It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Korea. A Rocky Road in the 20th Century

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
In 1905, Japan occupied the Kingdom of Korea during the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War. In 1910 Japan annexed Korea. Japan proceeded to viciously exploit Korea, both mineral wise and people wise. In 1932 it was made a part of the Japanese Empire but that did not improve conditions in Korea or of Koreans. Korea is known as “Chosen” on maps printed prior to 1945 but it is not clear to me how that name originated or exactly what it means. zhukov.mitsi.com... and en.wikipedia.org...

At the end of World War Two, China was mired in a civil war that ended in 1949 with the defeat of the US backed Nationalists. Those forces retreated to the island of Formosa - taken by Japan from China in 1897 and returned in 1945. “Formosa” is of Portugese origin. The island is “Taiwan” in Chinese. Those old Nationalist forces remain there today under the protection of the United States Seventh Fleet. This does not endear the US to Beijing.

The United States wanted the USSR to join in the Last Battle of World War 2. We planned to invade Japan in late 1945, landing 500,000 men on Kyushu. Ultimately, we planned to have 3,000,000 men on the 4 main islands. Although it turned out we did not need the Russians - the atom bombs worked - the Russians were nevertheless able to recover the south half of Sakhalin Island which they lost in the 1904-1905 War.

As part of the final settlement with the USSR, the United States agreed to divide Korea along the 38th Parallel with the US to administer the south and the USSR to administer the north. The Soviets were very much interested in providing a buffer zone between a US controlled state and the anticipated Communist victory in China. From the outset, things did not go well between the north and south parts of Korea. The US put into place a long time anti-communist Korean national, Sigman Rhee, who we called “president.” Americans love presidents, we hate dictators. Or, who said “what’s in a name?”

After a brief and violent power struggle, Kim Il Song gained control of the Communist Party in North Korea, now called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK. When Kim died in 1980, the ruling Central Committee designated his son, Kim Jung Il to be the Chairman of the Central Committee and the head of state and of government.

The south part was called the Republic of Korea, or ROK. The US backed pro military anti communist governments in South Korea until the 1990s when finally, the Koreans gained control over their own government. It is now a vibrant democracy the equal to Japan’s. (America prefers style or form over substance or content in foreign “democracies.” This preserves the political appearances necessary at home and at the same time, permits the continued American economic domination abroad.)

In June, 1950, while the USSR was boycotting the Security Council, and without the approval of Beijing - which they did not seek - the North Koreans invaded South Korea. Their invasion plan worked well for the first 8-10 weeks. They quickly captured Kimpo and Seoul. They moved half the way down the peninsula towards the major port city of Pusan.

Caught by surprise, the US acted quickly to obtain UN resolutions to authorize the repulse of the North Korean Army and to restore the border. The UN named the US as the lead country in the effort. The UN forces were made up of soldiers and support personnel from over 20 countries. All were real volunteers. By the end of 1950, the UN forces had crushed the North Korean Army. It had no identifiable units larger than a battalion. The UN/US pushed northward, rushing towards the Yalu River, the boundary between China and Korea. China warned the UN/US it would not allow a foreign army within 50 miles of the Yalu. (Or 50 km?) MacArthur wanted to use atom bombs on China, to reverse the 1949 loss suffered by Chiang Kai-chek. Truman said “no” and fired Mac.

After the Truce of July, 1953, North Korea withdrew into its own style of independence. Pyongyang resisted control from either Moscow or Beijing. It’s own self chosen preference for independence bordering on isolation has brought North Korea to the point where it is today, in 2006, ever defiant of outsiders.

North Korea is perhaps the poorest country in East Asia. The CIA World Factbook - their spelling not mine - gives 45,800 square miles in area. It says the population is 23.1 million. Infant mortality is 23.2 and longevity is 71.6 years. Literacy is given as 99%. It celebrates August 15, 1945 as its independence day, the day Japan surrendered. (The surrender documents were signed on September 2 on the USS Missouri, in Tokyo Bay.) Universal suffrage at age 17. North Korea’s GDP is given at $40 billion. Per person GDP is given at $1,700. American states with a similar GDP - actually GSP - to North Korea’s are Maine, Idaho and Rhode Island. None of those states come close to NK’s population.

I regret the US reneged on the Carter-Clinton deal of the 1990s. We were to build 3 Westinghouse nuclear power plants, furnish several million tons of food and invest a few billion dollars in North Korea. Bush43 put the qwaetus on that.

Now we have added another nuclear equipped nation and one with no scruples and one country over which we have none to next to none control. We have known all along what they wanted, but we refuse to give. I do not understand America’s current band of leaders. Sanctions were work less in NK than they worked in Iraq. It’s dumb. And I assure it would have been cheaper to give NK what it asked for in the 1990s deal. Sow the winds, reap the whirlwinds.



