this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
1143 points (93.7% liked)
Memes
45868 readers
1318 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because there isn't a global regulatory body to handle workplace relations. Norway, Sweden and Denmark cannot exactly tell developing countries how they should treat their workers; no more than the US could tell Swedish unions to shut up and submit to Tesla's low pay demands.
We could have a global regulatory body.... oh wait... most people around the world don't want that because "'muh sovereignty."
The actual reason is that the west colonized these countries in the most brutal fashion, murdered millions of people who opposed western imperialism, then put in despotic regimes in place that serve western interests. You're evidently utterly ignorant of how the world actually works. Here's a book you should read that explains the reality of things https://ia800309.us.archive.org/26/items/fp_Killing_Hope-US_Military_and_CIA_Interventions_Since_WWII-William_Blum/Killing_Hope-US_Military_and_CIA_Interventions_Since_WWII-William_Blum.pdf
Oh wow, India and South Korea are still to this day under somehow subservient of Western imperialism, despite their own government implementing neoliberal policies after the Cold War! Somehow BJP, the ruling right wing party of India that deregulated the country, is a CIA stooge despite rebuffing sanctions on Russia. Gee, I wonder why? Thank you for your most enlightening, educated take! I am now so woke and class conscious like yourself!
Dude, this isn't the 20th century. Your communist utopia did not work and will never work, old fart. Countries have their own agency. Have you met people in Asia and Africa and asked them if they will want communism? Just like you never asked any former gulag members, yes? Take your meds called.... reality....old wanker.
You do realize that the US has control of South Korea's military during time of war, correct? It's an explicit part of their structure. South Korea quite literally does not have complete agency, despite what you're saying.
And you do realise that South Koreans wanted that set up to begin with, because they get more out of this security structure more than the US does? Why do you think that is? Who is South Korea's neighbour to the north, do you think? The peaceful West Korea? Both parties delayed handover of wartime control of ROK army numerous times, for reasons that should be obvious to those who are student of geopolitics. https://isdp.eu/publication/not-a-sovereignty-issue-understanding-the-transition-of-military-operational-control-between-the-united-states-and-south-korea/
That's actually ahistorical. There were numerous pro-democracy protests, and subsequent massacres by the ROK. Gwang-ju is perhaps the most famous example of the ROK slaughtering countless civilians protesting for democracy, but it happened during wartime as well. Korea's modern history, North and South, is intensely complicated and messy, and to pretend it's a simple matter of the US protecting the defenseless South Koreans from the big bad North Koreans is just as wrong as saying that North Korea is 100% good and just.
There's also the No Gun Ri Massacre, by which American soldiers murdered hundreds of South Korean men, women, and children.
South Korea in particular has a history of military dictatorship, coups, and massacres of pro-democracy civilians, and even in recent years is still having trouble with fascism.
You obviously did not read the article or at least skim read the earlier paragraphs.
And unsurprisingly you revert to historical fallacy to post-Cold War decisions that has zero bearing to more recent events, namely North Korea keeps firing missiles every so often.
Which part was the historical fallacy? The part where I gave explicit examples of both the ROK and US massacring civilians, or the part where I mentioned that South Korea has major issues with rising fascist movements, such as under current president Yoon? The same president who has targeted women and disabled people to rile up the increasingly conservative male voterbase, similar to how Trump rose to power in the US?
North Korea isn't a good state, not in any meaningful capacity, but neither is South Korea. Additionally, the ROK was modeled by the Americans, the Korean intelligence agency is literally the KCIA. The ROK is essentially a US puppet state, they are allowed to govern themselves until what they do goes against the US.
The decision to delay the handover of wartime control of South Korean army to the SK government is made by both parties, as recent as 2015, in which both governments are no longer ruled by the same people as by those in 1950s and 1960s. Because decision-makers in 1950s are now dead and there are new leaders. You don't need a PhD to figure that out.
