View Full Version : North Korean Madness
I thought this would be the case but didn't know if it could/would be proven
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10129703.stm
North Korean Torpedo sinks S Korean Naval Vessel
Hmmm... I see South Korea are going to take "stern" action. That'll have Kim shaking in his boots (or platforms).
Sixty five years ago two imperial powers were dividing up the spoils of war and sat at a table they drew a line through the middle of a country agreeing they would take half each with no regard whatsoever for the lives or the wishes of the people who actually lived there. As they drew this line a strange thing happened, by some sort of magic everyone on the north of the line suddenly became evil and everyone on the south of the line became good.
Sixty five years ago two imperial powers were dividing up the spoils of war and sat at a table they drew a line through the middle of a country agreeing they would take half each with no regard whatsoever for the lives or the wishes of the people who actually lived there. As they drew this line a strange thing happened, by some sort of magic everyone on the north of the line suddenly became evil and everyone on the south of the line became good.
Seem to be living up to their roles?
Seem to be living up to their roles?
That's what they want us to believe.
I thought this would be the case but didn't know if it could/would be proven
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10129703.stm
North Korean Torpedo sinks S Korean Naval Vessel
Where can I buy a felt tip pen that can remain submerged on a non porous object in saler for two months, and still remain as vivid as the day it was applied.
What next, a nuclear missile "fired" from Iran is found, and "multinational" experts are convinced that the electical components were bought from the 99p shop in downtown Tehran
[quote=Anfield;709257]Where can I buy a felt tip pen that can remain submerged on a non porous object in saler for two months, and still remain as vivid as the day it was applied.
You really need to use English terminology old m8.
Anyway they have felt tipped pens in Bettyhill Post Office and also probably in the Store down the road a bit.
If you want one that remains clear after immersion in salt water then what you need is an industrial marker - not a felt tipped pen. [lol]
Why did Anfield's pigs want to leave home ? [lol]
Thought they were still at war anyway as South Korea wouldnt/didnt sign the peace treaty.
Thought they were still at war anyway as South Korea wouldnt/didnt sign the peace treaty.
I don't know about you but I have lost track with who is at war with who throughout the world.
The Drunken Duck
20-May-10, 15:49
Where's Northerner when you need him ??, as an ex Naval type he would be best placed for an opinion on the presented evidence.
Seems to be a well researched investigation by international observers but of course the usual suspects will claim its all a conspiracy. The writing on the torpedo is perfectly conceivable though, there were items recovered from a crashed Nimrod that were perfectly legible after spending longer than two months under water. And that writing was in Chinagraph.
annthracks
20-May-10, 16:00
Where can I buy a felt tip pen that can remain submerged on a non porous object in saler for two months, and still remain as vivid as the day it was applied.
You really need to use English terminology old m8.
Anyway they have felt tipped pens in Bettyhill Post Office and also probably in the Store down the road a bit.
If you want one that remains clear after immersion in salt water then what you need is an industrial marker - not a felt tipped pen. [lol]
Why did Anfield's pigs want to leave home ? [lol]
And that'd be an indelible marker LMAO
Where's Northerner when you need him ??, as an ex Naval type he would be best placed for an opinion on the presented evidence.
Maybe he is on a working holiday in South Korea!
And that'd be an indelible marker LMAO
No - what you need is an "Industrial Marker"which may well be indelible or inedible even [lol].
John Little
20-May-10, 17:47
Sixty five years ago two imperial powers were dividing up the spoils of war and sat at a table they drew a line through the middle of a country agreeing they would take half each with no regard whatsoever for the lives or the wishes of the people who actually lived there. As they drew this line a strange thing happened, by some sort of magic everyone on the north of the line suddenly became evil and everyone on the south of the line became good.
Not quite.
Both powers withdrew in 1946. The Northern one left its client state with an offensive capability of Migs, t34 tanks and artillery.
The power in the south had no interest in the area, their official policy being to avoid a land war in Asia, as advisor after advisor told them to.
So in the south they left a tame dictator who had spent 30 years lecturing at Denver university. For an army they gave him no tanks, no front line air craft and no artillery.
The guy in the north knew this and strained at the leash for years until finally his boss gave him permission. So on 25 June 1950 he went for it.
