We must be talking to different people. The articles I read around the time of the korea summits seemed to portray the Korean people as very optomistic and happy about the sunshine policy. They seemed to welcome the prospect of reunification at least until the economy started to founder.
I have read about that incident. A Korean woman wandered off from her tour group, the NK shot her and called her a spy or something.
You may not know your relatives in NK but you may have them all the same. But yeah I guess you’re right, most Koreans probably don’t remember or have never met their family in North korea (if they ever had any).
Let me ask you this. If there was a famine in countries all over the world including North korea. Would north korea be closer to the top of your list of countries to send food to or near the bottom?
Do you think that sending food to north korea (during their famine) was a bribe or was it humanitarian aid?
WTF are you talking about?
How is a sovereign nation telling another soveriegn nation not to conduct military exercises on contested water “or else” and then doing the “or else” “isn’t similar to, it’s exactly like saying that the police conducting patrols provokes criminals into committing crimes”?
Whoops, sorry, I didn’t see the response before I posted. I’ll agree that they shouldn’t have been surprised, but only in the sense that they should have been prepared to fire back. As for the tour groups, they were again effectively bribes. The family reunions… well, it’s a gesture, I suppose. How big was the bribe for that, though?
ETA: the answer to my rhetorical question, to be fair and clear, is “I don’t know”. It could be millions, it could be pennies.
Nah, not worth getting into trouble over someone’s stupid comment.
There are a couple of conversations going on here. This particular conversation is about the lackluster response by the Korean military to the bombardment. My point was that they should have reacted sooner especially when they were given a heads up by NK in advance. It wasn’t a surprise attack or anything.
I haven’t read your book but I looked up the author and he is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, so I’m not surprised by his opinions.
I have read about this summit for cash notion as well. The FIRST summit was marred by allegations that the summit was bought and paid for but even the allegations only pointed to about $150 million, I don’t know where the $500 million is coming from. I think the guy is probably making things up for an audience that he thinks is likely to believe anything he says.
What point are you talking about? Its the sunshine policy, not the quid pro quo policy.
Did they fire the missiles over South Korea or over Japan?
You think that South Koreans have antipathy towards Japan? Kim Il Sung got his start with anti-Japanese guerrilla groups in China. One of the things they hated most about the capitalistic south was their willingness to forgive the quislings to avoid a disruption in the economy and bureaucracy.
The nuclearization issue is obviously a big issue but the sunshine policy was never “we’ll be nice to you and you do A, B, C and D” The Sunshine policy was based on the notion that if you want your enemy to put down their guns you don’t get your enemies to put down their guns by pointing your guns and yelling at them, you make them NOT your enemy anymore, then you don’t really give a shit if they have guns or not. Now I understand that nukes are not like other guns but I don’t remember the sunshine policy being about nukes to begin with.
Yeah, I agree, its a tough sell to feed people whose government kills your sailors.
South Koreans feel sorry for North Koreans but are angry and exasperated by the North’s constant over-the-top antics. Some Koreans still wish for reunification but a lot of us feel that the North is freaking nuts and that getting back together isn’t in our best interests.
Of course South Koreans don’t want to see the North Korean people starve, but I think the biggest concern over humanitarian aid is that we can’t be sure if it’s actually getting to people who need it. When the SK government started sending rice again after the Cheonan incident a lot of people were indignant. And this current incident has people pissed off more so than usual.
Also, I would take what the Western media says about “the Korean people” with a grain of salt. I’m sure some people loved the sunshine policy but most of us were ambivalent about it at best.
I never said that but you’re so busy with your agenda that you don’t read what people post. I said they would lose quickly if they attacked SK.
Continuing the Sunshine policy only makes sense if South Korea was getting something in return - they weren’t. Naval skirmishes happened before, during, and after the end of the Sunshine policy. It is a stretch to describe North Korea’s nuclear program as the reason behind the Sunshine policy. North Korea’s nuclear testing and missile testing, however, occurrences that both took place (among other times) in 2006 when the Sunshine policy was still in effect were almost certainly a primary factor for the election of a conservative and the end of the Sunshine policy. Threatening nuclear war is not particularly more peaceful than the shelling of an island or the sinking of a South Korean corvette.
