Of course not and it's not comparible. Hitler invaded other countries. At that time korea was KOREA... it wasn't two seperate countries. Then came russia/US to screw things up for them. There shouldn't even be a North/South Korea... it should just be Korea, and hopefully one day once they get passed all the outside governments interfering with them, they will reunify. Once again.. had we not gone and screwed up their country, and let them be, maybe KOREA would have no reason not be our ally since we'd freed them from Japanese rule.
*35 seconds.... **Seems they like firing long-range, but short traveling missiles. Why on the 4th of July? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060704/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nkorea WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday five missiles were fired by North Korea in what it called a provocation, but not an immediate threat to the United States. "We do consider it provocative behavior," National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said. Four of the five missiles were short range, but the other was a long-range missile — which failed after 35 seconds — that U.S. officials believe is capable of reaching the United States. The short-range missiles landed in the Sea of Japan.
Maybe because they want to mock or threaten our freedom. Why did the 9-11 emergency happen on 9-11? It's probably a similar thing.
Everything must not add up mathematically to equal one insane man's capability. Hitler just had the wit and support to do what he did. Kim is no better a man in histories light (in fact I think he was nothing but a communist tool). One can compare Hitler to Stalin, Mao or other scum, but why bother when they're all the same but by virtue of the numbers they physically killed. I mean if you think of the scores of people that died under Mao just because of economic policy...it makes Hitler look like an amatuer. I'm assuming Kim's stastics wouldn't be nice either. No need for history, I know it beyond what you can give. Having a dictator, virtually trying to take over a set of land is always good to see stopped. South Korea operates under it's own government. America isn't interfering with South Koreas existence, it made it capable of being free. Much like Europe, had we not come it would be 'one' governement under tyranny. MAYBE...that's a long stretch. We? Man, we didn't screw anything up. It's funny how you say we freed it from Japan, but.....didn't we free it from NK's leaders? I think you need to look up the history of it, because what you're saying now doesn't make sense. It's almost fantasy.
How exactly did north korea have it's own leaders before there was a north korea? There wasn't "north korean leaders/south korean leaders" until russian came to the north and the US came to the south.. and created/assisted them. At least that's what i took away from the light reading i've done on the subject...
I think the south koreans blame us too, for not allowing them the privilege to live under a communist government too. damn americans
Hey.. don't take my word for it http://www.rand.org/news/press.04/03.12.html One of these challenges is the fact that sizable percentages of South Koreans with college educations and those in their 20s said in polls last year that they hold an unfavorable view of the United States and believe that America poses a greater threat to their country than North Korea. People with only a junior high school education and those older than 50 said exactly the opposite. ....... Nevertheless, two out of three South Koreans characterized the relationship between South Korea and the U.S. as “pretty bad†or “very bad,†and 26 percent said they thought that the U.S. was the most threatening country to South Korea.
You're almost there chief. We declared war on Japan....rightful so, I assume? Then we fight it, and Japan loses. Russia, much like Germany feels an interest in taken as much land as possible under their ideology. That's their prime goal after world war 2. So, yes, they do have a part in making North Korea's leaders. North Korea asserted (with really nothing to back it) that the south aggressed, and attacked a parallel that was virtually empty at the time...with a huge military offensive. Since we found interest in protecting our allies, an not letting Russia's idealogy step-over international agreements we came to SK rescue and prevented them from being just another military consumed communist country. Now while you LOOK as though you want to make a bad-guy out of the US in this occasion, I'd tell you that regardless of US actions, Russia intended on getting korean leader to take over Korea. So the chose was either protect SK or let it be for the Russians. The difference of coarse is that they're a normal democratic government by virtue of our protection , while NK is a dictator's slum because of russian ideology. I wouldn't call our 'interference' bad, but I would call Russia's bad. It's LIKE you're ignoring that Russia would do what it always had been doing...and thinking that some sort of fantasy would have evolved out of the situation where the Russian would have just given the land back to the Koreans to run as they wanted. That wasn't going happen.