It'll be all out war, and in the future some historian will pin the blame on Obama, Cameron/Clegg, Merkel, Sarkosy and Putin. ;)
Those rogue states are exactly why we still need a nuclear deterent and trident.
Where can I buy a felt tip pen that can remain submerged on a non porous object in saler for two months, and still remain as vivid as the day it was applied.
What next, a nuclear missile "fired" from Iran is found, and "multinational" experts are convinced that the electical components were bought from the 99p shop in downtown Tehran
Well if it says " Gro hobe South Korean dojs" we know it is a fit up :lol:
Well if it says " Gro hobe South Korean dojs" we know it is a fit up :lol:
Just like all those WMD's that were found n Iraq
Thought they were still at war anyway as South Korea wouldnt/didnt sign the peace treaty.
Technically they are still at war, there was a ceasefire but not a peace treaty.
Not quite.
Both powers withdrew in 1946. The Northern one left its client state with an offensive capability of Migs, t34 tanks and artillery.
The power in the south had no interest in the area, their official policy being to avoid a land war in Asia, as advisor after advisor told them to.
So in the south they left a tame dictator who had spent 30 years lecturing at Denver university. For an army they gave him no tanks, no front line air craft and no artillery.
The guy in the north knew this and strained at the leash for years until finally his boss gave him permission. So on 25 June 1950 he went for it.
But Korea was a united country till we decided to divide it.
John Little
20-May-10, 20:51
No it was not. It was conquered by Japan in 1895 and annexed as part of Japan in 1910. It was formerly part of the Chinese empire. So when the Russians declared war on Japan on 10 August 1945 their armies swept down through Manchuria and into Korea.
They met US forces halfway up and decided on the arbitrary line of the 38th parallel as the border.
No actual decision to divide was taken; merely an installation of seperate regimes in 1946 when it became apparent that there could be no agreement on union in the climate of the Cold war and civil war breaking out anew in China.
No it was not. It was conquered by Japan in 1895 and annexed as part of Japan in 1910. It was formerly part of the Chinese empire. So when the Russians declared war on Japan on 10 August 1945 their armies swept down through Manchuria and into Korea.
They met US forces halfway up and decided on the arbitrary line of the 38th parallel as the border.
No actual decision to divide was taken; merely an installation of seperate regimes in 1946 when it became apparent that there could be no agreement on union in the climate of the Cold war and civil war breaking out anew in China.
So before we decided on the 38th parallel as the dividing line Korea was not divided, it was one country.
John Little
20-May-10, 21:12
No it was not a country at all. It was a province of the Japanese empire, and before that a province of the Chinese empire.
John Little
20-May-10, 21:14
You clearly thirst for knowledge, so;
Korea had been annexed by Japan in 1910, and at the end of World War Two was
invaded by the Russians as they declared war on Japan on 9 August 1945 as
they had agreed to do at Yalta in January. Although Japan surrendered on 14
August the Russian advance continued, so the USA, not wishing their allies
to dominate all Korea, very quickly sent troops into Southern Korea and they
secured the South of the country as far as the 38th parallel of Latitude
which became the line between Soviet and US occupation. Although it was
originally intended to unite the two halves of Korea and allow its people
self-determination, the country was caught up in the politics of the Cold
War, and during 1946 it became apparent that neither side was going to
tolerate a government in Korea whose ideology did not agree with its own.
So Korea remained split as the USA set up a government in the south under a
70 year old lecturer from Denver University called Syngman Rhee. Rhee had
lived for over 30 years in the US and he seemed to be a democrat. In the
North the Soviets set up Kim Il Sung whom they said was a hero of resistance
against the Japanese, though he seems to have spent the war growing potatoes
in China. In 1947 the US pulled out of Korea, leaving Rhee in charge of the
South - 2 months later they were followed by the Soviets.
The two Koreas were violently hostile to each other. South Korea, under
Rhee, had a population of about 14 million and was where most of the
industry was concentrated. The north under Il Sung was mainly agricultural
with a population of about 12 million. It was run as a centralised
Stalinist state with Il Sung as dictator and no personal freedoms at all.
