NationStates Jolt Archive

In your view, do the historical aims underlying U.S. policy towards Corea justify American instigation of the first Corean War?

Were the aims underlying U.S. instigation of the first Korean War justified?
Ask the UN. They're the ones who approved and fought it. :p

Ask the UN. They're the ones who approved and fought it. :p

I beg to differ - 신미양요 constituted a purely unilateral action on the part of the United States.

What is 신미양요 ?

You mean the UN, not the US.

waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...the UN, an organization devoted to *preventing* war, initiated a war?
Oh wait, under the politically correct definition, it was not a "war," but a "police action" :sniper:

What is 신미양요 ?

A Hangul term denoting said invasion of Korea by American forces.

You mean the UN, not the US.

I, in fact, do not; this has nothing to do with the United Nations.

A Hangul term denoting said invasion of Korea by American forces.

As in the Korean Peninsula or the DPRK?

Ask the UN. They're the ones who approved and fought it. :p
Please Eutrusca, you know as well as anyone else that the war declaration approved by the UN wouldn't have gotten passed in any other circumstance.

I, in fact, do not; this has nothing to do with the United Nations.

Fine, then take it up with the UN, it was fought under their aegis.

In your view, do the historical aims underlying U.S. policy towards Corea justify American instigation of the first Corean War?

Well, most of the time Americans only go to war for very good reasons, so I would assume they'd be justified.

Ask MacArthur.

Actually, the OP does have a point. How dare the US deny the high standard of living that North Korean's have to the poor food starved people of South Korea.

What utter bastards, spending their blood and treasure that way!!! (Including the UK, Aus, NZ).

Still a UN war though.

I, in fact, do not; this has nothing to do with the United Nations.

Hate to tell you, man, but here is what happened.

Following World War 2, the Korean Peninsula was split into 2 zones of control for the purposes of reconstruction following the withdrawl of Japanese troops who had invadedand occupied the area during the war.
The North was put under the control of the USSR, the South under the control of the West. The result of this was that a communist government was formed in the North, and a pro-western government in the South. Both sides were interested in reunification, since they had been one nation until World War 2, but could not agree on which government would lead after reunification.

To settle the problem, North Korea invaded the South. This action was brought to the UN Security Council, which voted on whether or not to take military action. The USSR did not veto the vote, a they could have, because at the time they were boycotting the UN. This was because at this time the permament seat assigned to China was being held by Taiwan, the remaining government of China before the revolution. Mainland China was ruled, as it is today, by the communists, and at that time was not recognized by the UN, and therefore did not hold their seat on the Security Council.

With the USSR and the People's Republic of China not there to veto, the vote for a military intervention in Korea, which had been divided by the UN to begin with, passed. Forces from a lot of countries, including the US, Britain, Australia, and many others, were sent. They achieved quick advancement through the Peninsula, liberating the South, and continueing north, nearly reach the Yalu River (the border with China), at which point both nations would no longer have been under communist leadership.

At this point, the Chinese, with "secret" Soviet support, crossed the Yalu River en masse, taking the UN forces by surprise, and nearly pushing them off the Peninsula entirely. Eventually, the UN forces recovered, and retook the South, at which point a stalemate occured, most of which took place at the existing border between the two countries. This lasted for years, until the ceasefire was signed.

At no point did the US act alone. They were there as part of a larger UN force, called into action by the UN Security Council.

I beg to differ - 신미양요 constituted a purely unilateral action on the part of the United States.
Bullshit:

1950/06/26 - Monday, Truman asked and received support from UN - Russia was absent because boycotting Security Council until seat given to Communist China


1950/06/27 - Tuesday, 2nd UN meeting approved use of ground troops; Truman ordered the 7th Fleet to the Taiwan Strait to protect Formosa. - 11 days later, a 3rd meeting authorized a UN command under Gen. Douglas MacArthur - 15 nations would contribute 40,000 troops, plus 300,000 from the U.S. and 500,000 from ROK

Please Eutrusca, you know as well as anyone else that the war declaration approved by the UN wouldn't have gotten passed in any other circumstance.
That is beside the point. The Soviets could have stopped the action. They chose to boycott the UN. The vote was not un-announced, they could have come back to veto it.

The fact is, the vote passed. Thats it.

how did the US instigate the korean war? did we force the north to invade the south? was it something we put in the koolaid???

That is beside the point. The Soviets could have stopped the action. They chose to boycott the UN. The vote was not un-announced, they could have come back to veto it.

The fact is, the vote passed. Thats it.
No, it isn't "it" as the coalition formed was basically ruled by Americans. The soviets couldn't "come back and veto it" because the measure was passed during a time while they were boycotting (and this is before instantaneous communication) because of the games we were playing with Mongolia.