That's from wiki. Now what I take from that is - WHY ON EARTH didn't they just say "ok korea.. you're free.. you're independant now".... it doesn't really sound like either the US or Russia were too interested in letting them be..
Wouldn't be the first time that college bound individuals were influenced in odd ways. I would say the smartests (or rather more experienced) of people lived durning the conflict, and understand what's at stake...and if you read that quote you'll see they have the opposite view. Really no different from the view of modern young europeans, whom look down upon us, but wouldn't be alive without us. But it's this all a red herring (I'm assuming you know what that means) to her comment? I means it's obvious these kids are thinking of the moment, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't have the freedom to live the way they do under NK...which was the point of lorien's comment. I means...let's keep things in context, otherwise our arguements just sound silly.
Yes, lets get back to the issue at hand. Does the US have any reason to fear that N.Korea plans to attack it? What have they done to us in the last 50 years to give that fear any grounds? Besides trying to keep Korea one unified country what wrong toward other countries have they done? And what exactly, is wrong with a soveriegn country saying that it will defend itself if it comes under attack? Those are real issues here.
Because this is politics, not fantasy. The US stood strong like it did in western berlin....which was extremely smart and good for the rest of Europe. What sounds and is, is two different things. You're looking at it as though you want something to prove against our actions at that time. I'll consede we operate our military in sometimes foolish ways, but mostly on pragmatic fashions. We (ie the bulk of our military leaders) knew russia was threat, and please..please don't think they weren't. Now living in a world where you just can't let stupid idealogies be financed and pushed upon the world, you must hold the line. While you might look at the action on the US as bad...when we support actions against our enemy, our military leaders aren't gullible enough to assume the best of our enemies. How far did communism spread via Russia? Far, but it failed finanically, philsophically, and militarily. All equally important, and all needed. I mean...would you prefer all of Korea to be like NK?
That's not what I meant. I meant your arguement didn't really have anything to do with what she was saying. It's kind of like talking about tv's when the other persons talking about cars. Same fears as communist Russia or Cuba...dicators with weapons. Doesn't mean it will happen, but it isn't an ideal situation. Nothing, because we don't let them have the grounds to be feared...till recently. It's just a matter of international agreements, and not trusting people like him. Nothing, really. Although considering a tyrannical government something deserving the term soverignty is a bit odd. A dictator and his supporters are anything but worthy of defending. Morally announcing they have rights (ie the dictator) is like saying the devil should have quarters....it's an analogy for you yo-yo. Frankly, if you or anyone else can prove that someone is intentionally killing innocent people via government, I could careless what's done to them. As long as you say so.
Ok well here's an analogy for you Lets say you live in a house. You find that a person who lives accross the street from you isn't very friendly. Do you go around to all of your neighbors whining about him? Do you cry to the police when you find out he owns a gun? Do go knocking on his door telling him what to do? Or do you just ignore him and go on with your life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation
Depends, is he building a cannon and pointing it at my house or is he just sitting there being not very friendly?
Yo-Yo, you are still missing the obvious. It is all about money. All the little dictator wants is to force other countries to donate money to keep his country alive. He won big time when he made a deal with Clinton in the 1990s, and then he took that money and used it to build his military. Do not forget that he reneged on his deal with US. We did not renege on our deal with him. Fool me once. . . This Korean dictator is the only one rattling sabers in the area. No one is threatening him. FYI. If Truman had not stepped in in the 1950s, the entire country would be an arm pit today... and probably run by the same dictator. The Korean war was about a communist takeover sweeping down from the North, which was taking over the country by force. It was actually the Chinese that drove the US and our allies back to the 38th parallel. The country is split due to a truce. The reason that most Koreans over 50 have a favorable view of the USA is because they understand what happened, unlike college students and the younger generation who only know what they are taught.
Most all of them You seem to start with an objective. And then justify it by whatever you think will work. When confronted you retreat into something like...