[edit on 10/18/2006 by donwhite]




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   


I regret the US reneged on the Carter-Clinton deal of the 1990s. We were to build 3 Westinghouse nuclear power plants, furnish several million tons of food and invest a few billion dollars in North Korea. Bush43 put the qwaetus on that.



Wasn't that because we found out they had reneged on their part of that deal?



We have known all along what they wanted, but we refuse to give.


So we're supposed to let ourselves be blackmailed. Of course we know what they want. Same thing everyone else wants, somethin' for nothin'.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   


posted by HimWhoHathAnEar



“ . . the Carter-Clinton deal . . We were to build 3 nuclear power plants, furnish food and invest in North Korea. Bush43 put the qwaetus on that.


Wasn't that because we found out they had reneged on their part of that deal? So we're supposed to let ourselves be blackmailed. Of course we know what they want. Same thing everyone else wants, something for nothing. [Edited by Don W]



OK Mr H/W/H/A/E,
1) I don’t remember the sequence. I’m sure it is on the www somewhere.
2) We are the super power. NK is the poorest nation in East Asia. We can stand a bit of reluctance or slowness in the greater scheme of things. Let’s not make a 6th grade playground thing of this. The issues override pride. Or ought to.
3) Don’t carry a grudge - with great wealth comes great opportunity.
3A) If you are a believing and practicing Christian, I remind you of the parable of the 3 servants in Matt. 25.


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

posted by donwhite
Let’s not make a 6th ground playground thing of this. The issues override pride.



My point exactly. We cannot negotiate with someone who will not negotiate in good faith. It's not about pride, it's about results. We were already giving them a bunch of FREE stuff. It wasn't good enough to achieve the agreed to result.

So the answer would be to say, 'How bout we give you MORE FREE stuff?'. That's called appeasement, and it never ends!



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   


posted by HimWhoHathAnEar



posted by donwhite
“ . . a 6th ground playground thing . . “



I edited my post to say “grade” instead of “ground.”




My point exactly. We cannot negotiate with someone who will not negotiate in good faith. It's not about pride, it's about results. We were already giving them a bunch of FREE stuff. It wasn't good enough to achieve the agreed to result. So the answer would be to say, 'How about we give you MORE FREE stuff?'. That's called appeasement, and it never ends! [Edited by Don W]



Mr H/W/H/A/E, let’s forget complaints about “more free stuff.” We have “lost” $7 B in the DoD budgets since 2001, and we have lost over $1 B admitted to in Iraq. We have squandered billions in the New Orleans Katrina incident. We piaid $20 B to clean up the WTC on a no-bid basis and hauled the debris to Mafia owned landfills in NJ. Tips of the icebergs. So “free stuff” is not high on my list of do’s and don’t’s as it comes to money and national security. Sorry. I recommend a cost benefit analysis instead.

Proposition. The US says it will not talk to Hamas until Hamas declare it’s acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. The US says it will not talk to Hizbollah until it disarms. The US says it will not talk to Cuba until Fidel dies. The US says it ill not talk to Iran until it stops its necular enrichment programs. The US says it will not talk to North Korea alone but may or may not talk to North Korea at the Six Party table, but in no event, it will not talk until North Korea abandons it nuclear bomb program.

So, H/W/H/A/E, is this a new way to “negotiate?” You must conform to my demands before I will talk with you. Is that 6th grade or is it not? This Bush43/Rice doctrine seems convoluted if not serpentine. It looks analogous to a poker game where Bush43 plays by draw rules and the others must play by stud rules. Weird game. Weird thinking.

Q. If your adversary capitulates, is there any need to negotiate?

Can you help me get a grip on this novel foreign policy like you seem to have, Mr. H/W/H/A/E? Would this be the "Rice" policy?


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   


You must conform to my demands before I will talk with you.



In negotiating, both sides agree to fulfill certain demands. Not just one side. North Korea agreed to fulfill some demands, they reneged and we followed suit.

Furthermore, your quote is baseless in the sense that we have never stopped talking to them. We merely included all their friends and neighbors in the discussion, known as the Six Party Talks.

Must have been the right approach, since they haven't been nearly as successful in the blackmail techniques that were so successful against the Clinton Administration. Thus, their recent tantrums.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   


posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

In negotiating, both sides agree to fulfill certain demands. North Korea agreed to fulfill some demands, they reneged and we followed suit.

“ . . your quote is baseless in the sense that we have never stopped talking to them. We merely included all their friends and neighbors in the discussion, known as the Six Party Talks. [Edited by Don W]



Maybe it’s my fault, but I don’t know much about the fine details of the 1990s Carter arrangement with NK. In the back of my mind, I am thinking the Congress refused to either approve the deal or to fund it. Maybe I’m wrong. Is this another GOP flop from the git-go? Adding more nations to the nuclear club? Help me.



