I'm trying to think of this alternative scenario that Western cultural sensitivity would have helped , considering their propaganda for 70 years has been targeting America with unbridled hatred.
Even in modern times there are very few options other than China and recently South Korea's attempt to start collaborating on industry. Economics is the only way out for them. And the burden of which is on surrounding Asian countries. There is a zero chance war will result in any good. Or that being nice to them will win their hearts.
That being said I have called out comments this week where people said:
> Wouldnt it be awesome to watch NSA go all out on DPRK? Replying with:
> Yes, and more poverty and starvation for all too! /s
Perhaps I shouldn't say unparalleled -- Germany succeeded under American guidance, as did Japan despite a radically different culture and people. There was a time when we could rebuild countries successfully.
Notably, of course, Germany was full of Germans and Korea was full of Koreans. Cultural values allowed these countries to succeed, just as they ensure the failure of secular states in the Middle East. I don't advocate intervention everywhere -- and I think it's idiotic to try to set up democracies, even puppet ones, in countries hostile to essential Western values -- but the success of South Korea displays the huge loss the world has suffered from the Communist domination of North Korea.
It's simplistic to declare that "there is a zero chance war will result in any good." We sacrificed American lives to save Europe and much of East Asia from hellish regimes, and those were the right calls. It would have been the right call to save Korea as well. War hasn't helped Afghanistan -- because nothing will help Afghanistan -- but we used to have the wisdom to know when intervention was worth the cost.
Spreading freedom is right, and I can see the good side of US authorities in this. I imagine there might be lot of people living in North Korea under medieval set of freedoms (but we all lived through that and is it that bad?).
But people can't open up easily, even if you are trying to help them. It takes time. If we want NK to come to terms with upholding human rights, we need to give them time. While at the same time pushing them a bit as well. Sometimes I wonder if that is what is happening. US the lash, Russia/China the console. If that is so, then the culprit is neither US or NK or Russia, but us, for over-reacting in certain senses.
For example, in the above translation there is a line: "all war spaces including cyber warfare space to blow up those citadels."
I think the above line was for 'biased or mistaken/unbiased' reasons miss-quoted/translated by some in the US media, as 'North Korea threatens to blow up US buildings'(creating unnecessary tension based on the events of 9/11). Instead it might have meant "breaking a nexus". But anyways, quite a few media outlets ran that story. And I guess, to some extent the comedic approach to North Korea is thus needed. But that should not mean disgracing its leader directly. Tease but don't Touch!
They think doing what they do is good, you think it is bad, who's right?
Are we going to start a war every time we disagree with the choice of a country? Might as well nuke the whole earth.
Could you expand on this?
It should also be noted that North Korea, while the instigator of the war and a Communist country, was in a very different position in the 1950s. It was a richer country than South Korea until the 1970s, and South Korea at the time was an American-backed military dictatorship. While there may have been a moral argument to roll back Communism as far as possible, Truman's concerns about the geopolitical implications of expanding the war were very real, and calling them cowardice is a rather crude mischaracterization.
http://my.firedoglake.com/inoljt/2012/11/30/how-north-korea-...
There's the escalation with China/nuke part of things, and there's the total rejection of civilian control of the military part of things.
Perhaps it's best he didn't get a chance to do all that.
The Chinese intervention in Korea was overwhelming, and Americans were forced to retreat -- and considered evacuating the peninsula altogether. MacArthur, fresh from Japan and the Philippines, was determined to save Korea from its modern fate and threatened China with war if they would not withdraw from what is now North Korea.
Truman had already significantly interfered with MacArthur's prosecution of the war, and eventually relieved him entirely when he felt MacArthur was too provocative. That led to the use of North Korea as a Chinese buffer state, much as Stalin used Eastern Europe, and to the situation we have today.
It's one of the worst blunders in the history of American foreign policy. Now, not only is North Korea a paranoid dictatorship with more than enough conventional arms to reduce South Korea to rubble within hours, they're armed with nuclear weapons and increasingly hostile even to their Chinese sponsors.
Since I identify as mostly liberal, I always defaulted to a defense of Truman. But I was wrong. Truman's failure should have stained his legacy, not MacArthur's. And for exactly the same reasons I outlined, MENA states dominated by fundamentalist Islam must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons. Rogue states and lunatics have ruined too many lives to be protected by a kneejerk fear of war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Truman's_relief_of_Ge...
MacArthur undermined the chain of command. That's why he was relieved. Full stop.
It's too bad how it work out for all parties involved, particularly the people of North Korea.
Short version: international treaties building up to a "we will enforce international law" army, where everyone else in the treaty has to turn on one of its members if they are accused. The army's job isn't to wage wars, it is to forcibly arrest suspects, to be tried at the Hague. Suspects must be "members of a government" (any soldier, civil servant, elected official, spy, etc)
the idea requires lots of definitions first (not least who is in a government), but that's the gist of it. This is not an idea I throw around lightly, as people tend to misunderstand it readily. I know that it is far-fetched, etc, no need to remind me :)
Nobody considered Hitler or Stalin to be laughing matters during their purges. But somehow we can all ignore the horrific crimes of these bastards because the father was ridiculous and the son is fat. Nobody gives a damn if the Kims rape women, torture civilians, or murder innocent families so long as their victims are Korean. No, the first time we see even vaguely appropriate anger toward these dictators is when they might have hacked a goddamn MOVIE STUDIO.
MacArthur was right. Truman was horribly, horribly wrong. And innocent Koreans have paid for Truman's cowardice and vanity with half a century of utter brutality. The only thing wrong with The Interview movie was that it was a comedy rather than a true story.