Surprisingly Rhee had become a dictator and preferred to rule by force -
like many weak men he thought that brute force was strength, but his
government was corrupt and he ran the country through his army. The USA was
not particularly interested in Korea- it was not an important place to them
strategically and with limited national resources. They did not waste money
on it and when they pulled out the 100,000 strong Korean army was given no
tanks, no artillery and no front line aircraft. Kim Il Sung on the other
hand was given all of these by Stalin, and in very large quantities - the
small nation had a very impressive offensive capability. Frequent
fire-fights along the 38th parallel took place and the whole border across
the peninsula was mined, fenced and strung with loudspeakers screaming
propaganda night and day. Both sides would have dearly loved to have
re-united their country, but Rhee did not have the might to do it, and Il
Sung was afraid of US reaction- until December 1949. US Secretary of State
Dean Acheson then made what was, in retrospect, a grave mistake. At Manila
in the Philippines he made a landmarks speech meant to re-assure the
Philippines government, during which he stated that ‘The defensive perimeter
of the United States runs off the coast of South East Asia.’
Kim Il Sung took this to mean that the USA had no interest in events on the
Asian mainland after the fall of China to Communism in October 1949. He
asked Stalin for permission to begin preparations for the invasion of the
South - and Stalin agreed.
The newly Communist government in China had chased away the Government of
Chiang Kai Shek who had fled to Taiwan. Chiang held the Chinese seat in the
UN and had been recognised as one of the big 5 during the war. The USA
refused to recognise the new Communist government of Mao Zedong as being the
real government and continued to recognise Chiang. Mao, not un-naturally
decided to seek allies, and during January 1950 he signed a treaty of
friendship and alliance with Russia. To the USA it seemed that a gigantic
Communist bloc had materialised in Asia and that George Kennan’s warnings of
5 years before, that Communism was seeking to take over the world, was
coming true. It was alarming and even more so in April 1950 when the
Russians proposed that Communist China should be recognised by the UN as the
legal government of China, that Chiang be expelled from the UN and that Mao
should have China’s UN seat. The USA immediately vetoed this and the
Russians walked out of the UN. As events turned out, this was a tactical
error which they never repeated after the consequences. It might well be
that they intended a trial by strength in Korea but thought it a challenge
to the USA- not to the UN. On June 25 North Korea attacked South Korea and
Rhee appealed for help to the USA.
That the USA wished to support its puppet in the south was natural, but
President Truman instructed his UN ambassador to raise the matter with the
Security Council on 25 June. In that council were Britain, France, China -
and the US. Each of the other members had received vast US aid in the
previous few years. It is hardly surprising that when Truman announced that
an act of aggression had been committed against South Korea, a small and
independent nation, they should vote to send a UN force. Due to the
activities of the McCarron Commission the USA had taken great care in the
late 1940’s to purge the UN of communist sympathisers, to install a
compliant Secretary General in the shape of Trygvie Lie. They were now able
to use that power to forward and give legitimacy to their own policy of
world-wide containment of Communism under the Truman Doctrine. The
intervention by the UN was on very dodgy ground under the UN charter;
Article 1 speaks of all nations having the right to self-determination.
That South Korea on its own was an independent nation was a thing settled
only in the minds of the Americans- but certainly not agreed with by Rhee
who saw his nation as one country, split for the time being, but which would
be re-united one day. In effect the UN was taking sides in a civil war,
which they had no right to do, but the Security Council can decide for the
UN and the UN was now committed to carrying out a thinly disguised act of US
Foreign Policy. Although the Russians immediately came back and tried to
veto the action they were told that the decision had been taken in their
absence and could not be reversed.
16 Nations sent troops to invade Korea, although the overwhelming majority
were American. The Northern Invasion was routed very quickly after some
small US defeats and by September 1950 the victorious UN forces had invaded
North Korea and were chasing a beaten enemy. Once the 38th parallel was
crossed, the US were no longer conducting a war to save a small nation -
they were following a new policy which was no longer containment, but
Rollback. This was aggression. Mao Zedong warned that he would not
tolerate the presence of an American army on his borders, fearing invasion
of China and a return by Chiang Kai Shek. He was ignored. As the UN
reached the Yalu River, the border between North Korea and China 250,000
Chinese troops attacked and drove them back. China prudently stated that
these troops were ‘volunteers’ which thinly disguised an official Chinese
involvement which could have brought Russia into the war.
