George W. Bush is the President. Deal with it.

College Confidential Community
41

<p>
[quote]
Morality has no place in IR.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Morgenthau loves you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
We care about genocides and human rights violations but not to a large extent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We care because they're inherently destabilizing for the region, not to mention morally repugnant. Liberalist (in the IR sense) scholars might explain this partly as a policy preference due to democratic states' dislike of genocide, or that they may even believe that the interceding state sees an absolute gain for both parties in stopping the genocide.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Should we continue to be patient with the Chinese after they have repeatedly refused to let the Yuan float?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good question. I can't say that I have an answer beyond "I'm not sure."</p>

<p>For one, a floating Yuan will be good for us. However, the Chinese are just as likely to say, "drop the tariffs and quotas" and from their perspective be just as morally right in the IR sphere. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And I do sincerely hope that you'd carry on a bit more optimism for our world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Optimism and blind optimism are two different things entirely. When two people cannot be ensured of the other's actions, and may be hurt by a break from an agreed policy, it creates a problem for both (think prisoner's dilemma.) All of foreign policy is like this.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Korea and Vietnam were different situations.</p>

<p>Those were civil wars based on political ideologies where the US sided with the anti-Communists.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The two Koreas never had the idealogy of Communism and Democracy in the first place. They acquired from their occupiers: USSR and US. The Korean War and the conflicts between the two Koreas were not a civil war at all; these two were never united in the first place after WWII. As for Vietnam, I guess the statement the "U.S. sided" is correct, but again, it wasn't a civil war. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Iraq, otoh, was an all around blunder.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you implying Vietnam had some benefits? Please enlighten me.

[quote]

The Vietnam War wasn't confined to Vietnam, it passed over the border to significant areas of Cambodia and Laos. Both these countries had weakening governments because of the conflict dragged past their borders; the U.S. set them up for a fall after its withdrawl.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And the communists did not? As far as I know, it was the North Vietnamese who first escalated this war to these countries to build up their supply lines. It also gave support to rebelling communist groups in those two countries whose goal was to "revolutionize" their respective governments.</p>

43

<p>Historically, the US has had little interest intervening in regions unless it had an interest (or at least a perceived one) at stake - which is why the US never intervened in Rwanda, Dafar or Iraq (back in the 80s) and why the US quickly left Somalia after a number of American soldiers were ambushed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The two Koreas never had the idealogy of Communism and Democracy in the first place. They acquired from their occupiers: USSR and US. The Korean War and the conflicts between the two Koreas were not a civil war at all; these two were never united in the first place after WWII. As for Vietnam, I guess the statement the "U.S. sided" is correct, but again, it wasn't a civil war.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's totally wrong. Kim Il-sung had totally adopted the Stalinist model of (dictatorial) "Communism" (and took it to another level). South Koreans, otoh, already had socialist-democratic local forms of govt. and hoped to do the same with national govt. - but then the US basically installed the fervently anti-Communist Syngman Rhee (who eventually became a dictator as well). </p>

<p>I'm afraid you're making the mistake of seeing thiese wars from the "American" POV. The Korean War was very much a civil war. Both Kim and Rhee (and Koreans, in general) never considered there to be two Koreas and both sought to place Korea under one rule again (which is why there were a number of border clashes prior to Kim's full-scale invasion). </p>

<p>Same goes for Vietnam (though in this case, it started with opposition to Diem's crackdown on Communists and various religions or sects - Buddhists, Cao Dai).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you implying Vietnam had some benefits? Please enlighten me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No - the US made numerous policy mistakes as well as strategic blunders with regard to Vietnam.</p>

<p>The failure in Iraq, otoh, was much more predictable (not to mention knowing that Iran would come out ahead after the dust had settled) and thus, it was totally asinine to have invaded in the 1st place.</p>

44

<p>Thank you, OP.</p>

45

<p>"Mutual respect, cooperation, patience? - Those guidelines can not be applied to all of our enemies and rivals. Should we continue to be patient with the Chinese after they have repeatedly refused to let the Yuan float?
Should we respect Kim Il-jong, the crazy dictator?"</p>

<p>If you did a light research on the subject, you'd easily find that it is simply unrealistic to equate the "Kim Jong-il" situation with what's happening right now in China.</p>