The biggest problem with that logic is that the South Korean exercise ended (and they ceased firing in the drill) four hours before the North Koreans opened fire. You seem to be arguing that North Korea fired in some honest or mistaken form of self-defense or provocation. Four hours of silence before opening fire on an island that contains both a military base and a civilian city is not an act of retaliation, it itself is an act of provocation.
As to the analogy itself, it is unfathomable that the US/NATO would deliberately fire on a target that featured a mixed military/civilian population and risk WWIII just because some Soviet ordinance landed in the exclusive economic zone of the US when it was obviously part of an exercise.
Your examples are those of one-time humanitarian emergencies, not constant and recurring humanitarian emergencies that are caused in large or in whole by the needing country’s own policies and priorities. If North Korea wanted to keep its people from being chronically malnourished, all Kim Jong Il needs to do is to re-direct funding so that the military isn’t the first and only priority. Instead, he uses the humanitarian aid that North Korea does receive to keep the funding exactly where it is with his million-man military.
Damuri, we’ve had this conversation already. Please do not try to figure out what I’m thinking if this is the result of those guesses.
These silly semantic games serve little purpose.
If Russia had caused splashes in water and we had “responded similarly” to the current situation and attacked Russian targets, we’d have started the third world war. That is the entire point, you reached for the first quasi-analogy you could find and used it despite the fact that it really showed that we’d have had to have been insane to respond the way NK did, and the Russians would have to be insane to assume that we would respond that way, as well.
Rational actors do not start wars because of splashes in empty water. And rational actors do not permanently put behavior on hold because they’re threatened by thugs and maniacs who cry wolf more often than not, in any case.
Silly snark and attempt at an insult doesn’t hide the fact that, in response to the correct statement that we wouldn’t have started WW III over splashes in water you created a bizarre set of assumptions about what I think and then claimed that you “know” that those assumptions were factual. A retraction would have suited, rather than this “lol, I don’t assume that you think about anything, lol!”
But I guess I can’t have everything.
I see you’re inventing entire discussions now, and again you’re guessing at what I think/believe and failing horribly at it. Or just using a strawman, I can’t be certain.
Either that, or your argument is just obfuscatory nonsense with a series of substitutions for the actual topic, hard to tell.
Let’s clear it up, shall we?
Camus pointed out to you that the SP had failed to stop NK from engaging in violence against SK or nuking up. He pointed out that there was the denuclearization agreement of 1992and that “The original intent of the policy seemed to be about both Koreas treating each other as equals instead of rivals and working together.”
Your claim was, then, that he hadn’t read his own link. Rapidly followed up by the strawman that anybody had claimed that the SP was “based on the notion that NK is just misunderstood”.
I pointed out that of course he’d read his own link and you were using an obvious strawman and ignoring the meat of his actual claims. I also pointed out that the SP didn’t stop NK from developing nukes despite treaty obligations. Plural. I had hoped that would make it clear I was referencing more than the 1992 agreement.
Which of course brought us up to another strawman you claimed that anybody, at all, had said that , the purpose of the sunshine policy was based on NK nuclear program. Evidently a strawman used so you could get in a ‘lol and u r projecting, lol!’
That pretty much brings us current. The facts of the matter are that the north still engaged in military aggression against the south and flouted its treaty obligations by nuking up. Rather obviously, since the SP was largely about both sides treating each other as equals and working together, NK violating an agreement with SK not to nuke up and the US not to nuke up showed that it had absolutely no desire to negotiate honestly and be bound by its agreements, or to be a trustworthy partner for dialog with SK, or to stop its pattern of hostility, military threats and military actions. Coincidentally, the 1994 agreement was also another instance of extortion on NK’s part which was supposed to see a total halt to their nuclear weapons program in exchange for more protection money from the US.
Ah, I see, strawmanning. Thanks for clearing that up.