The Chinese drove the UN forces back into South Korea, and made UN Commander
Douglas MacArthur so desperate that he advised the President to use the
nuclear bomb on Chinese troop concentrations, the nearest Chinese cities and
the nearest Soviet airbases. An appalled Truman sacked him, but the new
commander, General Ridgeway, once the situation had stabilised and he had
driven the Chinese back to the 38th parallel, made no attempt to re-invade
the North, recognising that the invasion had been a mistake. For the next 3
years the fighting settled into trench warfare. The USA poured money and
men into the conflict using Japan as a staging post for supplies and all
other facilities. The finance was so great that it stimulated a great
recovery in Japan’s war-battered industries. Convinced of a ‘Domino theory’
the US set out to prove that containment work, and at great cost, because
Korea is a peninsula, they made it work. This led them into the mistake of
believing it could be contained in other places. In 1952 Eisenhower was
elected President of the USA and used a threat of nuclear weapons to
persuade the Communists to the conference table; Stalin died in January 1953
and an armistice was signed later that year. No peace treaty was ever
signed and the UN remains officially in conflict with North Korea to this
day. Along the Korean border remain the trappings of the Cold War, the
Barbed wire, the mines, the sensors etc. Each side has a huge army and is
prepared to fight a war which has never ended. The Russians have never
again walked out of the UN - which is hardly surprising, and the UN was
never again able to intervene so dramatically in any conflict until the Gulf
War of 1990. It stayed paralysed by the vetoes of the two great power blocs
So before we decided on the 38th parallel as the dividing line Korea was not divided, it was one country.
Fred, the two Koreas were having a war. It's hard to think of anything more dividing than a war! And one of the participants in Korea was China - a country that had recently undregone a most bloody war and divided itself into two states, one a totalitarian despotism under Chairman Mao. I know which of the two Koreas I would opt to live in and it surely is not the political mirage that is North Korea. The thousands of Koreans in Canada and the USA would likely agree with me!
No it was not a country at all. It was a province of the Japanese empire, and before that a province of the Chinese empire.
No it was a country, just as India was a country not a province of the British Empire.
And it was united, till we divided it.
John Little
20-May-10, 21:31
OK - I give up. What is a country?
John Little
20-May-10, 21:34
You see I was under the impression that a country was an independent nation with its own government, infrastructure and sovreignty.
You seem to have other ideas.
BTW - just curious - did you read my long post?
And India was not united until we united it.
And we divided it at the insistence of Jinnah and Gandhi.
You see I was under the impression that a country was an independent nation with its own government, infrastructure and sovreignty.
You seem to have other ideas.
BTW - just curious - did you read my long post?
By your definition Scotland isn't a country.
I think Scotland is a country.
Don't you?
John Little
20-May-10, 21:53
Scotland is a nation.
It was formerly an independent country but became part of a larger country called the United Kingdom., sharing its sovereignty with other formerly independent countries.
One day Scotland may be again an independent country if that is what its people want.
You use the word country in a particular way. I use it in the way that most people use it when they speak of over 180 countries in the world.
But I note you do not answer my question.
How do you define it?
You see I was under the impression that a country was an independent nation with its own government, infrastructure and sovreignty.
Like the Isle of Man?
John Little
20-May-10, 21:57
Actually, let us take a genuine case of division.
There are over 60 million Kurds.
At Versailles the Kurds made strong representation to be allowed to set up Kurdistan. They were denied that right and the Kurds remain split to this day between Syria, Turkey and Iraq.
The Kurds are a nation.
There is a geographical area that they inhabit that they wished to make a country.
But I know nor recognise any country called Kurdistan.
Do you?
John Little
20-May-10, 21:59
Like the Isle of Man?
They are an anomaly in that they are a crown dependency. In many ways they have independence but their sovereign is Liz and their defence and foreign policy are the UK's
They are an anomaly in that they are a crown dependency. In many ways they have independence but their sovereign is Liz and their defence and foreign policy are the UK's
Soon to be the EU's though, within a few short years. IMO.[disgust]
Scotland is a nation.
It was formerly an independent country but became part of a larger country called the United Kingdom., sharing its sovereignty with other formerly independent countries.
One day Scotland may be again an independent country if that is what its people want.
