The Construction of an American Political lie

There was a brief period of military occupation but we soon withdrew and left the south koreans to govern themselves until the north invaded in 1950
How do you explain repeated military operations into North Korea by the US backed dictator in the south BEFORE the Korean War began in 1950?

http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/nkorea.htm

"At a conference with his divisional commanders in Seoul during
October 1949 General Roberts, Chief of the American Military Mission in
Korea, said:

"'Certainly there have been many attacks on the territory north of
the 38th parallel on my orders, and there will be many others in the
days to come ... From now on, the invasion by the land forces of the
territory north of the 38th parallel is to be carried out only on the
basis of orders of the American military mission.'"
Your references are all communists

i cannot verify any statement you claim roberts made
 
Are you arguing that the US forced the soviet union into a Cold War it didnt seek and didnt want?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Russia had just lost 20 million of her citizens. An economic struggle with the US would only impair recovery for decades, and there was nothing inevitable about a Cold War in the wake of WWII

Churchill and Stalin: Comrades-in-Arms during World War Two | History News Network

"It is commonly assumed the cold war was inevitable, that once Hitler was defeated the conflicting interests and ideologies of the Soviet Union and the western powers inexorably drove the two sides apart.

"Despite his reputation as an early cold warrior, that was not Churchill’s view: the main message of his iron curtain speech was the need for a good understanding with Russia.

"When he returned to power in Britain in 1951 it was as a peacemaker and an advocate of détente with the USSR.

"Jaw-jaw is always better then war-war, he said."
You sir are a revisionist historian

you are repeating the big lie that the soviets spread for 70 years
You sir are a revisionist historian

you are repeating the big lie that the soviets spread for 70 years
All governments lie, including the Soviets and the US. By 1949 the US was entering its first post-war economic recession. While it lasted only 11 month, many forecasters at the time expected it to be much worse than it was.

Most adults who were alive at that time lived through the Great Depression, and they knew how WWII solved that problem.

The Korean War was the beginning of a "permanent war-time economy" in the US, and its effects have continued through Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Most of the Big Lies coming from DC seek to conceal this reality.
Your theory fails due to the fact that the communists started the korean war
 
America liberated korea and great cost in blood and treasure
The blood was mostly Korean.

NK had a population of about 9 million in 1950 when the war began.

One in three Koreans (military and civilian) living north of the 38th parallel died in that conflict. Prominent US hawks of the time repeatedly called for using nuclear weapons to murder even more.


The US initiated the bloodshed in 1945 when it denied Koreans living under US military occupation the right to self-determination, a historical reality I've pointed out several times without you providing any contradictory evidence.

Monthly Review | Setting the Record Straight on the Korean War

"Although American troops were allegedly sent to oversee the surrender of Japanese forces, their mission was much bigger.

"Significantly, even before U.S. forces had landed in Korea, they were told by their commanding officer that the Korean people were to be considered enemies of the United States.

"The United States sought domination over as much of Korea as possible because of its strategic proximity to Japan, China, and the Soviet Union.

"Because the great majority of Koreans had their own vision of a democratic, independent, and socialist country, they stood in the way of U.S. plans."
Your argument falls apart due to the fact the communists invaded sputh korea

we responded to their aggression
Your argument falls apart due to the fact the communists invaded sputh korea

we responded to their aggression
You are accepting US propaganda.
Here's another version:


"Korea, China, and the United States: A Look Back" by Deane, Hugh - Monthly Review, Vol. 46, Issue 9, February 1995 | Online Research Library: Questia

"The triumph of the Chinese revolution in 1949 secured the Manchurian rear of Kim II Sung's Democratic People's Republic and brought it the bonanza of scores of thousands of battle-experienced troops.

"Koreans whom Kim had sent to fight in the Chinese People's Liberation Army against the Kuomintang came home, bringing much equipment, and were integrated into the new northern army.

"That
year North Korea responded defensively when South Korean troops provocatively crossed the 38th parallel on the Onjin peninsula.