So yes, historical fallacy is what you're doing.
Do you think parties are the will of the people? Especially considering the aforementioned anti-democratic massacres, such as Gwang-Ju in 1980, not 1950 or 1960?
You don't need a PhD to figure out that you clearly have a pro-American bias and don't actually care about historical accuracy.
What year are you in? Have the ROK and US massacred any Koreans in the past twenty years?
Sure, keep coping. You're being a vatnik to North Koreans.
You've been routinely wrong, and keep moving goal posts. Have you been ignoring President Yoon's flirtation with fascism, and the specific targeting of minority populations, women, and disabled people? Do you believe South Korea's history has no bearing on modern day politics?
South Korea is fundamentally controlled by the Chaebol and the US, despite protests against it.
Is pointing out the numerous issues with South Korea and the sovereignty of its citizens akin to being pro-North Korea? I don't think so.
Looks like you're having cognitive dissonance.
You are the one who first talked about ROK having no wartime control of their army, despite the Korean government themselves, having been ruled by various different parties of different flavours of ideologies, delaying the handover. Now, you are accusing me of moving the goal post when you're the one who set the agenda in the first place and I am merely responding. You moved the goal post with something that has zero to do with the initial agenda.
Even so, you moved the goal post, I will let you get to the finish line. You did not answer whether or not has there been any massacre in the past twenty years since South Korea's democratisation in spite of US wartime control of ROK army and leadership changes between different South Korean political parties?
You truly don't care to acknowledge that parties are not the people, do you? That only furthers my point, that South Korea cannot go against the US.
I never said there was constant massacring, I said South Korea has had numerous issues with massacring their population in modern history. This is factually correct, you even pretended it was limited to the 50s and 60s, and you still ignore President Yoon's fascist practices.
You truly have nowhere to stand on.
Have the Korean government massacred anyone since their democratisation?
You obviously don't live in East Asia to realise why the South Korean government delay the handover. I will give you an important hint as much as national security: it saves them money. They get more bang for the buck. Same with the EU hosting American military bases. The EU isn't being accused for "free-riding" for a reason.
South Korea get more than they bargained for which, not only deters North Korea and China, but also save them money. Why change the status quo overnight if it serves them very well so far?
Going back to the original matter at hand; yes, South Korea still exercise agency outside of the US influence in this matter. SK uses US more than the other way around.
Yes. They were "democratic" before 1980.
I understand why South Korean parties bend the knee, but your original point is wrong and you've shifted.
You obviously know I mean after 1980 that SK democratised. But sure, keep rationalising and accusing me of logical fallacies that you yourself is committing. Hard to look on the mirror I know.
The world isn't as conspiratorial as you might think it is, with power players in a smoky backroom concocting plans and deals to manipulate people. I used to think like you. Fact of the matter is that the world is anarchic.
It's not hard to see that the US has explicit power over South Korea, regardless of what the citizens want. You're bending over backwards to justify US Imperialism.
Sure, keep thinking that. It is though non-white, non-Caucasians are perptual victims of Western imperialism, and could not think for themselves, and have to be looked after by white liberals and leftists from preying eyes of Western imperialist states. This does not sound at all like the condescending white man's burden with a different flavour.
That's certainly a dodge. Keep bending over backwards to justify US Imperialism, one day it might bite you.
I will add more cognitive dissonance on you. Did it occur to you and with other Western liberals and left to ask South Koreans what they think? It is easy to be slacktivist keyboard warrior, comfortably sitting behind a computer, and act high and mighty while living in a country not being threatened by a neighbour, pretending to speak in behalf of people they do not have intimate knowledge of.
This attitude is also exactly what Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peele have criticised about Western white liberals who feels offended on behalf of persons of colour without asking what they truly think, and view them as perpetual victims who could not look after themselves. Sounds a lot like the old right-wing racist white man's burden mentality, doesn't it? But this is ironically coming from the left and liberals. There's nothing wrong with gracefully acknowledging it, but not repeating it is what matters more.