You use the word country in a particular way. I use it in the way that most people use it when they speak of over 180 countries in the world.
But I note you do not answer my question.
How do you define it?
I don't know who these most people you are talking about are but everyone I know thinks Scotland is a country.
I don't know who these most people you are talking about are but everyone I know thinks Scotland is a country.
Most Londoners think Scotland is part of the lake district and it always rains. Unless they own vast tracts of it of course :eek:
The same people thought the Falklands were next to Shetland
Way to go on the long post John, very informative and I don't even think you made it up (I watched MASH) :cool:
Simplest way to define what is a country:
Are they a member of Fédération Internationale de Football Association, commonly known by its acronym, FIFA.
If so that will do for me
Ref john littles -24th.- I could not even read that - let alone print it!!
So reference to salient points are wasted on me I am afraid.- but I get the drift.
Ref john littles -24th.- I could not even read that - let alone print it!!
So reference to salient points are wasted on me I am afraid.- but I get the drift.
Why? attention span, glasses, small screen, what?
I definately wouldn't get a copy of War & Peace!
John Little
21-May-10, 06:50
Simplest way to define what is a country:
Are they a member of Fédération Internationale de Football Association, commonly known by its acronym, FIFA.
If so that will do for me
I begin to think that 'country' is a term very loosely used. To me what defines a 'country' is sovreignty. A nation on the other hand is defined by its people, culture etc.
And even I have heard of the four nations cup.
But what I wanted was for Fred to change tack from being negative about my definitions and instead define what 'country' means to him.
He still has not done so.
I suspect he means 'land' as in describing a geographical area but that is a pretty loose way of looking at things if you are using it to claim that we 'split' Korea which had not existed as a 'country' for hundreds of years.
Language eh......
Thanks Ducati - took me an hour to write that.
But what I wanted was for Fred to change tack from being negative about my definitions and instead define what 'country' means to him.
Same as it means to everyone else except you.
The opening paragraph in the wikipedia entry for Korea says:
Korea (Korean: 한국 or 조선) is a country formerly unified but now divided into two states. Located on the Korean Peninsula, it borders China to the northwest, Russia to the northeast, and is separated from Japan to the east by the Korea Strait.
It was a unified country, we divided it into two states, like I said. Your redefining the meaning of the word "country" doesn't change that.
There is nothing negative about not changing the meaning of words to suit your argument.
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 09:25
Perhaps you could visit the library now and then Fred, your reliance on Wiki does not serve your arguments, constant as they are.
Who do you think controls all the misinformation found on Wiki?
Every time you write anything it seems you leave little consideration for how didactic you sound.
What makes you think you know the truth and most of us know nothing?
Perhaps you spend too much time amongst those with a similarly unhealthy approach to the world.
Love, David.
King Lizard.
Perhaps you could visit the library now and then Fred, your reliance on Wiki does not serve your arguments, constant as they are.
Who do you think controls all the misinformation found on Wiki?
Every time you write anything it seems you leave little consideration for how didactic you sound.
What makes you think you know the truth and most of us know nothing?
Perhaps you spend too much time amongst those with a similarly unhealthy approach to the world.
Love, David.
King Lizard.
I wondered how long it would take for the clique to close ranks and try to bully their falsehoods onto us.
Korea is a country, no amount of your personal abuse is going to change that.
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 10:01
I wondered how long it would take for the clique to close ranks and try to bully their falsehoods onto us.
Korea is a country, no amount of your personal abuse is going to change that.
There you go again Fred.
You don't like it do you?
Anyone who does not appreciate your style of posting is a bully right?
It appears I am not allowed to remark on your constant use of Wiki without being accused of bullying and 'personal abuse'.
Actually I think being called a bully is 'personal abuse', and I would ask you to desist.
If I am the member of 'the clique' please tell the others, I could use some friends.
Perhaps you mean everyone else when you say clique.
That is not a clique Fred, check Wiki!
Incidentally, did I pass any remark about Korea being a country or not?
I actually agree broadly with your views as stated here, but don't tell anyone.
I really don't want anyone thinking I might be part of your 'clique'.
PLEASE stop bullying me Fred.
There you go again Fred.
You don't like it do you?
Anyone who does not appreciate your style of posting is a bully right?