"But when the south crossed again in the same area in 1950, as substantial evidence indicates, North Korea struck all along the parallel in what turned into an attempt to unite Korea by force.

"Yet the northern assault of June 25, 1950, did not begin the Korean war.

"The war started in 1945 and it was begun by the United States."
 
America liberated korea and great cost in blood and treasure
The blood was mostly Korean.

NK had a population of about 9 million in 1950 when the war began.

One in three Koreans (military and civilian) living north of the 38th parallel died in that conflict. Prominent US hawks of the time repeatedly called for using nuclear weapons to murder even more.


The US initiated the bloodshed in 1945 when it denied Koreans living under US military occupation the right to self-determination, a historical reality I've pointed out several times without you providing any contradictory evidence.

Monthly Review | Setting the Record Straight on the Korean War

"Although American troops were allegedly sent to oversee the surrender of Japanese forces, their mission was much bigger.

"Significantly, even before U.S. forces had landed in Korea, they were told by their commanding officer that the Korean people were to be considered enemies of the United States.

"The United States sought domination over as much of Korea as possible because of its strategic proximity to Japan, China, and the Soviet Union.

"Because the great majority of Koreans had their own vision of a democratic, independent, and socialist country, they stood in the way of U.S. plans."
Your argument falls apart due to the fact the communists invaded sputh korea

we responded to their aggression
Your argument falls apart due to the fact the communists invaded sputh korea

we responded to their aggression
You are accepting US propaganda.
Here's another version:


"Korea, China, and the United States: A Look Back" by Deane, Hugh - Monthly Review, Vol. 46, Issue 9, February 1995 | Online Research Library: Questia

"The triumph of the Chinese revolution in 1949 secured the Manchurian rear of Kim II Sung's Democratic People's Republic and brought it the bonanza of scores of thousands of battle-experienced troops.

"Koreans whom Kim had sent to fight in the Chinese People's Liberation Army against the Kuomintang came home, bringing much equipment, and were integrated into the new northern army.

"That
year North Korea responded defensively when South Korean troops provocatively crossed the 38th parallel on the Onjin peninsula.

"But when the south crossed again in the same area in 1950, as substantial evidence indicates, North Korea struck all along the parallel in what turned into an attempt to unite Korea by force.

"Yet the northern assault of June 25, 1950, did not begin the Korean war.

"The war started in 1945 and it was begun by the United States."
You are repeating communist propaganda
 
Your references are all communists

i cannot verify any statement you claim roberts made
Unlike current wars of aggression, enough time has passed since the Korean War to evaluate specific claims:

http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/nkorea.htm

"On the 14th March 1950 a correspondent of the New York Times named
Sullivan reported from Seoul that 13 deputies of the National Assembly
of South Korea had been sentenced to imprisonment for periods ranging
from one and a half to ten years for violations of the Security Act.

"Each was found guilty on five charges, of which the fourth was
'opposing the invasion of North Korea by the South Korean forces.'


"In the South Korean elections of the 30th May 1950 Syngman Rhee
suffered a crushing defeat and his support in the New National Assembly
was reduced to less than a quarter of the seats.


"The overthrow of his
hated regime seemed certain and its impending collapse was openly
predicted.

"The general opinion was that only a victorious war could
raise his prestige enough to save him."
 
Your references are all communists

i cannot verify any statement you claim roberts made
Unlike current wars of aggression, enough time has passed since the Korean War to evaluate specific claims:

http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/nkorea.htm

"On the 14th March 1950 a correspondent of the New York Times named
Sullivan reported from Seoul that 13 deputies of the National Assembly
of South Korea had been sentenced to imprisonment for periods ranging
from one and a half to ten years for violations of the Security Act.

"Each was found guilty on five charges, of which the fourth was
'opposing the invasion of North Korea by the South Korean forces.'


"In the South Korean elections of the 30th May 1950 Syngman Rhee
suffered a crushing defeat and his support in the New National Assembly
was reduced to less than a quarter of the seats.