No, you’re right it was Ryan Liam. I confused one warmonger for another. My apologies, but you did seem to be defending the notion that we should have some sort of military conflict with NK because we could wipe them up pretty quickly. You realize that half of Seoul COULD go up in flames within minutes of the outbreak of war, right? You do realize that the NK’s have the ability to bomb Tokyo right? So why all the tough talk?
My understanding is that the election of a conservative government had a lot more to do with the economy than anything else. I agree that the progress hasn’t been earthshatteringly spectacular but I would suggest that there has in fact been progress. I would suggest that tensions on the Korean peninsula were easing. I would suggest that there were some historic shifts in NK policy regarding things like family reunions, South Korean tourism, and trade. Sure NK didn’t turn their swords into plowshares, sure they didn’t give up their nuclear program or hold free and fair elections but the trajectory seemed to be shifting towards a better direction.
BTW, I’m glad that you realize that the folks who seem to think the sunshine policy is somehow linked to the NK nuclear program are just making stuff up.
Is there a particular reason for this relentless barrage of distortions? The quote you were just responding to, just now, that you quoted was that it was “a stretch to describe North Korea’s nuclear program as the reason behind the Sunshine policy”.
Which you’ve now deliberately changed to an agreement that the SP was in no way, at all, linked to NK’s nuclear weapons program and that people who think that SK might have wanted NK to honor its treaty obligations and not nuke up, and that violating those treaties would evince a lack of good faith negotiation and desire to be an honest partner with SK are “making things up”.
In point of fact, the quotes you just included in your post? Camus specifically saus what lots of people have been trying to tell you; NK’s violation of treaty obligations and continuation of its nuclear weapons program was most likely a significant factor in the end of the SP (because it was proof that the ideological and pragmatic framework behind the SP was simply not working).
It’s a good clue that if you can’t make your argument without numerous strawmen, then your argument is pretty worthless.
I don’t think that the exigency of self defense has anything to do with it. They told South Korea not to fire into contested waters “or else” SK fired into contested waters and they should have been prepared for NK to fire on them. This wasn’t a surprise attack but I agree that this was also an act of provocation, a more significant act of provocation, they upped the ante significantly.
BTW, I believe that most military folks believe that the artillery fire was aimed at the military base not the civilians, the NK don’t seem to have exercised any great care to avoid civilian casualties but they weren’t trying to kill civilians. Probably not much of a difference but there you have it.
I NEVER said WWIII, I NEVER said that NK was reasonable, I NEVER said that we would have done the same thing NK did. Someone said that shooting artillery into contested waters wasn’t provocation, it was just killing some fish in the middle of the ocean. I was just trying to point out how full of shit they were by pointing out that if Russia lobbed some shells into our side of the Bering Strait, we would take it very seriously, even if it was just a Russian military exercise. We might even have plopped some artillery shells into the middle of the ocean on their side of the Bering Strait, I never said that we would have responded by attacking some military base.
I agree. The start of famines (North Korean famine - Wikipedia) coincide pretty well with the coronation of Kim Jung Il (Kim Jong Il - Wikipedia). But we have a habit of feeding starving people regardless of the actions of the government of those starving people.
It always amazes me that the NK people haven’t put two and two together on that point.
Except that whole bit about how the US might ‘respond similarly’ (one assumes similarly to the topic of the thread, after all) to splashes in the water that Russia caused. But now it seems that you’re saying that it would be the sort of “provocation” that might just yield both sides firing shells into empty water, or perhaps just ‘taking it seriously’.
And this, of course, is designed by you to show that SK provided some sort of provocation for an act of war from NK.
You’re rambling and pretending you make sense.
Please cite the post where I say we would have started WWIII. That’s not semantics thats you just making stuff up again.
But you’re probably right that I should not have said “we might have responded similarly” When all that was necessary for my point to be made was to say “we would have responded” Does that clear things up for you? We would have responded to an attack on our waters even if it was bombarding open seas.