I beg to differ - 신미양요 constituted a purely unilateral action on the part of the United States.
:rolleyes:

Just curious, given your knowledge of a Korean term, are you from one of the two Korean nations (I am not asking which, but it should be obvious)?

(I am not asking which, but it should be obvious)
It's not as obvious as you think (besides maybe that people from the DPRK are unlikely to be allowed on a political forum like this). Many people in the South aren't happy with the UN/US war that "kept the two nations apart".

Quite a lot of people there think the US Forces are the reason reunification still hasn't been possible.

No, it isn't "it" as the coalition formed was basically ruled by Americans. The soviets couldn't "come back and veto it" because the measure was passed during a time while they were boycotting (and this is before instantaneous communication) because of the games we were playing with Mongolia.
There were three seperate votes that took place, and the soviets could have at least gotten to the second two. I realize it took place during their boycott (did my posts not basically say that), but the boycott was their choice.

If I decide not to go to work because I don't like that my friend isn't hired, then I really can't complain if the project we are working on goes a direction I don't want. On the other hand, if I show up, and spend all of my time complaining about my friend, I can sya that I supported him, and still keep the project from going the way I dnon't want it too (at least until I am fire, but the Soviets held a permament seat, and therefore could not be fired as easily as I can be).

As for the rulership, the UN Security Council voted to put McCarther in command. If you remember your history, McCarther was the Army commander during World War 2 in the Pacific, and therefore had the most recent experience commanding combat forces in this general theater. The US contributed the so much of the force for one simple reason, they had a much larger military to send. The US and the USSR had during World War 2 made the two largest militaries the world had seen. Britain and Australia couldn't hope to send hundreds of thousands of troops.

It's not as obvious as you think (besides maybe that people from the DPRK are unlikely to be allowed on a political forum like this). Many people in the South aren't happy with the UN/US war that "kept the two nations apart".

Quite a lot of people there think the US Forces are the reason reunification still hasn't been possible.
point taken.

I would also like to note that France too was not there to veto it, for some odd reason (learned this recently in history class, but did not pick up the reason as to why, will figure out why if I can). The French, at the time at least, believed that North and South Korea were engaged in a civil war and thus, should be left alone to resolve their own problems.

So with Russia boycotting, France absent and China not represented, this leaves us with... the US and Britain. Taiwan too of course.

None of these three voted no, therefore, it was Not a US action, but a UN action. Had it been a US action, either Britain or Taiwan would have had to say no.

As this must also have passed the majority of the security council, it just becomes more of a UN action and therefore, was very likely justified.

Also the fact that fourteen (correct?) countries actually sent troops there to assist probably tells us that the majority of people believed it to be justified.

The Korean War was an action justified by the UN, who could, at the time, have overturned it with a vote in the general assembly I believe, but did not. Hence, it was approved and therefore, a very legal war.

Well, most of the time Americans only go to war for very good reasons, so I would assume they'd be justified.
Let me bring forward a list of the wars the United States has fought.

A war of national independence - late 18th century. Somewhat justified.

A second war of national independence. Definitely justified.

Three wars against the indigenous peoples. Probably not justified.

A war with Mexico. Not justified.

A war with parts of the country that had seceded. Status unknown.

A war with Spain. Not justified.

A war with the Phillippines. Not justified. (This inspired Mark Twain to write "The War Prayer", an excellent story. Read it.)

A war (as part of an international alliance) against another international alliance. Involvement questionable (is upholding your duty to your allies justification enough to join them in an unjust war?).

A war (as part of an international alliance) against another international alliance, each member of which was intent on creating a new empire. Justified.

Numerous wars-by-proxy with the Soviet Union and other Communist forces. Mostly unjustified (especially in Latin America). Justification questionable.

A war to protect the United Fruit Company's interests in Latin America. Not justified, even by anti-Communist hysteria.

An attempted military engagement with Iran, after the US embassy was stormed and hostages taken. (The Iran-Contra deal got them released and funded the Nicaraguan contras - see "wars-by proxy".) Justification questionable. The eventual situation was probably unjustifiable but that's Reagan for you.

Gulf War I. Possibly justified.

An attempted military engagement with a local militia in Somalia (with UN backup). Justification questionable (although I lean toward "justified, if it'd been planned better").

Gulf War II. Unjustified.

Let's see... we have two definite cases and three strong maybes out of how many? Fifteen?

I would also like to note that France too was not there to veto it, for some odd reason (learned this recently in history class, but did not pick up the reason as to why, will figure out why if I can). The French, at the time at least, believed that North and South Korea were engaged in a civil war and thus, should be left alone to resolve their own problems.

So with Russia boycotting, France absent and China not represented, this leaves us with... the US and Britain. Taiwan too of course.

None of these three voted no, therefore, it was Not a US action, but a UN action. Had it been a US action, either Britain or Taiwan would have had to say no.

As this must also have passed the majority of the security council, it just becomes more of a UN action and therefore, was very likely justified.