"The overthrow of his
hated regime seemed certain and its impending collapse was openly
predicted.

"The general opinion was that only a victorious war could
raise his prestige enough to save him."
Listen George, I have been dealing with leftwing revisionist historians for a long time

the international communist party has provided you with plenty of talking points but most of it is lies

I dont believe the US started the Cold War or the Korean War

and further I can see how much better off democratic/capitalist South Korea than their communist brethren in the north

so I know the effort we made during the korean war to stop communist aggression was worth the cost
 
f so, would you support that outcome, seeing the hell that North Korea is, compared to the First World Nation that South Korea became, under American protection?
How many Koreans died under American protection?

DECEMBER 31, 2002
A Pop Quiz on Korea
by GARY LEUPP

"How many people, military plus civilians, died in the Korean War?

a. 500,000-1 million

b. 1 million-2 million

c. about 4 million

In North Korea about one in every three citizens died during the Korean War.

That hell would never have happened if the US had not prevented free elections in 1945

The US bombed NK into the stone age between 1950-53; that's part of the reason why its GDP doesn't match South Korea's today.


What are you leaving out?
 
Until our leaders start fessing up to what has been done in the name of protecting America, we as the true overseers of this government need to start becoming a more informed citizenry.

Soleimani
Tue Jan 7th 2020 by abagond



Qasem Soleimani (1957-2020), also spelled “Suleimani”, was the Iranian general the US killed last week in Baghdad, on January 2nd 2020 at 22:00 UTC (it was one in the morning the next day in Iraq).

In the US almost no one knew who he was, but now the press is saying he was a Horrible Terrible Person, worse than Osama bin Laden (the head of Al Qaeda) or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (the head of ISIS), both of whom the US also assassinated.

As CNBC, a supposedly serious news outlet, tweeted, in its own voice:

“America just took out the world’s no. 1 bad guy”

And that was not even Fox News on the far-right!

If Soleimani was that terrible, why did the press say so little about him before he was killed? He has been a general in Iran since the 1980s – he was hardly hiding under a rock.

Before and after: Compare the Wikipedia before and after his death:

On December 27th, the second paragraph:

“Soleimani hailed from a humble background. He began his military career since the beginning of the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, during which he commanded the 41st Division. He was later involved in extraterritorial operations, providing military assistance to anti-Saddam Shia and Kurdish groups in Iraq, and later Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. In 2012, Soleimani helped bolster the Syrian government, a key Iranian ally, during the Syrian Civil War. Soleimani also assisted in the command of combined Iraqi government and Shia militia forces that advanced against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in 2014–2015.[19]”

On January 7th, today:

“Soleimani began his military career at the start of the Iran–Iraq War during the 1980s, eventually commanding the 41st Division. He was later involved in extraterritorial operations, providing military assistance to Hezbollah in Lebanon. In 2012, Soleimani helped bolster the government of Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally, during Iran’s operations in the Syrian Civil War and helped to plan the Russian military intervention in Syria.[20] Soleimani oversaw the Kurdish and Shia militia forces in Iraq, and assisted the Iraqi forces that advanced against ISIL in 2014–2015.[21][22] Soleimani was one of the first to support Kurdish forces, providing them with arms.[23][24] He maintained a low profile during most of his career.”

Compare: Both paragraphs might be perfectly true – they are not logically contradictory. But notice the change in emphasis: two good things about him have been taken out (humble origins, anti-Saddam) and two bad ones added (pro-Assad, helps Russia). Good and bad, that is, from a US point of view! Just over half the edits made to the English-language Wikipedia come from the US.

Demonization: Soleimani, as you might expect, fought both for and against US enemies. He was, be it noted, a general for Iran, not the US. And Iran, be it further noted, is not some rebel province of the US empire. But now that President Trump has killed him, Soleimani is being demonized, flattened into a Hollywood “bad guy”. Why?

Soleimani
Are you referring to the recently takeout of Iranian serial murderer Solemani who drilled holes into his Iraqi pilot captives' skulls into the highest heinous pain recepticles of their brains to torture them for hours prior to their certain deaths?