<p>Should we keep our patience and accept the under-valued Yuan? I thought most people should've known the other side of matter, that the huge trade imbalance China and the United States isn't just because of an under-valued Yuan. As Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of Federal Reserves, put it, "U.S. residents do not have substantial claims on Chinese banks, but financial instability in a major emerging market economy such as China would present a risk to the global economic outlook... Any sanction on Chinese imports would hurt the US as badly as China."</p>

<p>Other U.S. corporations have voiced similar views. Morgan Stanley Chief Global Economist Stephen Roach recently announced that they do not want to see "China and other developing nations being made a scapegoat for the problems of others." In fact, 60 percent of China's export growth in recent years was from Western companies that had set up in China to take advantage of its low labor costs, government tax incentives, technology, and improved infrastructure, not solely on account of a cheap Yuan. Of course, China needs to re-value the Yuan at gradual pace, but there's no need to do it overnight. In other words, be patient. </p>

<p>This same theory can also be applied to today's Iraq. As described by a veteran of both the Iraqi and Vietnam wars, "the insurgents will always be around because they have more patience than the U.S. has staying power." Indeed, for the insurgents, patience works, which is why Iraq is a lost battleground.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
U.S. corporations have voiced similar views.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some might say, however, that many corporations are simply extranational entities. </p>

<p>And I don't think that he was equating the Chinese with Kim. He was just giving two examples. </p>

<p>As far as the trade imbalance goes, not all of it is due to an undervalued Yuan, but it does play a role. It's not terribly unlike the Yen in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Cheap currency means cheap exports. It's pretty hard to argue that the PRC isn't artificially strengthening its export market like Japan did during the 20th century. Is it wrong? No. But is the US wrong for wanting to protect its own interests? Not necessarily.</p>

<p>Again, the problem with international relations becomes apparent: it's one game of the prisoner's dilemma after another. China might say to the US, "drop a tariff or two, a quota or three, and we'll appreciate the Yuan." The US sets up fast track authority to negotiate the deal, and it sorta happens.</p>

<p>Then 6 months later, some OTHER industry pushes for a tariff and the Chinese don't really get what they want.</p>

<p>Or 6 months later the Chinese, instead of explicitly controlling the Yuan's value, tacitly do so. The US doesn't really get what it wants.</p>

<p>This isn't about patience, per se. It's about rational actors understanding that they can't logically expect the best out of another country, because it's simply not in that country's interests to do so. Let's use another example. A hypothetical one.</p>

<p>You have two countries: Grance and Fermany. They're neighbors and both roughly equal to one another in terms of resources, economy, and population. They both have roughly equal military might.</p>

<p>One day, however, Grance develops a new sort of laser gun that goes "pew pew" and gives them a serious battlefield advantage. Fermany response with a sort of laser gun that goes "pyew pyew" and an arms race begins.</p>

<p>Both, at some point, realize that it's not doing either one any good. So they go to the negotiation table and try to get a disarmament accord going. By the end, they'll both have the same number of laser guns.</p>

<p>But Fermany's government realizes that if they disarm and Grance doesn't, they'll be seriously threatened in the future. So they keep a few extra laser guns in stock.</p>

<p>Grance does the same.</p>

<p>And we have international relations in a nutshell.</p>

47

<p>I do not want to see sanctions imposed on Chinese goods. But the threat should be there.
And yes, a floating yuan would not automatically solve our problems and we would still have a deficit with China - but it would help our exports there.
As UCLAri mentioned, I did not mean to equate Kim Il-Jong with RMB flotation.</p>

<p>Patience is not a bad thing. Inaction is. Iraq is not a lost battleground, yet. Perhaps if we gave up our preference to installing a democratic government, Iraq would still be in our sphere of power. But with Bush in power, that is unlikely to happen.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
That's totally wrong. Kim Il-sung had totally adopted the Stalinist model of (dictatorial) "Communism" (and took it to another level). South Koreans, otoh, already had socialist-democratic local forms of govt. and hoped to do the same with national govt. - but then the US basically installed the fervently anti-Communist Syngman Rhee (who eventually became a dictator as well).

[/quote]

Kim Il-Sung was not in power after the northern part of Korea was occupied by the USSR until 3 years later. You have to agree at the moment WWII, these two regions had no general political ideology to democracy or communism. It was the USSR I believe that put this guy into power. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm afraid you're making the mistake of seeing thiese wars from the "American" POV. The Korean War was very much a civil war. Both Kim and Rhee (and Koreans, in general) never considered there to be two Koreas and both sought to place Korea under one rule again (which is why there were a number of border clashes prior to Kim's full-scale invasion).

