On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:36:27 -0400, "Ronald J. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > In short, neither North nor South Korea were truly "innocent". Both were
> > dictatorial regimes which pretended to be "democratic". Each was propped-up
by a
> > world superpower. It has been fashionable to romanticise about South Korea
being
> > a democracy that was being unnecessarily attacked by the North, but this is
not
> > the case. Both nations were simply tools of the Cold War.
>
> I'm sorry - I missed something here. I appreciate this "fyi" but you didn't
> answer my question. Did not N. Korea attack S.Korea and UN forces, including
> the US intervene? Regardless of the type of government or religion involved...
>
> > I don't know much about the Gulf region, but I know that Kuwait is most
> > certainly _not_ a democracy. The National Assembly has almost no power, and
> > women cannot vote (it is a very Islamic nation, after all). The press is
> > strictly censored and controlled. Nevertheless, this small nation are
heavily
> > backed by the US and other Western nations because of their oil reserves.
>
> Again, you've missed my original point and observation in this case.
> Regardless of their type of government, they were ATTACKED by another country
> and then aided by the United States. Do the Kuwaiti (sp? for plural?) people
> not have their country back today because of the US? (and if it hadn't been
> for the US - who could have or would have done it? If Hussein hadn't been
> stopped there, what other country would have been next? Don't get me wrong, I
> too feel uncomfortable with my country in a role of "world policeman", but
> sometimes, you are needed...I wish it were not so...but -stuff- happens. ;-)
You're right. I don't know much on the origins of the Korean War, so I can't
really comment. I'm tempted to agree with you that the North attacked the South
without provocation (i.e. the generally-held view), but I am reluctant to say
anything because I know little about it all. For example, I have read very valid
arguments saying that Russia, and not Germany or Austria, started the First
World War. Working out the origins of a war is often _far_ more complex than the
war itself.
A better example would be the situation in Vietnam. After WWII, Ho Chi Minh
established his regime in the north while the French re-imposed their rule in
the south. The forces of the north, the Viet Minh, finally managed to defeat the
French in 1954, but was forced by the US to give up the newly-won south to a
US-backed "democratic" government (which in reality was quite authoritarian and
brutal). Both sides agreed to have a referendum for reunification in 1956.
However, the South Vietnamese, still guided by the United States, refused to
sign an agreement or hold elections. This, of course, triggered the Vietnam War.
Anyway, I'm so far off topic it's ridiculous (an understatement, I know :-) ).
I'll wrap it up there.
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
"There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