Wikileaks Exposes Iran's Secret Revenge on Iraqi Pilots For 1980s War

Oh, that Solemani. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Until our leaders start fessing up to what has been done in the name of protecting America, we as the true overseers of this government need to start becoming a more informed citizenry.

Soleimani
Tue Jan 7th 2020 by abagond



Qasem Soleimani (1957-2020), also spelled “Suleimani”, was the Iranian general the US killed last week in Baghdad, on January 2nd 2020 at 22:00 UTC (it was one in the morning the next day in Iraq).

In the US almost no one knew who he was, but now the press is saying he was a Horrible Terrible Person, worse than Osama bin Laden (the head of Al Qaeda) or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (the head of ISIS), both of whom the US also assassinated.

As CNBC, a supposedly serious news outlet, tweeted, in its own voice:

“America just took out the world’s no. 1 bad guy”

And that was not even Fox News on the far-right!

If Soleimani was that terrible, why did the press say so little about him before he was killed? He has been a general in Iran since the 1980s – he was hardly hiding under a rock.

Before and after: Compare the Wikipedia before and after his death:

On December 27th, the second paragraph:

“Soleimani hailed from a humble background. He began his military career since the beginning of the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, during which he commanded the 41st Division. He was later involved in extraterritorial operations, providing military assistance to anti-Saddam Shia and Kurdish groups in Iraq, and later Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. In 2012, Soleimani helped bolster the Syrian government, a key Iranian ally, during the Syrian Civil War. Soleimani also assisted in the command of combined Iraqi government and Shia militia forces that advanced against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in 2014–2015.[19]”

On January 7th, today:

“Soleimani began his military career at the start of the Iran–Iraq War during the 1980s, eventually commanding the 41st Division. He was later involved in extraterritorial operations, providing military assistance to Hezbollah in Lebanon. In 2012, Soleimani helped bolster the government of Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally, during Iran’s operations in the Syrian Civil War and helped to plan the Russian military intervention in Syria.[20] Soleimani oversaw the Kurdish and Shia militia forces in Iraq, and assisted the Iraqi forces that advanced against ISIL in 2014–2015.[21][22] Soleimani was one of the first to support Kurdish forces, providing them with arms.[23][24] He maintained a low profile during most of his career.”

Compare: Both paragraphs might be perfectly true – they are not logically contradictory. But notice the change in emphasis: two good things about him have been taken out (humble origins, anti-Saddam) and two bad ones added (pro-Assad, helps Russia). Good and bad, that is, from a US point of view! Just over half the edits made to the English-language Wikipedia come from the US.

Demonization: Soleimani, as you might expect, fought both for and against US enemies. He was, be it noted, a general for Iran, not the US. And Iran, be it further noted, is not some rebel province of the US empire. But now that President Trump has killed him, Soleimani is being demonized, flattened into a Hollywood “bad guy”. Why?

Soleimani

Yes I noticed it has changed, I think many people pro trump are working day and night changing things in his favor.
Using the facts from half a century past? Oh, yah, that's so contemporaneous and Trump of us. lololol.
 
What are you leaving out?
Syngman Rhee's war crimes?

Monthly Review | Setting the Record Straight on the Korean War

"For example, the Syngman Rhee regime 'ordered a blood bath in the southern regions retaken from the north after Inchon in the fall of 1950…Gregory Henderson [a U.S. official stationed in Seoul] estimated…that probably more than 100,000 were killed without any trial whatsoever when soldiers and the Counter-Intelligence Corps recaptured areas where the left was known to be strong' (96).

"Deane also highlights the normally overlooked period from October through November 1950, when U.S. and South Korean forces occupied North Korea.

"The result was a reign of terror. 'After reoccupying Pyongyang, the North Koreans claimed that 15,000 people had been massacred there—the bodies filled the courtyard of the main prison and 26 air raid shelters'" (101).
 

Forum List

Back
Top