Navies of 2 Koreas exchange fire

[Lord Baal]

I used to have a friend from Kosovo who used to tell me that the Kosovar strand of Illyrian tribes once created a huge empire, covering much of Central and South Europe.
He also did say that Alexander the Great was a Slav and that both the Macedonians (present day)and the Greeks were hypocrits for taking Alexander from Kosovo's history.

Doesn't surprise me.

Whereas I am not that knowledgable in Southeastern Asian history, I did do some amount of research on Indochina after French withdrawal, and frankly put, I dont get why the Thais were sheltering the Khmer Rouge in the first place. After seeing such a slaughter any reasonably minded nation should have stopped.

I think that was a case of "the devil you know, or the devil you don't." When confronted with the choice of supporting the Vietnamese puppet government, or the Khmer Rouge, Thailand, China, and others, chose to support the Khmer Rouge, as they were significantly less of a threat. Let's not forget that Vietnam basically humiliated China in a war, which understandably caused some fear and trepidation in the region.

Oh, I thought you were referring to duck as in the 'male prostitute'; but i see you were referring to a whole different thing.

Oh, it wouldn't be the first time I'd been compared to a male prostitute, if he had been. Which is kind of interesting, actually.

 

[Lord Baal]

Now I'm on eoc's side now.
Just joking. But yeah, due to the fact I am Asian, once every while I tend to lose patience and blurt ouf stuff that on retrospective, makes me cover my head in shame.
Still, if at least half the Korean population is as moderate (or be a follower of the Anglo-American politician) as I am, Korea would be a different place.

All absolutely true. My viewpoint means I can look at East Asia objectively, but I can't look at Australia objectively, try as I might. The best any of us can do is to try.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I think that was a case of "the devil you know, or the devil you don't." When confronted with the choice of supporting the Vietnamese puppet government, or the Khmer Rouge, Thailand, China, and others, chose to support the Khmer Rouge, as they were significantly less of a threat. Let's not forget that Vietnam basically humiliated China in a war, which understandably caused some fear and trepidation in the region.

After you pointed that out, kinda makes sense now. But here's one thing you probably dont quite know: Did you know that China does not teach a comprehensive history on the War against Vietnam, its role in the Year Zero Plan in Cambodia, as well as the Vietnam reason of invading Cambodia?

 

[Tee Kay]

Whereas I am not that knowledgable in Southeastern Asian history, I did do some amount of research on Indochina after French withdrawal, and frankly put, I dont get why the Thais were sheltering the Khmer Rouge in the first place. After seeing such a slaughter any reasonably minded nation should have stopped.

Animosity (historical and contemporary) towards Vietnam, and that the Khmer Rouge was aligned with China which is in turn aligned with the United States. The border areas where the Khmer Rouge operated made a good buffer.

As for the reasonably-minded nation bit, well, the United States and the Western world refused to recognize the People's Republic of Kampuchea as Cambodia's government and the Khmer Rouge continued to hold the Cambodian UN seat well into the 1980s.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Animosity (historical and contemporary) towards Vietnam, and that the Khmer Rouge was aligned with China which is in turn aligned with the United States. The border areas where the Khmer Rouge operated made a good buffer.

As for the reasonably-minded nation bit, well, the United States and the Western world refused to recognize the People's Republic of Kampuchea as Cambodia's government and the Khmer Rouge continued to hold the Cambodian UN seat well into the 1980s.

well, I used to have this notion that during the Cold War, the guys who were subject to infleunces were a bit more rational, but I guess Thailand didt. They should thought about the long term consequences of dealing with the Khmer Rouge. And Vietnam certainly had good reasons to invade.

 

[eoc]

OK, let me try to explain "duck" here means. I don't mean a male-whore, I must clear it.
An old Chinese story: when thunder comes, ducks can't hear it, but when they saw men running on the street, ducks start to yell and run everywhere. This story tells, ducks don't know what happening, but they yell as no reason.

Could you understand now?

 

[Tee Kay]

well, I used to have this notion that during the Cold War, the guys who were subject to infleunces were a bit more rational, but I guess Thailand didt. They should thought about the long term consequences of dealing with the Khmer Rouge. And Vietnam certainly had good reasons to invade.

What long term consequences?

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

What long term consequences?