It appears I am not allowed to remark on your constant use of Wiki without being accused of bullying and 'personal abuse'.
Actually I think being called a bully is 'personal abuse', and I would ask you to desist.
If I am the member of 'the clique' please tell the others, I could use some friends.
Perhaps you mean everyone else when you say clique.
That is not a clique Fred, check Wiki!
Incidentally, did I pass any remark about Korea being a country or not?
I actually agree broadly with your views as stated here, but don't tell anyone.
I really don't want anyone thinking I might be part of your 'clique'.
PLEASE stop bullying me Fred.
You just decided to post trying to discredit me and the source of my information because you agreed with me?
Yeh...right.
John Little
21-May-10, 10:38
OKay - let's accept your Wiki. Who knows, in an alternate universe your version might be true.
Let's say Korea was a country that we divided.
Who was it's leader? What system of government did it have? Where was its capital?
Was it a member of the League of Nations?
Can you post its flag on here?
Did it have an army, navy and airforce?
What was its GDP
and so on.
You ought to write novels - you are good at fiction.
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 10:42
Perhaps I am tired of opening potentially interesting threads and seeing the same old Wiki promoter peddling his worn wares.
You can call it what you like. Bullying, personal abuse or cliquism.
That is only your opinion, and I don't happen to value your opinion based on the drivel you constantly spew.
And lets not get started on the merits of Kosovo.
OKay - let's accept your Wiki. Who knows, in an alternate universe your version might be true.
Let's say Korea was a country that we divided.
In this universe my version is true.
Here, the Council for International Exchange of Scholars web site:
The Korean peninsula is located in Northeast Asia, where it is bordered on the north by China and Russia and faces Japan to the southeast across the Sea of Japan. Since 1948 the country has been divided along the 38th parallel, with the Republic of Korea to the south and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the north.
http://www.cies.org/country/korea.htm
The Washington Post country guide:
Korea
kôr´, k–, Korean Hanguk or Choson, region and historic country (85,049 sq mi/220,277 sq km), E Asia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/korea.html
Has it sunk in yet? You are the one in the alternate reality, everyone else in the world thinks Korea was a country, with people living there called Koreans and speaking a language called Korean.
If you look here you will see historical maps with the country of Korea on them.
http://www.hendrick-hamel.henny-savenije.pe.kr/maps.htm
John Little
21-May-10, 12:06
The scholars website is wrong. Korea was divided between August 10 and August 21 1945 as the Red army invaded the North and the US invaded the south. Neither side withdrew until 1946, effectively dividing the Korean peninsula.
Interesting sources Fred - one of them shows Korea as an island.
Maybe in your version it is?
I repeat the questions you have not answered;
Who was its leader? What system of government did it have? Where was its capital?
Was it a member of the League of Nations?
Can you post its flag on here?
Did it have an army, navy and airforce?
What was its GDP
and so on.
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 12:13
Anyone with a passing knowledge of Asia will know that, like many other parts of the world, borders are only on paper, and real deliniation is based on cultural and religious facets of the peoples.
Borders are often arbitrary and certainly have little meaning to the common people.
You can all disappear up your own colons arguing about them though, instead of doing anything worthwhile with your time.
The scholars website is wrong. Korea was divided between August 10 and August 21 1945 as the Red army invaded the North and the US invaded the south. Neither side withdrew until 1946, effectively dividing the Korean peninsula.
From wikipedia:
Korea was united until 1948; at that time it was split into South Korea and North Korea. South Korea,
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 12:51
Wiki says you are a hobbit Fred. Or are you a goblin?
I have yet to update it with the real facts.
John Little
21-May-10, 13:41
Still waiting for answers......
Still waiting for answers......
Sixty five years ago two imperial powers were dividing up the spoils of war and sat at a table they drew a line through the middle of a country agreeing they would take half each with no regard whatsoever for the lives or the wishes of the people who actually lived there. As they drew this line a strange thing happened, by some sort of magic everyone on the north of the line suddenly became evil and everyone on the south of the line became good.
John Little
21-May-10, 13:54
Still waiting.............