Also the fact that fourteen (correct?) countries actually sent troops there to assist probably tells us that the majority of people believed it to be justified.

The Korean War was an action justified by the UN, who could, at the time, have overturned it with a vote in the general assembly I believe, but did not. Hence, it was approved and therefore, a very legal war.
Do you know why France was absent? I hadn't heard of this. (I am not doubting whether it is true or not, I am just wondering why they weren't there)
Had France been there, I bet they would have obstained rather than veto, since while they may have believed this to be a civil war, they probably also would have believed that the UN was in part responsible for it because they had split the nation in two to begin with.

Also, I am not sure if the General Assembly can overturn the security council, but the security council vote had to be approved by the permament nations, as well as the rotating nations. In addition, I may be wrong, but I believe that the General Assembly did vote to approve the action in Korea.

.

An attempted military engagement with Iran, after the US embassy was stormed and hostages taken. (The Iran-Contra deal got them released and funded the Nicaraguan contras - see "wars-by proxy".) Justification questionable. The eventual situation was probably unjustifiable but that's Reagan for you.

just a quick note

iran-contra had nothing to do with the hostages taken at the american embassy in iran. it was an entirely different set of hostages who were taken one at a time in the middle east (including terry waite)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

It's not as obvious as you think (besides maybe that people from the DPRK are unlikely to be allowed on a political forum like this). Many people in the South aren't happy with the UN/US war that "kept the two nations apart".

However, that in itself is a loaded proposition. Are they unhappy because their vision for korea does not extend northward to embrace all of the penisula, or are they unhappy because they believe that a unified Korea outweighs their current far higher standard of living?

(Or are they unhappy, because they have imagined a problem that doesn't exist?)

I was told that France wasn't there by my history teacher. I haven't had the oppurtunity to check up on this fact.

One thing I think we can agree on is: They wouldn't have voted for any action. Abstain, maybe. Veto, maybe. Vote yes, no.

quote from the wikipedia:
Without the Soviet veto and with only Yugoslavia abstaining.

Knowing that France would not have voted yes and that they did not abstain, clearly, they were not present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
While I like that article, please remember that this is a wiki! Anyone can write anything and you just have to hope that some well-meaning writer will correct it with the accurate information.

When the details are important, don't use a Wiki - of course, always be cautious about the Big Lie, as well.

Let me bring forward a list of the wars the United States has fought.

A war of national independence - late 18th century. Somewhat justified.

A second war of national independence. Definitely justified.

Three wars against the indigenous peoples. Probably not justified.

A war with Mexico. Not justified.

A war with parts of the country that had seceded. Status unknown.

A war with Spain. Not justified.

A war with the Phillippines. Not justified. (This inspired Mark Twain to write "The War Prayer", an excellent story. Read it.)

A war (as part of an international alliance) against another international alliance. Involvement questionable (is upholding your duty to your allies justification enough to join them in an unjust war?).

A war (as part of an international alliance) against another international alliance, each member of which was intent on creating a new empire. Justified.

Numerous wars-by-proxy with the Soviet Union and other Communist forces. Mostly unjustified (especially in Latin America). Justification questionable.

A war to protect the United Fruit Company's interests in Latin America. Not justified, even by anti-Communist hysteria.

An attempted military engagement with Iran, after the US embassy was stormed and hostages taken. (The Iran-Contra deal got them released and funded the Nicaraguan contras - see "wars-by proxy".) Justification questionable. The eventual situation was probably unjustifiable but that's Reagan for you.

Gulf War I. Possibly justified.

An attempted military engagement with a local militia in Somalia (with UN backup). Justification questionable (although I lean toward "justified, if it'd been planned better").

Gulf War II. Unjustified.

Let's see... we have two definite cases and three strong maybes out of how many? Fifteen?
Actually, there are a lot of situations missing from your list. Here is what I can remember:

Air strike against Libya following their government support of and involvement in a terrorist bombing that killed over a hundred people: justified

Peacekeeping action in Lebonan, authorized by the UN, since a nation which had once been a beautiful place, were both Christains and Muslims lived together peacefully, had been brought to ruins: Justified, but the US and UN should have planned it better

UN authorized peacekeeping action in Bosnia (as well as Croatia I think), in response to civil war and genocide taking place following the break-up of Yugoslavia: Justified, and did a very good job

Kosovo, a region of Serbia, were more ethnic based violence was taking place. UN authorized a military response if Serbia did not withdraw military forces by a certain date, and when they did not, NATO intervened: Justified, and a good job done.

Afghanistan, following the attacks of September 11th, the UN (at least I think they did) authorized military action: justified, but should have been handled better, and not ignored so that we could have an unjustified war in Iraq

thats five more already, and I doubt there aren't more

While I like that article, please remember that this is a wiki! Anyone can write anything and you just have to hope that some well-meaning writer will correct it with the accurate information.