That Cambodia and Vietnam would hate their guts for it.

 

[Tee Kay]

That Cambodia and Vietnam would hate their guts for it.

Cambodia Thailand and Vietnam hate each other's guts anyway. The Khmer Rouge was a convenient buffer against the Vietnamese, and the Thais probably reckoned suppressing the Khmer Rogue would be too messy. And it's the Cold War - America's the boss. The boss say it's good to support a genocidal regime, therefore it's good to support a genocidal regime. Thailand doesn't care if it annoys Vietnam since they're on the other side.

 

[Lord Baal]

After you pointed that out, kinda makes sense now. But here's one thing you probably dont quite know: Did you know that China does not teach a comprehensive history on the War against Vietnam, its role in the Year Zero Plan in Cambodia, as well as the Vietnam reason of invading Cambodia?

I didn't know it, but it doesn't surprise me at all. Also, what taillesskangaru is saying.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I didn't know it, but it doesn't surprise me at all. Also, what taillesskangaru is saying.

Heck, over in China, they hardly know Zhao Ziyang, the Tiananmen Massacre, etc.

 

[Tee Kay]

Just an interesting note on Thai-Cambodian relations, Thaksin Shinawat the ex- Thai PM who's wanted for corruption in Thailand just started his new job as Prime Ministers Hun Sen's economic advisor in Phnom Penh. Hun Sen is refusing to extradite Thaksin back to Thailand, resulting in breaking of diplomatic relations for the 9000th time since Hun Sen became PM. The current leaders of Cambodia including Hun Sen are the same people who ruled the PRK in the 1980s, so maybe that's a consequence of Thailand's actions in the eighties. Then again, the Thais tend to look down their neighbours, so good relations with Cambodia isn't as important (to some Thais) as good relations with, say, Japan, the United States, China or Europe.

 

[Tee Kay]

Heck, over in China, they hardly know Zhao Ziyang, the Tiananmen Massacre, etc.

For obvious reasons. Nationalist histories downplay (or in China's case outright whiteout) shameful episodes and defeats. But, then again, I can't think of an East Asian country that's not doing a similar thing, autocratic or democratic.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

For obvious reasons. Nationalist histories downplay (or in China's case outright whiteout) shameful episodes and defeats. But, then again, I can't think of an East Asian country that's not doing a similar thing, autocratic or democratic.

I think South Korea is the least in that matter. While rightists in the government tend to ignore it, many human rights activists in South Korea have questioned the legitimacy of the execution against the 'Red' Koreans commited by the South Korean MP under the authorization of the then President Rhee Sungman, an anti-Communist strongman.
Also we emphasize the Gwangju maasacre in the 80's where tanks rolled into Jeollado to supress demonstarting students who were against President Chun Doohan's autocratic government, and President Park's detainment and subsequent toture of thousands of suspected South Korean Communists.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think South Korea is the least in that matter. While rightists in the government tend to ignore it, many human rights activists in South Korea have questioned the legitimacy of the execution against the 'Red' Koreans commited by the South Korean MP under the authorization of the then President Rhee Sungman, an anti-Communist strongman.
Also we emphasize the Gwangju maasacre in the 80's where tanks rolled into Jeollado to supress demonstarting students who were against President Chun Doohan's autocratic government, and President Park's detainment and subsequent toture of thousands of suspected South Korean Communists.

Perhaps because South Korea became a democracy only after such struggles of popular movements and therefore is more open with its own history - at least with past government actions during the dictatorship.

I'll be interested to know how South Korean schools teaches other "low points" in its history though, for instance, the Japanese colonization.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Perhaps because South Korea became a democracy only after such struggles of popular movements and therefore is more open with its own history - at least with past government actions during the dictatorship.

I'll be interested to know how South Korean schools teaches other "low points" in its history though, for instance, the Japanese colonization.

The school teachers usually get emotional, the class takes a session in anti-Japanese rhetoric, and throws petrol bombs at the American Garrison. (huh?)

On a serious note, the textbooks tend to emphasize suffering, mistreatment and independence struggles, whereas they downplay the indutrialization of Korea under Japan, those who collaborated with the Japanese,and the Zanichi Koreans, who are descendents of Korean P.O.W workers, businessmen, and Korean emigrants in Japan

 

[Lord Baal]

Heck, over in China, they hardly know Zhao Ziyang, the Tiananmen Massacre, etc.

