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.
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.
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.
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?
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?