When the details are important, don't use a Wiki - of course, always be cautious about the Big Lie, as well.
Don't criticise the Wiki! :D
Underlying it is a theory that is of vital importance to many people's philosophical and political underpinnings - that the market works.

But seriously, generally any mistake made will be corrected in a day or two, and articles of questionable bias or the like are marked as such. Yes, if you want to you can go to the UN's website and find the transcripts of the UNSC session, but I can't be bothered.

That being said, what was it that you don't agree with in this article? I don't see anything wrong with it. The South was just as bad as the North back then, you can't really argue with that.

Let's see... we have two definite cases and three strong maybes out of how many? Fifteen?
Totally specious. I could refute almost every one of your "unjustified" allegations, but judging from the tone and presentation of your "facts," it would do no good, so "meh." :)

Nevertheless, this negates the claim that most US wars fought are justified. That was my point. We here in the US have a very warlike society that, in some sense, sees war as an end rather than a means.

In your view, do the historical aims underlying U.S. policy towards Corea justify American instigation of the first Corean War?

You have a problem. We didn't instigate Korea. The North Koreans instigated the Korean War.

Also, it was the UN that approved of it. To bad they didn't have the guts to see it through.

However, that in itself is a loaded proposition. Are they unhappy because their vision for korea does not extend northward to embrace all of the penisula, or are they unhappy because they believe that a unified Korea outweighs their current far higher standard of living?

(Or are they unhappy, because they have imagined a problem that doesn't exist?)
I would think it is a little bit like it was in Germany with the reunification. It's a romantic notion moreso than any realistic considerations. That and a bit of anti-American feelings, probably caused by the decidedly sub-optimal behaviour by some US servicemen in Korea...

Please Eutrusca, you know as well as anyone else that the war declaration approved by the UN wouldn't have gotten passed in any other circumstance.

Especially since (and this is an historical fact)

Russia boycotted the vote and China was represented by Taiwan!

heh... Corea

I would think it is a little bit like it was in Germany with the reunification. It's a romantic notion moreso than any realistic considerations. That and a bit of anti-American feelings, probably caused by the decidedly sub-optimal behaviour by some US servicemen in Korea...

Okay, fair enough. But the main thing is that you cannot use that as an argument that the south koreans would prefer - as a whole - that there was no US intervention in the 50s.

(Funny you should mention germany, I do know a few germans that opposed reunification).

You have a problem. We didn't instigate Korea. The North Koreans instigated the Korean War.

Also, it was the UN that approved of it. To bad they didn't have the guts to see it through.
They did have the guts, they nearly won until the chinese entered the conflict

what folowed was a bloody stalemate that lasted for years, the UN tried as hard as they could to advance, but couldn't. so the ceasefire was signed.

Especially since (and this is an historical fact)

Russia boycotted the vote and China was represented by Taiwan!
yeah but taiwan was not a member of the security council like china is today (at least not a permanent one with veto powers)

There were three seperate votes that took place, and the soviets could have at least gotten to the second two. I realize it took place during their boycott (did my posts not basically say that), but the boycott was their choice.

If I decide not to go to work because I don't like that my friend isn't hired, then I really can't complain if the project we are working on goes a direction I don't want. On the other hand, if I show up, and spend all of my time complaining about my friend, I can sya that I supported him, and still keep the project from going the way I dnon't want it too (at least until I am fire, but the Soviets held a permament seat, and therefore could not be fired as easily as I can be).

As for the rulership, the UN Security Council voted to put McCarther in command. If you remember your history, McCarther was the Army commander during World War 2 in the Pacific, and therefore had the most recent experience commanding combat forces in this general theater. The US contributed the so much of the force for one simple reason, they had a much larger military to send. The US and the USSR had during World War 2 made the two largest militaries the world had seen. Britain and Australia couldn't hope to send hundreds of thousands of troops.
MacArthur was a twit who got large numbers of his troops killed and was only good at preening for the press.

It still doesn't change the fact that the Korean war was mostly a US endeavor (with Korean help, ofc), and wouldn't have gotten past China or Russia under other circumstances.

(Funny you should mention germany, I do know a few germans that opposed reunification).
I know plenty of them (if you asked today, probably half the Germans would agree), but that is primarily with the way it was done. Getting a more backward "communist" country and just exposing it to the effective economy of the West was utterly st00pid.
Of course if Korea was to be unified they'd have to cope with the very same problem.

You have a problem. We didn't instigate Korea. The North Koreans instigated the Korean War.

