15 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastYour initial question doesn't make any sense. Of course everyone would prefer it if everybody in the World were peaceful. But you don't have control over the other guy; you only have control over you. To not fight the other guy simply because you'd rather the other guy not want to fight you doesn't make any sense. If a burglar was in your house and headed towards your kids' rooms and you had a gun, would you say "Well, gee, I'd rather the burglar not be violent so I won't be violent either"? No. You'd blow the burglar's brains out and then when your kids are safe, you'd go back to being peaceful.
In determining which of two worldviews is "right", I often ask myself which world I'd rather live in: a world in which all of the people believed in A, or a world in which all of the people believe in B. Here the choice is simple. I would much rather live in a world of pacifists than in a world of people who held in high regard the use of military or ter te that reality or heap scorn on those who cannot bring themselves to put a price on peace.
Hawks don't "hold in high regard the use of military or terrorist force as a means of solving problems." They think it necessary in certain cases to solve problems that can't be solved in other ways. Whether they're right or wrong with regard to a particular situation is a question that needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. But you're basic point is an oversimplification.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76Thats what I thought, surely google+Marshall plan yields results.
Does he really need to explain how US guns and other policies helped bring long term peace to Japan, Germany and South Korea? Though, I will concede that I'm not sure what Vietnam is doing on that list.
As to the Vietnam thing I may have got my war sponsored economic recovery slightly mashed up with domino theory.
15 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnd yet they've for the most part enjoyed peace and prosperity for half a century, especially when compared to the dark fate suffered by their northern brethren. And, of course, they have the US (and the other countries that contributed to the UN force, of course) to thank for that.
South Korea is still officially at war with North Korea ...
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell okay I was trying to be smart, but if the Korean war helped boost Japan into the economic colossus it was to become, who did America pick on to bring Germany back from the grave?
South Korea is still officially at war with North Korea ...
Yeah and I know I should take my own google advice, but......
15 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Perhaps they have the US (and the other Potsdam signatories) to thank for the war in the first place.
And yet they've for the most part enjoyed peace and prosperity for half a century, especially when compared to the dark fate suffered by their northern brethren. And, of course, they have the US (and the other countries that contributed to the UN force, of course) to thank for that.
"At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference (November 1943) where Churchill, Chiang Kai-shek, and Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that Korea would be a free nation and an independent country" ('Korean War', Wikipedia).
Things are never all that simple, are they?
"As the military governor, General John R. Hodge directly controlled South Korea via the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK 1945–48).[49]:63 He established control by first restoring to power the key Japanese colonial administrators and their Korean and police collaborators,[31] and second, by refusing the USAMGIK’s official recognition of the People's Republic of Korea (PRK) (August–September 1945), the provisional government (agreed with the Japanese Army) with which the Koreans had been governing themselves and the peninsula—because he suspected it was communist. These US policies, voiding popular Korean sovereignty, provoked the civil insurrections and guerrilla warfare preceding, then constituting, the Korean civil war.[37] On 3 September 1945, Lieutenant General Yoshio Kozuki, Commander, Japanese 17th Area Army , contacted Hodge, telling him that the Soviets were south of the 38th parallel at Kaesong. Hodge trusted the accuracy of the Japanese Army report."
Oh yes, Koreans North and South should grovel with gratitude.
I'm curious now whether you think I'm being anti-American or not.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by kmax87I don't understand your question.
Well okay I was trying to be smart, but if the Korean war helped boost Japan into the economic colossus it was to become, who did America pick on to bring Germany back from the grave?
Yeah and I know I should take my own google advice, but......
Obviously West Germany had to be in good shape to withstand the Commies, that was the essence of the Plan.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe way I got told it, America started the Korean War so as to provide a ready made industry for Japan to be primary supplier to. Probably simplistic I know but anyway it made emotional sense.
I don't understand your question.
Obviously West Germany had to be in good shape to withstand the Commies, that was the essence of the Plan.
The point I was trying to make was, were there any such ready made conflicts that Germany's industry was propped up against, or were they not that conveniently located so as to appear linked?
This of course assumes that war was a necessary component of the Marshall Plan's success.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt seems from that quote that without US action, there's at least a reasonable chance that the whole Korea would be under a government more analogous to the current NK than the current SK. So, yes, the southerners should be thankful they were spared from that fate. As for the north, there's no need for them to thank us because, unfortunately, we were not able to spare them from the horrors of Communism. They can thank the Chinese for their fate.
Perhaps they have the US (and the other Potsdam signatories) to thank for the war in the first place.
"At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference (November 1943) where Churchill, Chiang Kai-shek, and Franklin D. Roosevelt declar ...[text shortened]... el with gratitude.
I'm curious now whether you think I'm being anti-American or not.
As for whether you're being "anti-American," you tell me. Do you always look for the downside of everything the US does and ignore the positives? If so, then yes. If not, then no. I would never draw a conclusion from one historical discussion. I accuse people of being anti-American when they say Americans are stupid or backwards or rednecks or whatever; not when they criticize individual US policies or actions.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76As offensive as what? Sorry, I didn't get that. I wasn't accusing you anything, though.
If it makes you feel any better, I think the term "euroweenie" is just as offensive and absurd and I would never condone its use either.
Anyway, zeeblebot calls some Europeans of being euroweenies because most believe something I agree with. I guess that makes me a proud "euroweenie"!
15 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAs offensive as anti-Americanism.
As offensive as what?
I wasn't citing an example. Bosse made a remark about anti-Americanism (or asking whether I though he was being anti-American) so I defined the term as I see it. I wasn't either accusing anyone of anything.
You brought up the term "euroweenie," so I said that I thought that term is offensive for the same reason that anti-Americanism is offensive.