Yes, I have. The majority of my knowledge of South Korean politics comes from South Korean immigrants, and confirmation via independent research on my own. You aren't introducing any cognitive dissonance, you're just giving me the opportunity to yet again prove you wrong.
Oh sure, you did your research and haven't just made things up on the spot right now. Keep coping.
What have I made up, exactly? That I touch grass and am close with many South Korean immigrants? If that's what you take issue with, I can walk away from this convo knowing that I was 100% correct the entire time, and you just cope and mald, calling me a liar, despite me being 100% correct about everything I've said leading up to this recent comment.
South Korea could acquire wartime control of their military almost immediately, like the Philippines elected to kick out the Americans from their major base in the country in 1991, but ROK haven't so deal with it. There is more to politics than virtue signalling. Like I said, the world is anarchic than anyone realise.
More dodging, lol.
More coping.
-Moves goalposts the entire time and refuses to admit that the US has power over the people of South Korea
-baselessly claims I'm a liar for touching grass and talking to people who have been directly impacted by what I'm talking about
Lol
In what way does US pressure South Korea not to acquire wartime control of their military?
Building dependency, by which the US maintains an important foothold on East Asian soil.
And what are precise mechanisms by which the US achieves that over South Korea?
By providing aid and by engineering the ROK during its founding. Pretty simple stuff.
We're talking about South Korea not having wartime control of the army right now, not during the founding.
How is US pressuring South Korea not to have wartime control of their army, right now?
Are you legitimately trying to argue that history has no bearing on current conditions? Lmao.
You're dodging now. South Korea isn't there same dictatorship now as it once was and had multiple, multiparty governments, all of which elected democratically since 1980s.
The US has had peactime control of the Korean military until unilaterally given the peacetime control to ROK in 1994. In 2000's, they have had discussions then for ROK to also have wartime control of the army, but then delayed due to North Korean posturing. This has been delayed yet again in 2015. If you read the article I linked or know the actual history, you would know that. So now, why is there still delay and why do you think US pressure has to do with it? How is the US doing this, even though in 2015 the Obama administration has gotten frustrated with the delay?
The ROK was built by the US, and modeled as they saw fit. You're making the same argument that the US constitution doesn't impact modern American life, because George Washington is dead. That's a fallacy, it hasn't been restructured in any meaningful capacity.
Yes, the ROK has peacetime control. They don't have wartime control, despite posturing. The US still keeps the ROK on a leash, and is waiting for the time when they don't even need to directly control the ROK as they will be subservient regardless.
You really love Imperialism, I guess.
The ROK army is modeled after US military, and so is the Philippine army whose government has full control. But those have nothing to do with the question you still have not answered. How is being modeled after the US army applying pressure to South Korea to not acquire wartime control right now?
I literally gave the KCIA as an example, the ROK itself is designed by the US.
You're clearly not interested in answering honestly or directly, just dodging and justifying Imperialism, rather than sovereignty.
That's like saying US is French stooge because the French trained Americans with their system during the American Revolution, and despite fighting the French shortly after in the Quasi War.
You still have not answered on what possibly the precise mechanism by which US manipulate ROK. For the sake of the argument that a system being modeled after another country's is sign of being pressured, how does this explain ROK's stalling to have wartime control of their army, while the US has expressed frustration with the delay?
you're such an utter ignoramus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung_Hee
Has nothing do with the debate, tankie.
I could also give you a Wikipedia entry of Joseph Stalin, a fellow dictator that has nothing to do with 21st century South Korean politics.
Imagine claiming that US having installed a brutal dictatorship in occupied Korea after the war has nothing to do with the debate dronie.
Obviously, a tankie old fart is still living in the 20th century who thinks South Korea is still a dictatorship.
Obviously a dronie thinks that occupied Korea is a flourishing democracy. 😂