Also, it was the UN that approved of it. To bad they didn't have the guts to see it through.
it was all our fault, we drugged their koolaid and made them invade the south. in fact i think it was bush's grandfather who did it, yeah thats it, its all bush's fault!

yeah but taiwan was not a member of the security council like china is today (at least not a permanent one with veto powers)
yes they were. the primary victorious powers of WW2, USSR, UK, US, France, Britain, China all held permament seats with veto on the Security Council. China's seat was held by Taiwan because that goverment was all that was left of the mainland China government of post World War 2. It had lost the mainland during the revolution, but still held the Island.

UN authorized peacekeeping action in Bosnia (as well as Croatia I think), in response to civil war and genocide taking place following the break-up of Yugoslavia: Justified, and did a very good job

Which Bosnia would that be? If its the one I'm thinking of, the UN never authorized it. NATO however did!

Kosovo, a region of Serbia, were more ethnic based violence was taking place. UN authorized a military response if Serbia did not withdraw military forces by a certain date, and when they did not, NATO intervened: Justified, and a good job done.

NATO did intervened but the UN didn't till after the fact.

*snip*

What about forces dispatched to defend American Civilians and interests? Justified!

They did have the guts, they nearly won until the chinese entered the conflict

what folowed was a bloody stalemate that lasted for years, the UN tried as hard as they could to advance, but couldn't. so the ceasefire was signed.

But then the Chinese were thrown back and both sides called it quits. I'm sorry but once engaged in war, see it through to the end.

What about forces dispatched to defend American Civilians and interests? Justified!
Depends on what interest. I don't call running amok in south america creating tin pot dictatorships to protect banana corperation interests a reason for war.

yeah but taiwan was not a member of the security council like china is today (at least not a permanent one with veto powers)

Actually, Taiwan did have veto power until China took their seat and Taiwan was no longer recognized by the UN even though several nation due recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.

Which Bosnia would that be? If its the one I'm thinking of, the UN never authorized it. NATO however did!
If the UN didn't justify it, then howcome the UN peacekeeping forces were besieged in Sarajevo until the US sent military aid. UN Peacekeepers.

In your view, do the historical aims underlying U.S. policy towards Corea justify American instigation of the first Corean War?

What the hell are you talking about? America has never been in a war with Corea because that country does not exist.

If you are talking about the Korean War, the UN voted to go to war in Korea.

But then the Chinese were thrown back and both sides called it quits. I'm sorry but once engaged in war, see it through to the end.
The chinese were NOT thrown back. They were pushed to the DMZ, maybe a little farther, but then the Chinese would push back. That is why it is called a stalemate, no one was winning. To see it through to the end would have meant sending more and more thousands, then millions, of soldiers to die, and then eventually the Chinese would have won, since they had a lot more troops to draw from.

If the UN didn't justify it, then howcome the UN peacekeeping forces were besieged in Sarajevo until the US sent military aid. UN Peacekeepers.

So which Bosnia are you talking about? Are you talking about the Genocide by Milosivich (sp?) If so, the no. The UN didn't approve the use of force.

The chinese were NOT thrown back. They were pushed to the DMZ, maybe a little farther, but then the Chinese would push back. That is why it is called a stalemate, no one was winning. To see it through to the end would have meant sending more and more thousands, then millions, of soldiers to die, and then eventually the Chinese would have won, since they had a lot more troops to draw from.

Apparently you are trying to use the old addage that more troops=victory. Your leaving out a very key things like strategy, tactics, as well as technology.

Of course if Korea was to be unified they'd have to cope with the very same problem.

I don't think it would be possible at this point. There is a huge difference in standards of living when compared to east and west Germany.

If korea was to unify it would require a massive amount of sacrifice by the south.

...To see it through to the end would have meant sending more and more thousands, then millions, of soldiers to die, and then eventually the Chinese would have won, since they had a lot more troops to draw from.
Or McArthur would've got his wish and Nukes would've been dropped on China and the USSR.

So which Bosnia are you talking about? Are you talking about the Genocide by Milosivich (sp?) If so, the no. The UN didn't approve the use of force.
Yes, they did, in fact, I did a quick search, and came up with news stories about the UN voting to extend their peacekeeping force in Bosnia. I would find for the the actual vote authorizing peacekeeping in Bosnia, but the UN website (www.un.org) is currently down.

The chinese were NOT thrown back. They were pushed to the DMZ, maybe a little farther, but then the Chinese would push back. That is why it is called a stalemate, no one was winning. To see it through to the end would have meant sending more and more thousands, then millions, of soldiers to die, and then eventually the Chinese would have won, since they had a lot more troops to draw from.
1951/04/22 - 4th CCF attack - CCF commander Peng Teh-huai ordered by Mao "win a quick victory if you can; if you can't, win a slow one." - drove Ridgeway back to Seoul by May

1951/06/01 - Ridgeway's "Ripper" counterattack pushed CCF 40 miles north of the 38th line

1951/04/22 - 4th CCF attack - CCF commander Peng Teh-huai ordered by Mao "win a quick victory if you can; if you can't, win a slow one." - drove Ridgeway back to Seoul by May

1951/06/01 - Ridgeway's "Ripper" counterattack pushed CCF 40 miles north of the 38th line
This may be useful...

