Karnal wrote on Apr 28
th, 2014 at 1:55pm:
South Korea, eh? How about we start with South Korea's first president, Syngman Rhee? Flown into Korea before the war by Douglas Macarthur and appointed head of the interrim Korean government. After the Korean War, due to his rampant corruption, it became clear he would not be elected president by a majority of the parliament. Rhee reponded by arresting his opposition and was voted in by his friends. His presidency was maintained by widespread election fraud. At the end of his presidential term in 1956, he changed the constitution to give himself an unlmited term.
When faced with student protests, he sent the military in, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. When the protestors refused to calm down, he agreed to resign after meeting with the US diplomat McConaughy. The CIA flew Rhee to Honolulu, where he spent the rest of his days in exile doing the hula hula.
So, to summarize: Korea's first dictator-president was flown in by the US, appointed ruler by the US, ruled with US aid, support and military training, and when the sh!t hit the fan, was flown out by the US and put up in style.
Is this what you mean by Freedom and demokracy, FD?
Yes. The US helped to establish democracy in South Korea. When it went bad, US diplomats stepped in and helped resolve the situation. Hundreds dead is a pretty small death toll for establishing democracy. You have to be pretty desperate for something to criticise the yanks for to hold that against them. If you are having trouble putting this into perspective, compare it with North Korea, whose post-war transition was managed by Russia.
I'll give you another example. When I started hosting the PA forum, I decided to make it democratic. Aussie, who helped bring the members over, won the first election, with my help and support. Then, he started turning into a dictator. Eventually I had to step in and sort the mess out, and everyone bitched and moaned about me interfering. Does this mean I really wanted the PA forum to be a dictatorship? Does it mean I didn't really want it to be a democracy? Or does it merely reveal the fragility of democracy, especially in it's nascent state?
It is absurd to sugggest that the US went to the trouble of establishing democracy with the intention of maintaining control over it, or of propping up a dictator. Same goes with Iraq and Afghanistan. It is going to be messy, especially if it happens in the middle of an ongoing civil war. People are going to take advantage. The US is going to intervene however it thinks is most appropriate. Everyone will bitch and moan. But at the end of the day, they will have democracy, and it will be absolutely impossible for the US to control the long term outcome of that. If the people genuinely want to elect another Hitler, they will get one.
The US established democracy in South Korea. It had it's ups and downs, but they succeeded, and the South Koreans today owe their freedom, democracy and significant wealth to the good fortune of being on the south side of a line the divided the country between Russian and American management. South Korea is one of the clearest examples you can get of the west genuinely valuing democracy and exporting it. You can whinge all day about the imperfections in this process, but in the end you are just failing to see the wood for the trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea#Government
Today, the CIA World Factbook describes South Korea's democracy as a "fully functioning modern democracy".
Forum
Pages: 
Muslims want to silence and intimidate you (Read 80592 times)
