'Kill 'em All': American Military Conduct in the Korean War

the war is not really started by NK. before the "official" start of the war, SK kept on having raids into NK, that is technically the official start of the war. it's just after a few years the NK got pissed and decided to end it all by conquering SK so no more raids and get to unify korea.

to eternal: in the 60s and 70s, north korea was much more powerful and wealthier than south korea, does that mean communism is better than capitalism?? don't look at modern trends, it doesn't mean anything.

i say socialism > capitalism, and all facts support me, after all the greatest nations in the world are all socialist and not capitalist. eg. EU nations, Canada, China, and USA. if you actually think USA is capitalist, then go read wealth of nations, it doesn't meet all the standards good ol adam smith has set for us.

EternalVigil said:

It was authorized by the UN as well. The US did the right thing. Look at south korea today an economic powerhouse and much more modern and thriving than north korea.

Democracy > communism and always will be.

Click to expand...

AGAIN !!!!!! dident you learn this when you joined the forum

communism = economic system !!!!! politicaly motivated posts are not allowed look at the rules before posting

up until the mid-70s norht korea had a higher stander of living then the south which was equaly repressive in terms of poltics !!!!

Well, personal views on Communism or Capitalism aside, here are some of the problems with Marxism that have been noted in the real world.

1. Empirical problems :

1) Socialist revolutions didn't occure where they should have (Industrialized nations like the US, Britain, Russia was the LAST place Marx would have expected 'communism' to arise, hell they still had serfs in 1917)

2) Difficulty of carrying out pure Marxism and distortion by Lenin, Mao, etc => Marxism isn't feasible?

3) We have may passed the opportune "historical moment" => "post-materialist world". For example, more things are digital nowadays. You can buy iTunes on the internet. The emphasis on solid goods (CDs) is not as heavy as it used to be, making the relevance of manufacturing (and the workers providing labor) less important. However, worthy of consideration is that in Marx's theory, the Revolution would require global economic interdependence, so perhaps the modern age of globalization is actually the best chance for true Marxism. Hard to say.

Obviously there ar also other theoretical problems such as human nature to look out for itself (we can argue whether or not altruism is a 'built-in' feature).

To PiSigma : I really have a hard time calling the US a socialist country. Regardless of whether or not it meets some of Adam Smith's standards, calling it anything but capitalist is a LONG stretch... but I'm interested in why you think so.

the definition of socialist nation is a nation that provides services to its citizens that's funded by public taxes. as long as a nation that provide basic needs such as education (USA does this) it's a socialist nation. USA doesn't provide as much as some of the EU nations or Canada, but by definition it is still socialist.

by adam smith's definition, everything is paid by the individual. government only need to provide order and protection to citizens.

PiSigma said:

the definition of socialist nation is a nation that provides services to its citizens that's funded by public taxes. as long as a nation that provide basic needs such as education (USA does this) it's a socialist nation. USA doesn't provide as much as some of the EU nations or Canada, but by definition it is still socialist.

by adam smith's definition, everything is paid by the individual. government only need to provide order and protection to citizens.

Click to expand...

Well, I can't agree completely. A socialist have to provide all the basic service such as Healthcare, Education, unions, and retirement. In Us, you only get very limit Healthcare coverage which depend on your income. Education is probably true. Retirement is only half and half. Nowadays, US don't really have many labor union as many years ago. I would say US is a capitalist with some socialist value.

Ok, No politics! There is absolutely no need to chew the eternity strugle between sosialism and capitalism in chinese defence discussion. One more post over that matter and thread is closed

And Eternalvigil, One more thread going offtopic over your political obinions and you will get a warning. I have looked way too many of your pulls trough my fingers.

ff

It would seem that the US military has a serious doctrinal problem that continues to this day:

I cannot believe some of the things I have seen. I mean a total disregard for the safety of Innocent Civilians, the regular and systamatic use of disproportionate firepower against low level insurgents in heavily populated areas. I just can't beleive that you authorise the use of tanks, artillery or attack helicopters to take on rifleman, that is contrary to all best practice!

Click to expand...

These are not the words of some beardy peacenik posted in a dark corner of the Internet. These are the words of a former SAS officer; just returned and resigned from Iraq disgusted with what he had witnessed from the US troops, and talking in a live discussion on the UK's premier current affairs programme "Newsnight" in a debate with some RSP US Foriegn Affairs Spokesman, just less than two weeks ago.

It would appear the US Military conduct continues to fall far short of that which is considered the Civilised norm for modern developed democracy.

Personally I have used previously the term "unmanly" to describe the US Military doctrine, I stand by that statement.

One could argue that such procedures save the lives of soliders fighting in the conflicts, but really it's just more about more efective ways of killing people. Isin't it easier to just blow the house up with some tank rounds instead of having potentialy dozens of bullets fired by a rifle-company with potental casualties? If the wounded survive, they have to cover medical expensises. If not, then funeral expenses and grevance pay (whatever they call consoling the family) and etc. Really, it's just easier to blow the house up with a tank. Not to say it's humane or not excessive, but it's certantly more cost efective. We in the U.S have always been price-consious.

I think that what the U.S military was doing in Korea is not justifiable, but it is certantly understandable. For multiple reasons. Among the most obvious I can see is the old addage: "If it works, use it." Anyone remember the firebombings of Japan? The U.S Military intentionaly targeted civilians in these raids as well as infastructure. Not to mention the atomic bomb programs. Basicaly,the whole idea was to psychologicaly intimidate the enemy into surrender. There was also the Psychological boost to units fighting in and around the areas. To see the massive bombers and tons of bombs being used was usualy a big morale booster, especialy to younger recruits. It was also beleved, rather pigheadedly, that the more bombs you dropped the bigger the explosions and the more combatants you killed. It wasint untill they realized that non-combatants were in the way and the combatants were ether long gone or fortified themselves, so the civies-combatants kill ratio was definately upturned.. Thus, it no longer became cost efective. Not to mention the hell the U.S was taking for it from the international community.

I dont mean to sound insensitive to the plight of the civilians here, but rather to sound indiffrent and as truthful as possible in order to avoid stepping into politics excessively.