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/korean_peninsula.gif

Totally specious. I could refute almost every one of your "unjustified" allegations, but judging from the tone and presentation of your "facts," it would do no good, so "meh." :)
Please, I'm not the only one here. For the good of all our readers, why not put together my list and Mannatopia's and present your justification for all of them?

Actually, Taiwan did have veto power until China took their seat and Taiwan was no longer recognized by the UN even though several nation due recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
wow thats nutz. the whole china/taiwan thing has been so crazy for the past 50 years that i totally missed that little fact.

No, it isn't "it" as the coalition formed was basically ruled by Americans. The soviets couldn't "come back and veto it" because the measure was passed during a time while they were boycotting (and this is before instantaneous communication) because of the games we were playing with Mongolia.
actually the US wasnt even the biggest military force there, and we had no power to "rule". the UN had control and even there own flashy uniforms. my granpa who lives in my basement fought in korea and he still has his UN helmet.
kthnxbye :sniper:

actually the US wasnt even the biggest military force there, and we had no power to "rule". the UN had control and even there own flashy uniforms. my granpa who lives in my basement fought in korea and he still has his UN helmet.
kthnxbye :sniper:

The koreans, of course, made up a significant amount of troops, but the lions share of units (especially air support) came from the US. Claiming that a coherent response on par with WWI on behalf of a coalition is just silly.

After some looking around, I found the UN resolution authorizing a peacekeeping force in the former states of Yugoslavia, particularly Bosnia:

UN Resolution 743 (http://web.archive.org/web/20011122165431/www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1992/s92r743e.pdf)
Dated 21 February 1992, here is an excerpt:

"Decides to establish, under its authority, a United Nations Protection Force in accordance with the above mentioned report and the United Nations peacekeeping plan"

NATO started the Kosovo thing. The UN didn't authorize it till it was pretty much over with.

After some looking around, I found the UN resolution authorizing a peacekeeping force in the former states of Yugoslavia, particularly Bosnia:

UN Resolution 743 (http://web.archive.org/web/20011122165431/www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1992/s92r743e.pdf)
Dated 21 February 1992, here is an excerpt:

"Decides to establish, under its authority, a United Nations Protection Force in accordance with the above mentioned report and the United Nations peacekeeping plan"

Did it include the Use of Force if necessary?

Apparently not!

As to this thread, it was North Korea that started the War. The UN Authorized force to expel them from South Korea.

Did it include the Use of Force if necessary?
Read it. And read the ones that came after it.

As to this thread, it was North Korea that started the War. The UN Authorized force to expel them from South Korea.
In which case the legality of pushing all the way to the Yalu may be questioned... :D

But I agree, there's little wrong with the Korean War, except that the Soviets apparently underestimated the UN quite a lot. I don't think anyone else has since dared to boycott it, have they?

In which case the legality of pushing all the way to the Yalu may be questioned... :D

But I agree, there's little wrong with the Korean War, except that the Soviets apparently underestimated the UN quite a lot. I don't think anyone else has since dared to boycott it, have they?

Nope! As far as I know, not to many people have been boycotting. That was why Kosovo never had an authorization from the UN. China vetoed it. During the bombing, a bomb fell near the Chinese Embassy. I find that funny. Just like when France refused to let US warplanes fly over their airspace! A bomb fell near their embassy too.

heh... Corea

That's the original and historically employed English spelling, one even today widely utilized in many other nations. As http://www.medeasin.com/coreaspelling.htm notes, "The K-spelling was adopted by English and Japanese translators by the early twentieth century, and solidified during the Japanese Occupation of Corea (1910 to 1945). During this occupation, the goal of Imperial Japan was to erase all signs of Corean culture (names, language, costume, tradition, temples, historic landmarks, and lineages were all outlawed and/or destroyed) and assimilate Coreans into Japanese citizens."

What the hell are you talking about? America has never been in a war with Corea because that country does not exist.

I speak of this:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=First%20Korean%20War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinmiyangyo

http://www.shinmiyangyo.org/

http://www.homeofheroes.com/wallofhonor/korea1871/1_preface.html (eyewitness accounts - "interesting" layout)

Truly, it seems, America has forgotten.