Must have been the right approach, since they haven't been nearly as successful in the blackmail techniques that were so successful against the Clinton Administration. Thus, their recent tantrums.



Well, I’d say just the opposite. Assuming our 1990s negotiations were meant to stop NK from developing a nuclear bomb. Bush43 has been at the helm since 2001 and now the NKs have a nuke. No Nobel Prize for Bush43. Clinton’s former ambassador said she believed NK had enough material to make 2-10 bombs. It is reported today NK plans 3 more bomb tests. I don’t call that success. Even with my colored glasses that ads up to one more failure of the Bush43 presidency.

What a L E G A C Y! If it had been up to me, I’d have considered the NK request an opportunity to bring a very poor nation with paranoid leaders into the community of nations and away from their leader's own imposed exile. But then, I like Fidel and I hope he lives forever!


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   


Maybe it’s my fault, but I don’t know much about the fine details of the 1990s Carter arrangement with NK. In the back of my mind, I am thinking the Congress refused to either approve the deal or to fund it. Maybe I’m wrong. Is this another GOP flop from the git-go? Adding more nations to the nuclear club? Help me.


While you're trying to find a way to blame America, don't forget that the North Koreans were the ones who broke the deal.



Well, I’d say just the opposite. Assuming our 1990s negotiations were meant to stop NK from developing a nuclear bomb.



And they never came close to working. The North Koreans never stopped trying to develop a nuclear bomb.



No Nobel Prize for Bush43.



What a L E G A C Y!


I think you're mistaking Bush with Clinton. Those were Clintons aspirations. Bush isn't looking for accalades, he's trying to solve the problem. But I'm sure you'll focus in on the negative aspects of the current situation. My question for you would be, If you were the president what would donwhite do?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   


posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

While you're trying to find a way to blame America, don't forget that the North Koreans were the ones who broke the deal. And they never came close to working. The North Koreans never stopped trying to develop a nuclear bomb. [Edited by Don W]



Do you know if it is true that the Congress refused to go along with the deal brokered by Carter? I assume that is the case, so why do you say it was NK who “broke” the deal?



“ . . you're mistaking Bush with Clinton. Those were Chiton’s aspirations. Bush isn't looking for accolades, he's trying to solve problems. But I'm sure you'll focus in on the negative aspects of the current situation. My question for you would be, If you were the president what would donwhite do?


What would I do now that the ME is all mucked up? I’d call a region wide conference including Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the other Arab states in the Persian Gulf, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and Lybia along with France, Germany, UK, China, Japan and the US. I would include the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah. When we finished we’d have the 58 year old Arab-Israel question concluded.

With that done, after a 2-3 week recuperation at Camp David, I’d recall the 6 Powers and add again France Germany and the UK, and we’d settle the North Korean question. The US would schedule its withdrawal from South Korea and the two Korea’s would be on a Road Map to unification. The North part to stay commie and the south part to stay capitalist. At some point in time the Koreans would accommodate to each other.

But that takes leadership with a vision. One thing I have never accused Bush43 of having. Well, 2 things.



[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   


I would include the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah. When we finished we’d have the 58 year old Arab-Israel question concluded.


First off, you'd include Terrorists in the talks? And as far as the second sentence, WAY to vague. People have been grappling with this situation for years, but donwhite will swoop in and solve it before he moves on to BIGGER things. Like ending world hunger and curing AIDS. Surely you aren't serious?




Do you know if it is true that the Congress refused to go along with the deal brokered by Carter? I assume that is the case, so why do you say it was NK who “broke” the deal?


The entire problem was created by clinton and carter entering into agreements that they couldn't back up (looking for that legacy I guess). And what's worse than that is that in the process they overrode earlier agreements that put the pressure on North Korea. So by trying to get a quick fix, they bungled things up in the long run.

Now, all that being said, it doesn't change a thing today. We need to deal with the problem regardless.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   


posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

First, you'd include Terrorists in the talks? People have been grappling with this situation for years, but donwhite will swoop in and solve it before he moves on to BIGGER things. Like ending world hunger and curing AIDS. Surely you aren't serious? [Edited by Don W]



Your terrorists are their patriots. Let’s quit imposing our version of the truth on the rest of the world. Hamas was duly elected. Hizbollah has shown it is closer to the man on the street than anyone in Beirut or Washington. You cannot start a settlement conference by imposing your own limits on who can attend. Everyone involved should attend. Nay, must attend.