[/quote]

I’m also coming from a South Korean POV along with American POV. In fact, I’m sure if you ask the POV of other countries that cared about the Korean War, everyone would say it was an actual war of two countries, not civil. Before 1950, the two were not united; you can’t possibly have a civil war between two groups when they are not under the same country.

[quote]
No - the US made numerous policy mistakes as well as strategic blunders with regard to Vietnam.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then why did you isolate Iraq to be a complete failure? “Iraq, otoh, was an all around blunder.” I wouldn’t really cared had you not put the word “otoh” in since it implied that the completeness of this success/failure is somehow different and worse than that of Vietnam</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
And the communists did not? As far as I know, it was the North Vietnamese who first escalated this war to these countries to build up their supply lines. It also gave support to rebelling communist groups in those two countries whose goal was to "revolutionize" their respective governments.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's the whole point. As the U.S. escalated the conflict, the North Vietnamese acted out of desperation and resorted to nieghboring countries for military harbor. This pulled them into the war and weakened their autonomy. This is oversimplified, of course. But that's the gist of it. Anyways, I don't think it's black or white. Some parts of the domino theory proved generally accurate; I just think that the urgency it presented was extremely exaggerated.</p>

50

<p>We should form our own congressional committee for international affairs here on CC. ;)</p>

51

<p>President Bush is the 3rd greatest president of All time.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
I’m also coming from a South Korean POV along with American POV. In fact, I’m sure if you ask the POV of other countries that cared about the Korean War, everyone would say it was an actual war of two countries, not civil. Before 1950, the two were not united; you can’t possibly have a civil war between two groups when they are not under the same country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think people see it largely as a civil war because Korea had, until fairly recently, been a united body of sorts (whether it had been a nation-state is debatable in some contexts). </p>

<p>There seems to be quite a bit of debate over this, however.</p>

53

<p>Mike89, Bush is one of the second-worst presidents of All time.
He is, imo, behind John Buchanan, who let the Union come apart.</p>

54

<p>Birdkiller - you have a totally superficial understanding of Korean history during that time, much less history in general.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Kim Il-Sung was not in power after the northern part of Korea was occupied by the USSR until 3 years later. You have to agree at the moment WWII, these two regions had no general political ideology to democracy or communism. It was the USSR I believe that put this guy into power.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So are you saying that Koreans didn't read books on political/economic theories and were totally ignorant on such matters before the arrivals of the Soviets and Americans? LOL!</p>

<p>Your statement/conclusion is purely superficial and shows your lack of knowledge and understanding of what was happening in Korea during that time.</p>

<p>First - the first Korean Communist Party was organized in Shanghai by radical students in 1921 and many Koreans fought with the Chinese Communists - first against the Japanese occupiers and then later against Chinese Nationalist forces.</p>

<p>Second - the Korean Communist Party's HQ, at the time of the division of Korea into 2 occupied zones, was located in Seoul, not in the Soviet occupied zone - and it certainly wan't the Americans who brought Communism to the South.</p>

<p>Third - what was to become the Worker's Party of North Korea was comprised primarily of 4 factions - Korean Communists from Korea, exiles from China, ethnic Korean Russians and that headed by Kim Il-sung.</p>

<p>So as you can see - Communism was an ideology adopted by some Koreans before the Soviets had ever entered Korea (many of the Korean Communists in Korea spent time in Japanese prisons during the Japanese occupation).</p>

<p>
[quote]
I?m also coming from a South Korean POV along with American POV. In fact, I?m sure if you ask the POV of other countries that cared about the Korean War, everyone would say it was an actual war of two countries, not civil. Before 1950, the two were not united; you can?t possibly have a civil war between two groups when they are not under the same country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again - a rather simplistic and frankly, an idiotic POV.</p>

<p>First - the occupation by the Soviets and Americans was supposed to be temporary - with national elections to be held shortly after the occupation zones were formed.</p>

<p>Second - when both Kim and Rhee had consolidated their power, both competing govts., in 1948, formally established themselves as states with both claiming the ENTIRE peninsula as their jurisdiction with Seoul as the capital. - so as you can see, the Koreans hardly saw themselves as "two separate nations."</p>

