What's dishonest about noticing that neither a "commie" nor a US-supported dictator were going to massacre you--just a bunch of South Koreans? It's quite true.
Please. Your accusative connotation is obvious...
I didn't accuse you of killing South Koreans, if that's what you're trying to say. If it's
not what you're trying to say, then I have no idea what "obvious connotation" you're talking about. I meant no more nor less than what I said. You can try to justify America's support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, despite the people he killed and raped, but you'd sound a lot more convincing if you volunteered yourself, or your wife or children, to fall victim on behalf of "America's interests."
You appear to be claiming that preventing South Korea from having democracy for about four decades was in our national self-interest. Fascinating. Why hasn't the US government been intellectually honest about that?
We live in a constitutional democracy. Gov cannot necessarily trumpet all its intentions and motivations...
You mean, government needs to lie to us for our own good? On the one hand, they need to be accessories to murderous dictators, and on the other, they need to keep it from us so we won't feel bad about it? I'm speechless, kamarad. Completely speechless.
Perhaps because "making the world safe for US-backed puppet dictators" doesn't have quite the same ring?
Substantiate. Since when is the US gov a byiatch to petty dictators? You are contradicting yourself - I thought it was the other way around.
Your sentence makes no sense. I have never used "Snoop Dogg" slang in my life, and certainly not in this context, so I have no idea what you're saying. We've propped up dictators the world over. That's what I've said multiple times in this thread, and haven't contradicted myself. I think you've shizzled your nizzle, or something.
EDIT: I think I understand your confusion. "Making the world safe for democracy" does
not mean what you seem to think--namely, in some way promoting
US security by containing communism. Rather, it means
giving democracy to the rest of the world. Specifically, it means that our involvement in Korea was ostensibly for the purpose of making it possible for the
Koreans to have democracy--which is precisely what we
didn't do. We denied them democracy, and gave them dictatorship instead. To apply Wilson's logic, therefore, we must have been fighting to "make the world safe for dictatorship." My best guess is that you're construing a false choice between "US interests" and "Rhee's interests," and then concluding that I'm suggesting that the US was
acting at the behest of Rhee.
Nothing of the sort. I'm saying that we claimed to be fighting for the altruistic purpose of securing democracy
for the Korean people, and instead we imposed dictatorship
on the Korean people. Truman was certainly not acting under Rhee's orders. I can't say what Truman's motives were; perhaps he sincerely believed that ordering MacArthur to intervene would secure our borders--i.e, perhaps he was so retarded that he thought the North Koreans posed a threat to our borders 3,000 miles away. I do know that we weren't fighting to give democracy and freedom to the South Koreans, because Eisenhower refused to do so when he could have--and neither has any subsequent President through 1987.
To say that the Koreans are better ... is morally blind: it's like saying that one criminal is better than another, because he stole less, or killed fewer of his victims.
Since you like to deal with absolutes, I invite you to join a monastery. The rest of us have to...
"Absolutely" condemning rape, say, makes one a kook. Sometimes in the real world we rape people. Deal with it. Don't like raping people? Go live in a cave or something, freak!
BTW, I'd ask you to
prove that we "needed" to prop up Rhee, instead of allowing the South Koreans to set up a democracy, but it'd be a waste of my time. You'll reply with the usual platitudes about the "real world," wrap yourself twice in the flag, and ultimately evade the question. We didn't need to; it was completely irrelevant to the security of our borders; it served no legitimate defensive purpose; it was in no way beneficial to the Koreans themselves (assuming arguendam that it would be a justification if it were); and was utterly immoral. And if you even tried to engage the facts, you'd have to admit it. Thus responses like your "monastery" crack.
--Len.