North Korea, a Communist government, invaded the anticommunist (not pro-Democratic per se, but anticommunist) in June 1950. You might want to consider the policy of the Soviet Union as well who supported the invasion -- is that justifiable? Two days later Harry S. Truman sends troops in and appeals to the UN to intervene. The UN drafts a resolution to create "a unified, independent and democratic Korea." The "UN" armies were overwhemingly led by American forces and eventually pushed the North Korean's back to the Chinese border. At this time, China sends 8 division over its border and pushes the UN troops back to the present day DMZ. I don't see that as an instigation by the US, but I guess it's open to interpretation. This was one of the first conflicts in the Cold War and an implementation of the "containment" or Truman Doctrine. Now, no declaration of war was ever declared by the US, and there hasn't been since 1941. Just a little note for those of you who see certain conflicts as "illegal". Regardless, the US is justified in its current policy towards North Korea, which is just wanting to be seen as a "world power" -- they have a slight inferiority complex I guess. Why is it justified? Because it is a continuation of 30 years of US foreign policy.

*snip*

Apparently someone here doesn't realize the fact that North Korea was the one that invaded South Korea.

...Why is [current US policy towards the DPRK] justified? Because it is a continuation of 30 years of US foreign policy.
That's a rather spurious argumentation.

Apparently someone here doesn't realize the fact that North Korea was the one that invaded South Korea.
Apparently someone here doesn't realise that we all misinterpreted the original post (although it's been edited just then) and that thus we run the risk of looking mighty stupid...

Apparently someone here doesn't realise that we all misinterpreted the original post (although it's been edited just then) and that thus we run the risk of looking mighty stupid...

True that but those of us who actually study history knows that the US didn't instigate it. There's no point into instigating it. The only ones who had anything to gain by instigating it is the USSR and China.

True that but those of us who actually study history knows that the US didn't instigate it. There's no point into instigating it. The only ones who had anything to gain by instigating it is the USSR and China.
The USSR instigated the First Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinmiyangyo) ?

The USSR instigated the First Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinmiyangyo) ?

Talk about misreading something. I didn't say that they did.

Talk about misreading something. I didn't say that they did.
All I'm saying is that the USSR certainly didn't have anything to gain from this incident because it didn't even exist then.

I think the original poster (seemingly a Korean...sorry, "Corean" Nationalist) was referring to the policy of driving a gun boat into a harbour and forcing countries to open to US trade etc.
Which certainly is a valid point of discussion.

All I'm saying is that the USSR certainly didn't have anything to gain from this incident because it didn't even exist then.

I think the original poster (seemingly a Korean...sorry, "Corean" Nationalist) was referring to the policy of driving a gun boat into a harbour and forcing countries to open to US trade etc.
Which certainly is a valid point of discussion.

Ok, I'll grant that point. However, I think the US had something against closed doors societies and thus forced them open.

I'm going to have to look at the 1871 incident closer before rendering a judgement on that incident.

How's this then Leostein. In 1950, the National Security Council (not the UN, but the US agency) drafted a report (NSC-68) that called for American to share the burden of containment and it must stop communist expansion anywhere, regardless of its intrinsic strategic or economic value. The "containment" or Truman Doctrice: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The Nixon-Kissinger policy toward the Third World was to maintain a stable status quo without involving the US too deply in local disputes. Insisting that the US would "participate in the defense and development of allies and friends" but would leave the "basic responsiblity" for the future of those "friends" to the nations themselves. The Reagan Doctrine was developed and aided in the support of opponents of communism anywhere in the world. Now all those have been developed over the past 30 years, not directly towards Korea, but Korea falls under those doctrines. Let's look at another "justification". The Sea of Japan is a heavy commerical trading route for Asia. Japan is a strong ally of the US. When Korea starts to threaten or wave the nuclear flag around, it can hinder that trade route can it not? The Sea of Japan is of "national interest" to the US, as it was 30 years ago. The fact that Korea offsets or brings the region into turmoil is justification enough to deal with them. Now, instead of adding this long thread, I though it'd be best to tie it up nicely under the 30 years of American foreign policy towards Korea. Any questions?

And the Soviet Union did exsist during this time, I don't think they were called the USSR though. I don't think they "instigated" the Korean War, but they did support the invasion by the North Korean's.

I speak of this:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=First%20Korean%20War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinmiyangyo

http://www.shinmiyangyo.org/

http://www.homeofheroes.com/wallofhonor/korea1871/1_preface.html (eyewitness accounts - "interesting" layout)

Truly, it seems, America has forgotten.
Heh, oops. Well, that may be different then. I consider myself pretty good with history of armed conflicts the US has been in, and even I hadn't heard of this one. I will have to research it further before I pass judgement (so I am not just some dumb opinionated ignorant average american).

In the future, I would suggest starting the thread with an explanation of which conflict you are talking about. The only name I saw was in Korean characters, and that is not very helpful. As you can see by the fact that this thread, its posters, even you are posting in English, it is a good bet that the majority of us cannot speak or read Korean.

Just a suggestion. I'll shut up and leave this thread, as I do not know enough to contribute more. I may come back if I feel I have read enough.

And the Soviet Union did exsist during this time, I don't think they were called the USSR though. I don't think they "instigated" the Korean War, but they did support the invasion by the North Korean's.