Tell me again how the 1994 agreement was between NK and SK (as far as I can tell, it was between USA and NK), or which treaty obligation had they abrogated with SK? And even if they did, the Sunshine policy was not an agreement or a treaty, it was an unilateral policy and diplomatic position that hoped to nudge the policies of NK. Its silly to pretend that the lack of reciprocation on the NK part was some sort of abrogation of the sunshine policy. The sunshine policy also had nothing to do with NK nukes, it was not the quid pro quo policy.
If noone said that the sunshine poliocy had anything to do with NK nukes then why do you keep bringing up NK nukes?
BTW the 1994 agreement is probably more properly characterized as bribery not extortion.
Please don’t make personal comments like this in Great Debates.
You mean, the newest strawman out of a bunch that you’ve created for this thread?
I can’t tell why you’ve done such a thing, maybe you can tell us why you have.
Wrong. As pointed out to you again and again and again, NK lying, breaking agreements and nuking up violated the ideological and pragmatic basis of the SP.
Yet another distortion. Now we go from your strawman about how anybody had said that the purpose of the SP was to prevent NK from nuking up to a new strawman about how anybody at all has claimed that NK’s nuclear policy had nothing to do with the SP at all. Just a reminder, you’re the one claiming that. Other people have been trying, in vain it seems, to point out how NK’s nuclear ambitions were very much relevant to the state of the SP.
“Sure I said that he’d killed someone with malice aforethought, but you’re making things up again by claiming that I ever said anything about murder in the first degree!”
Obfuscatory nonsense. Of course we would have responded. The case here is that you are, bizarrely, claiming that splashes in the water were an actual provocation for SK’s response. Rather obviously, an action that is “provocative” can not then be used to serve as a “provocation” for any sort of response, no matter how insane. Iran’s “death to America” marches are most certainly provocative, but someone who tried to “contextualize” America bombing those rallies by saying that we’d been provoked, well…
“He was smoking on his front porch and the smell wafted into my house.”
“Well, I agree, that was rather provocative, I assume you sent him a strongly worded letter or something of the sort?”
“Yes, I shot him in the head.”
“What???”
“Why, you just agreed that his action was a provocation, and after all I’d threatened to shoot him before so he really should have known better.”
I might have misread Camus’ statement but you are just making stuff up if you say that the sunshine policy was somehow contingent on NK nuclear policy. NK was pursuing nukes before during and after the sunshine policy and I don’t remember it being the basis for the sunshine policy. If nukes were so central to the sunshine policy then why wasn’t it a stated part of the policy?
The most significant factor in the end of the sunshine policy was the election of Lee Myoung Bak as president of South Korea. Are you under the impression that North Korea policy drove the last election, I was under the impression it had more to do with the economy and the unusually low voter turnout. If his party loses the next election and the new president takes a more conciliatory attitude towards NK, will that mean that South Korea has embraced the sunshine policy and that they believe NK will abandon its nuclear program? I can make a much stronger argument that the election of the conservative government was based on economic performance rather than diplomatic policies. I can make a pretty strong case that NK will never abandon its nuclear program and SK knows it or at least suspects it strongly.
The nuclear tests created significant strain on the relationship but they didn’t abandon the SP as a direct result, the first nuclear tests were in 2006, why didn’t SK abandon the SP in 2006? Why did the abandonment of the SP coincide almost perfectly with the election of the conservative government? The conservatives never liked the SP and even if the nuclear tests had never occurred, they would still have abandoned the SP. Its simply not how conservatives are built. Conservatives generally believe that they can browbeat anyone even though they don’t believe that they themselves could ever be browbeaten.
Ah, so after being shown how you were wrong and using a barrage of strawmen, all of a sudden other people are “making things up” if they try to point out the facts to you. Why am I not surprised? Would you care to count up how many times you’ve used the phrase “making things up” in this thread, each time to cover the fact that someone else was trying to explain to you why you’re wrong? Might be interesting, is all.
Of course, you’re simply ignorant of the situation so you keep alleging that people are 'making things up". Please, again, educate yourself. Here, I’ll toss you a bone.
[
](South Korea dumps Sunshine Policy with North, opts to go solo)
Don’t worry, I’m sure that they’re “making things up”, too.