For obvious reasons. Nationalist histories downplay (or in China's case outright whiteout) shameful episodes and defeats. But, then again, I can't think of an East Asian country that's not doing a similar thing, autocratic or democratic.

Exactly. I've meant Japanese students who are firmly convinced America attacked them, and that they were unwitting victims of the Pacific War. That sort of crap likely wouldn't fly in Tokyo - they might deny it, but they couldn't ignore it - but among the rural people, you can get away with that stuff easily. Considering how closed China was until recently, it's much easier to manipulate information.

Just an interesting note on Thai-Cambodian relations, Thaksin Shinawat the ex- Thai PM who's wanted for corruption in Thailand just started his new job as Prime Ministers Hun Sen's economic advisor in Phnom Penh. Hun Sen is refusing to extradite Thaksin back to Thailand, resulting in breaking of diplomatic relations for the 9000th time since Hun Sen became PM. The current leaders of Cambodia including Hun Sen are the same people who ruled the PRK in the 1980s, so maybe that's a consequence of Thailand's actions in the eighties. Then again, the Thais tend to look down their neighbours, so good relations with Cambodia isn't as important (to some Thais) as good relations with, say, Japan, the United States, China or Europe.

My girlfriend is Cambodian, and her parents fled the Khmer Rouge. They've told me many times they'd love to see Thailand destroyed by a giant earthquake. You should have seen them during the recent war.

Perhaps because South Korea became a democracy only after such struggles of popular movements and therefore is more open with its own history - at least with past government actions during the dictatorship.

I'll be interested to know how South Korean schools teaches other "low points" in its history though, for instance, the Japanese colonization.

I imagine that'd be the reason, yes. As a new democracy, it is important for Korea to acknowledge its recent past as a hedge against a return to authoritarianism. Expect the revisionists to be in full-swing thirty years from now.

I know they gloss over collaborators at least, from my Korean friends. My roommate was there this year, and met a comfort woman who was sold to the Japanese by her father. You never hear about that stuff, and apparently there was a collective gasp by the people at the lecture.

 

[Patroklos]

I always thought so too, but Patroklus says otherwise. I'd like to see this thread he was talking about.

It is as simple as looking at a map.

If you go to the website linked below you can get a zoomable version.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...q=Souoth+Korea+map+population&hl=en&sa=G&um=1

The most advanced artillery systems of the world (which NK doesn't have but we will give them the benefit of the doubt) have on the order of 30-35km max range using rocket assisted ammunition. The center of Seoul is at right about 40km from the closest point in NK, with the majority of the city South of that point and the Han river.

The above means that even with world beating artillery the vast majority of the city is not in range of NK artillery at all. But more than that given how antiquated the NK military is and the fact that only the heaviest/most advanced tubes would be at the 30-35km range anyway, only the farthest Northern reaches of the city are vulnerable to concentrated fire. On top of that, the NK artillery is not all concentrated at a simple point on the NK border but deployed several miles deep into their own territory where there are suitable defendable locations.

In other words, the idea that Seoul would be "leveled" is ridiculous.

 

[IglooDame]

It is as simple as looking at a map.

If you go to the website linked below you can get a zoomable version.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...q=Souoth+Korea+map+population&hl=en&sa=G&um=1

The most advanced artillery systems of the world (which NK doesn't have but we will give them the benefit of the doubt) have on the order of 30-35km max range using rocket assisted ammunition. The center of Seoul is at right about 40km from the closest point in NK, with the majority of the city South of that point and the Han river.

The above means that even with world beating artillery the vast majority of the city is not in range of NK artillery at all. But more than that given how antiquated the NK military is and the fact that only the heaviest/most advanced tubes would be at the 30-35km range anyway, only the farthest Northern reaches of the city are vulnerable to concentrated fire. On top of that, the NK artillery is not all concentrated at a simple point on the NK border but deployed several miles deep into their own territory where there are suitable defendable locations.

In other words, the idea that Seoul would be "leveled" is ridiculous.

Cool, I learned something new today.

 

[RedRalph]

Slightly OT (I don't know much about artillery at all), are the 'most advanced artillery systems in the world' neccesarily the ones with the longest range?