Actually I think this is dealing with the 1871 force opening of Korea which was unified up till the defeat of Japan (who conquered it).

And the Soviet Union did exsist during this time, I don't think they were called the USSR though. I don't think they "instigated" the Korean War, but they did support the invasion by the North Korean's.
The Soviet Union did not exist in 1871. The largest part of what would be the USSR was still the Russian Empire, and would not become the Soviet Union until 1917.

1917 is after 1871

Ask MacArthur.
ditto

ditto
McCarther probably wasn't born in 1871

I'm talking 1950s. Apparently I missed the turn for 1871. This thread needs some clearing up. Talking about the Korean War and how it relates to the US foreign policy today. Now we're going all the way back to 1871, right? A time where the US didn't have a strong navy. After the Civil War. The US didn't become Imperialistic until the 1890s. With the Open Door policy. I realize instances happened when the US would park its ships in a harbour and force the trade doors open, most notably with Japan. But the US didn't do it single handedly. Just for future reference, this post is talking about 1871.

Up-to-date...sorry for the trouble.

How's this then Leostein....
I was talking more about "justification" as an ethical thing, as in it being a "just" thing to do.
Whether or not it is consistent is fairly irrelevant if you've been behaving like a dick for 50 years. ;)

We can read declassified documents online.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/



We know that gov'ts, especially US gov'ts don't always tell
the truth to their own people and hide behind something
called "national security" using something called 'gov't secrets' ???
What?!?? in an open and democratic society?

The Pentagon Papers should be one of the most obvious examples.

So, who wants to delve into the archives?

Its not really our fault, as the 1950-53 korean war is commonly called the forgotten war...

The US and N. Korea only signed a cease-fire agreement, neither side ended the war. Technically the U.S. is still at war with N. Korea.

The US and N. Korea only signed a cease-fire agreement, neither side ended the war. Technically the U.S. is still at war with N. Korea.
The US was not at war with North Korea--Truman specifically called that conflict a police action.

P.S. What a funny thread...

Unless you are pacifist, I can't really see the problem with the Korean War. An innocent country was invaded, and the UN came to help, where is the issue for debate?

Most South Koreans appreciate the fact that if the Americans hadn't landed here at Incheon when they did, everyone in the country would be bowing down to Great Leader Kim Il-sung right about now. I mean, the DPRK army had pushed the ROK armed forces almost down to Busan, which is on the far south coast.
The problem now is that the US have continued to maintain a presence there after the cease-fire. South Koreans see the US base in Seoul as a major roadblock to reunification, because DPRK refuses to even consider it while the US has a presence there. As such, most of them want it gone.

EDIT: About the 'police action' thing- yes, the US was never really at war with DPRK. It is the DPRK and the ROK that are technically still at war.

Unless you are pacifist, I can't really see the problem with the Korean War. An innocent country was invaded, and the UN came to help, where is the issue for debate?

The 1871 war?

There was no 2 Korean countries prior to the Allied agreement
for occupation of the penninsula after the defeat of Japan.

So it was not a matter of "one country invading another".

That's basic. The details, I honestly have not read the
4 or 5 accounts of the war. US, USSR, NKorea, SKorea, China.
For the US side, we mustn't leave out the behind the scenes
information in declassified documents.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

There was no 2 Korean countries prior to the Allied agreement
for occupation of the penninsula after the defeat of Japan.

So it was not a matter of "one country invading another".

That's basic. The details, I honestly have not read the
4 or 5 accounts of the war. US, USSR, NKorea, SKorea, China.
For the US side, we mustn't leave out the behind the scenes
information in declassified documents.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

USSR, North and South Korea did not exist in 1871!

Oops. I misread the original post.

But I did read many of them before your post and thought
some people were talking about the US invasion of Corea
in the 1800s as a side note.

In your view, do the historical aims underlying U.S. policy towards Corea justify American instigation of the first Corean War?


Hmmmm ...someone explain to me how the United States instigated the North Korean invasion of Sout Korea ? Help me with this please :D
I 'd say Korea being origionanaly called..." Korea" was split into two administrative zones after WW2 so that the Soviets and the US could play dueling political systems and that it was caused the Korean war . That and the utter stupiditity of the North Korean leader thinking he could actually unite the country by force under a communist totalitarian regime. This comming on the heals of WW2 and all that that implies.

Hmmmm ...someone explain to me how the United States instigated the North Korean invasion of Sout Korea ? Help me with this please :D
I 'd say Korea being origionanaly called..." Korea" was split into two administrative zones after WW2 so that the Soviets and the US could play dueling political systems and that it was caused the Korean war . That and the utter stupiditity of the North Korean leader thinking he could actually unite the country by force under a communist totalitarian regime. This comming on the heals of WW2 and all that that implies.

That is beside the point. The 1871 U.S. invasion of Corea is the matter at hand.