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 14:14
Sixty five years ago two imperial powers were dividing up the spoils of war and sat at a table they drew a line through the middle of a country agreeing they would take half each with no regard whatsoever for the lives or the wishes of the people who actually lived there. As they drew this line a strange thing happened, by some sort of magic everyone on the north of the line suddenly became evil and everyone on the south of the line became good.
A see what ye did there petal.
Robot.
I have to disagree with you, John.
Surely the term most used is nation.
Scotland is a nation.
It has its own currency, its own legal system, its own parliament and its own language (several of them).
Scotland is also something of an anomaly because it is a partner in the United Kingdom.
But as the United Kingdom is now a partner in the EC it is hard to see what nationalists might gain from splitting up the UK.
But nobody can deny Scotland has the right as a nation to do this should they so desire,
despite draconian language in the Act of Union
Therefore I insist that the proper term is nation - to me, country suggests brochures from the Tourist Board.
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 14:43
Whenever I am asked what country I come from, I always answer Scotland.
I am struggling to remember the last time someone asked what nation I am from.
OK I take your point, boozeburgler.
But once you've answered the question "what country do you come from?" there is a second question "is that an independent country?" And there it is ,the national question.
Thoughtful and sensitive people tip-toe around the issues of Scottish identity because it is inherently confusing. (Like the Korean mess)
Fortunately Scotland's gift for creating joke culture - a la Harry Lauder/Andy Stuart/ People's Friend/ provides a life belt for the well intentioned foreigner. Because eveyone knows we are the warmest, bravest, friendliest people on the planet. (Unlike the Irish...)
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 15:25
OK Rich.
In all my 42 years, including travelling and living abroad I have never been asked that second question. Have you?
:)
John Little
21-May-10, 15:38
Perhaps we need to tighten our terms up. If we describe Scotland as a country, are we describing a geographical region or harking back to when it was a sovereign nation? Maybe we refer to countries out of habit when they are not sovreign. We are down to semantics and looseness of language - which we did noit create
The definition of country is almost another thread but it's actually sidelining Fred's issue - he is asserting that 'we' split up a 'country' in 1948.
I don't know who 'we' are who split up this country for we were nowhere near there.
Does he mean that 'we split' up a geographical region, a nation of people, a sovreign country or what?
And how did this 'split' in 1948 happen?
And who was involved?
And who was ruling Korea before the split of 1948? President ?????????
Legislature was called??????????
and so on.
He seems to be implying some sort of crime but I cannot think what it is.
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 15:45
If 99.9% of the people on earth describe what I perceive of and describe as blue as blue also, I am happy with that description.
In general terms people of Scotland think of, and describe, Scotland as their home country.
No amount of semantic manipulation will alter that.
:)
Boozeburglar, I have frequently been asked this question. Of course that could be because I live in Canada where we are very interested in nationalities and the adjustments people have to make so you don't inadvertently insult someone.
I once worked on a parking garage in one of Toronto's august educational establishments. My co-worker was a recently arrived 50 year old emigrant from Czhecoslovakia who used me as a guide to the questions he needed answered about his new homeland.
Such as: "Why is British queen on Canadian money?"
This was a particular bugbear for him. I would have thought that having escaped the grim realities of Eastern Europe he would simply be grateful. But it was "British Queen" that got right up his nose.
I tried to explain by telling him about 1867 and Confederation and all that good stuff.
It made no impression. But his interest in matters British reached a climax with the collapse of Rolls Royce. (This was 20 years ago - maybe more. How the time does fly!)
The new question was "Will Mrs. Thatcher save Royce Rolls with government money?"
It soon became apparent that he was ready to invest his life savings - cash he probably hid in his socks as he planned his escape from Europe.
I was horrified. I said, "Royce Rolls is Kaput. Bad investmnent! Lose all your money! Don't do it."
Well, he had my number. He went out and bought Rolls Royce shares. And sure enough the Thatcher government had a bail-out. And he made a killing.
He used the cash to open a Weiner Schitzel restaurant at Yonge and Wellesley, west side. Since then though I am sure he has gone on to greater things....
Local opinion, straight from South Korea this morning -
'The local lads here say that the South will never bomb the North as Seoul is too near to the border and the North would wipe it out, hence South Korea will always let a small military thing like that go by. The South Koreans also have too big a manufacturing industry at stake to lose. One of the comments on caithness.org was the North were evil and the South were nice (or something like that). I can't comment on the North but the South are the most respectful and trustworthy people I have ever worked with.'
