probably never will. The only political TV I watch is Daily Show but my kowledge comes from reading. Abuse? There was no abuse. I must say though that the fact that your response to someone that refutes you is, "Fox news! I'm not talking to you" (ie 'You must be a rightwinger because you don't agree with my sad little uninformed wannabe lefty cliches')is very illustrative and fits precisely with the impression you made in your previous comments. Well, you clearly don't have anything of substance so it is best that you dash away as you have. Good night to you as well. Edited January 4, 2013 by SteeleJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Considering the source, what's his real agenda? he did legalize pizza, womens pants and cellphones... maybe things are just looking up for the DPRK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Stop building rockets and spending the majority of your budget on the military might help ease tensions just a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yahooka Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Yahooka - could I suggest you or anyone else who is interested get your hands on a copy of North Korea - The struggle against American power by Tim Beal or North Korea - Another country by Bruce Cummings. I think you would find them interesting. Neither book portrays the DPRK as Heaven on Earth, but they do show the situation is not as black and white as the media tends to paint it... Sure I would be interested in reading more to expand my view on North Korea,but I dont think it will change my position.It doesnt help either that influential people in the West are invited over to say that that the situation is getting better. The most striking thing is that there isnt any North Koreans outside their homeland who can confirm how much better things are nowadays.....that for me speaks volumes !!!! Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now