There is only one viable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. All the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem must be put 100% into the inhabitant's hands. A New Palestine. All Jewish settlers must be removed immediately. A grade separated road to Gaza from the WB must be provided so ingress and egress is not dependant on the whims of Israel. The Temple Mount must be under Arab - Muslim - control with the proviso that the Israelis have unlimited and unfettered access to and overseer-ship of the West Wall as their prime Holy Site.

Except for the arms a normal police constabulary would possess, New Palestine must be an arms free zone. The border would be slightly modified on a zero gain basis to provide for more practical patrolling. The US should provide 10,000 soldiers to patrol the border for at least 10 years. For every dollar we give Israel, we should give New Palestine 3 dollars. Again, for 10 years. Then we’re out of there. This will defuse the radical Islamists and deprive them of their biggest rallying cry because the Jews hold the #3 Holy Site of Islam, the Temple Mount.



Now, it doesn't change a thing today. We need to deal with the problem regardless.



I don’t know why the US cannot send a high level delegation to Pyongyang to discuss this with the North Koreans. Directly. Face to face. I’m talking the #2 person in the State Department and a mutually respected person designated as the President’s Special Envoy. I believe this problem could be resolved and that North Korea would soon join South Africa in renouncing nuclear weapons and destroying what it is they now have.

Solutions are easy because they are often obvious. Implementation is the trick of leadership and vision. Proverbs 29:18


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
In the interests of keeping your thread on topic I would prefer to set the Middle East aside for the moment.

I agree that if we give them what they want (legitimacy) by treating them like a world power, they would respond favorably (for the moment at least). But my Goodness man, have you read some of the things that guy is doing to people there? We, as a free people, who think every life is valuable, cannot legitimize that.

Anytime a man is made to believe he is a god, terrible things happen. I was watching a show on the history channel about Caligula the roman emperor. Same problem, he was just evil to the core. This guy is a modern day Caligula!



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   


posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

I agree that if we give them [North Korea] what they want (legitimacy) by treating them like a world power, they would respond favorably (for the moment at least). But my Goodness man, have you read some of the things that guy is doing to people there? [Edited by Don W]



I don’t know what to do. There are 23 million NKs. Per CIA Factbook. I would offer there are probably no more than 5,000 to 20,000 people in NK who would be considered to be in the ruling clique. I say this to remind it is not a one man rules all, a situation that really is not possible in any society, anytime. There are always sycophants who are supporting the leader for their own goals. Although I had thought the plot to kill Hitler in 1944 numbered no more than 50 conspirators, the web site below says 20,000 were killed or sent to concentration camps in retaliation for the failed attempt. worldwar2database.com...

Bush43 has dallied with the regime change idea as his legitimate reason to invade otherwise non-belligerent countries. He apparently takes the designation as a super power seriously. That makes the US the world’s policeman. All other arguments aside, we cannot afford to follow that conception of our proper role in the world. I expect we could designate somewhere between 20 and 50 countries around the world where good arguments for regime change could be made, based on our own morals and standards. As long as we remain in the United Nations that course of action is denied to us. With globalization of economies and the www for instant communications, the world may be evolving in that direction.



We, as a free people, who think every life is valuable, cannot legitimize that. Anytime a man is made to believe he is a god, terrible things happen. I was watching a show on the history channel about Caligula the Roman emperor. Same problem, he was just evil to the core. This guy is a modern day Caligula! [Edited by Don W]



Yes, he’s truly a modern “Oriental Potentate.” We have already committed ourselves to a fast military concept - small well trained land sea air force - so we do not have man-power to even deal with a situation no larger than Iraq where only 25 million people live. Iran has 65 million people.

If we are going to be r o b u s t - a new word for Bush43 - we’ll need more men. Our concept of mixing active duty and reserves is ok for a single shot tour of back-ups. OTOH when you have to call up the same reserves 2 times in 2 years, you have made a serious error either underestimating the task or overestimating the capability of your force. With the forces we have we cannot invade Granada again.

We can’t have a draft because the pool is too large and we can’t draft fairly. We will have to modify our “reach” in the world. So for now, we will have to placate North Korea to regain control over the nuclear stuff. It’s our best bet. Money for bombs.


[edit on 10/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   


So for now, we will have to placate North Korea to regain control over the nuclear stuff. It’s our best bet. Money for bombs.


This is a point on which we will just have to agree to disagree. Donwhite, always a pleasure, see you round the boards!



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   


posted by HimWhoHathAnEar



So for now, we will have to placate North Korea to regain control over the nuclear stuff. It’s our best bet. Money for bombs.


This is a point on which we will just have to agree to disagree. Donwhite, always a pleasure, see you round the boards!



10-4, Mr H/W/H/A/E, on agreeing to disagree. Good discussion though. Thx.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join