John Little
21-May-10, 16:10
Let us cut back to the chase.
I do not recognise this version of history
Sixty five years ago two imperial powers were dividing up the spoils of war and sat at a table they drew a line through the middle of a country agreeing they would take half each with no regard whatsoever for the lives or the wishes of the people who actually lived there. As they drew this line a strange thing happened, by some sort of magic everyone on the north of the line suddenly became evil and everyone on the south of the line became good.
Whether or not Scotland is or is not a 'country' is hardly relevant to what the main thrust is here.
Historically, a country's awareness of itself as a an entity is comparatively recent. Even as late as the 16th century people did not describe themselves as Englishmen - they referred to thermselves as Cornish or Yorkshire.
But Fred speaks of two imperial powers deliberately dividing up the 'spoils of war'
It did not happen.
Two occupying armies drew a temporary demarcation line where their forces met in August 1945
This line went across a 'country' which had not been independent since the mists of time - it was part of the Chinese empire, pinched by Japan.
It had no government, no history of democracy, no sovreignty and was never a 'country' in that it was an independent nation. It was a piece of land where a people lived who shared a language
Very shortly the two sides fell out and began a cold war but both sides withdrew from an area they had little value for.
Now Fred says there was a country that was split in 1948 - without the consultation of its people.
Well since the occupying powers were two years gone, I want to know who had been running it for two years?
And did they resist this split?
Who are we speaking of??? Names, events, treaties, documents.
This line went across a 'country' which had not been independent since the mists of time - it was part of the Chinese empire, pinched by Japan.
It had no government, no history of democracy, no sovreignty and was never a 'country' in that it was an independent nation. It was a piece of land where a people lived who shared a language
Wrong.
Prior to the Japanese invasion of 1910 Korea was not only a country but an Empire, complete with Emperor. They had a national anthem "Let there be light across the land", national flag, everything. Before that they were a Kingdom, King Gojong ruled them.
Pause while everyone scampers off in search of Emeperor Gojong and Empress Min.
This is fun but anyone can play this game.
Do yolu have an original thought in your body, Fed?
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 19:07
Boozeburglar, I have frequently been asked this question. Of course that could be because I live in Canada where we are very interested in nationalities and the adjustments people have to make so you don't inadvertently insult someone.
I once worked on a parking garage in one of Toronto's august educational establishments. My co-worker was a recently arrived 50 year old emigrant from Czhecoslovakia who used me as a guide to the questions he needed answered about his new homeland.
Such as: "Why is British queen on Canadian money?"
This was a particular bugbear for him. I would have thought that having escaped the grim realities of Eastern Europe he would simply be grateful. But it was "British Queen" that got right up his nose.
I tried to explain by telling him about 1867 and Confederation and all that good stuff.
It made no impression. But his interest in matters British reached a climax with the collapse of Rolls Royce. (This was 20 years ago - maybe more. How the time does fly!)
The new question was "Will Mrs. Thatcher save Royce Rolls with government money?"
It soon became apparent that he was ready to invest his life savings - cash he probably hid in his socks as he planned his escape from Europe.
I was horrified. I said, "Royce Rolls is Kaput. Bad investmnent! Lose all your money! Don't do it."
Well, he had my number. He went out and bought Rolls Royce shares. And sure enough the Thatcher government had a bail-out. And he made a killing.
He used the cash to open a Weiner Schitzel restaurant at Yonge and Wellesley, west side. Since then though I am sure he has gone on to greater things....
Interesting, I appreciate where you are coming from now. Thanks for the considerate reply. :)
Any time! Always glad to oblige...
John Little
21-May-10, 21:28
Wrong.
Prior to the Japanese invasion of 1910 Korea was not only a country but an Empire, complete with Emperor. They had a national anthem "Let there be light across the land", national flag, everything. Before that they were a Kingdom, King Gojong ruled them.
So a Japanese puppet state whom they had forced to declare 'independence' from China in 1876, and who depended entirely on Japanese support to maintain themselves is now dignified to an empire.
Much the same as Manchukuo in 1931 I suppose.
Fine - you believe what you want to believe.
Now please, who ruled Korea from 1945-48?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.