<p>Third - if your definition of a Civil War held true - then the American Civil War wasn't a civil war as well, since technically, it was a war btwn 2 "countries" - by virtue of the Southern states having seceded from the Union and forming their own "nation."</p>

<p>
[quote]
Then why did you isolate Iraq to be a complete failure? ?Iraq, otoh, was an all around blunder.? I wouldn?t really cared had you not put the word ?otoh? in since it implied that the completeness of this success/failure is somehow different and worse than that of Vietnam

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Vietnam, at least, had the possibility of ending up like Korea (if the US leaders hadn't backed an incompetent boob like Diem and realized that it was a war of Vietnamese nationalism and not merely about Communism).</p>

<p>Iraq, otoh, with its disparate ethnic, tribal, religious, political, etc. divisions was an entirely different situation that was doomed from the start - plus, taking out Saddam and giving power to the Shias ("majority rules" in "democracy") was a no-brainer in shifting the balance of power in that area towards Iran.)</p>

<p>Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents in US history with the invasion of Iraq as one of the worst foreign policy blunders (if not the worst) of all time.</p>

55

<p>Um... just curious. so what exactly is the point of this "knowledge contest"?</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
President Bush is the 3rd greatest president of All time.

[/quote]
which direction are you counting?</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
So are you saying that Koreans didn't read books on political/economic theories and were totally ignorant on such matters before the arrivals of the Soviets and Americans? LOL!</p>

<p>Your statement/conclusion is purely superficial and shows your lack of knowledge and understanding of what was happening in Korea during that time.</p>

<p>First - the first Korean Communist Party was organized in Shanghai by radical students in 1921 and many Koreans fought with the Chinese Communists - first against the Japanese occupiers and then later against Chinese Nationalist forces.</p>

<p>Second - the Korean Communist Party's HQ, at the time of the division of Korea into 2 occupied zones, was located in Seoul, not in the Soviet occupied zone - and it certainly wan't the Americans who brought Communism to the South.</p>

<p>Third - what was to become the Worker's Party of North Korea was comprised primarily of 4 factions - Korean Communists from Korea, exiles from China, ethnic Korean Russians and that headed by Kim Il-sung.</p>

<p>So as you can see - Communism was an ideology adopted by some Koreans before the Soviets had ever entered Korea (many of the Korean Communists in Korea spent time in Japanese prisons during the Japanese occupation).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I said GENERAL political ideology, not ANY political ideology. Even though there were some factions of communists, that doesn't mean the entire region is a communist region is it? Furthermore, don't assume to where I said that Koreans wasn't educated in any of the political ideology, I only said it had no general ideology to Communism or Democracy, these two aren't the only political ideology out there is it? And I repeat, if some Koreans support one of these two, that doesn't mean the entire peninsula share the same ideology correct?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Third - if your definition of a Civil War held true - then the American Civil War wasn't a civil war as well, since technically, it was a war btwn 2 "countries" - by virtue of the Southern states having seceded from the Union and forming their own "nation."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll be honest, you got me there.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Vietnam, at least, had the possibility of ending up like Korea

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have to wonder, did the majority of the American public have this point of view? That it could be possible to end up with a satisfactory result? or was it the impression as many Americans have now? That the war was pointless and worthless? Only to realize in the future that there was some or reasonable chance of achieving some of our goals?</p>

<p>
[quote]

-you have a totally superficial understanding of Korean history during that time, much less history in general
-Your statement/conclusion is purely superficial and shows your lack of knowledge and understanding of what was happening in Korea during that time.
-Again - a rather simplistic and frankly, an idiotic POV

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Honestly, are these needed? I would've had a favorable view of your rebuttal if you hadn't had these, really doesn't add any support to your argument.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
I said GENERAL political ideology, not ANY political ideology. Even though there were some factions of communists, that doesn't mean the entire region is a communist region is it?</p>

<p>Furthermore, don't assume to where I said that Koreans wasn't educated in any of the political ideology, I only said it had no general ideology to Communism or Democracy, these two aren't the only political ideology out there is it? And I repeat, if some Koreans support one of these two, that doesn't mean the entire peninsula share the same ideology correct?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How many people in the PRC or the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc nations are/were Communist?</p>

<p>As with most cases of times of upheaval during a nation's history - there are many competing disparate political/economic ideologies and Korea was no different (with many small, local political parties).</p>

<p>Nevertheless, that wasn't the main point of contention - but rather your statement that the ideologies of Communism and Democracy in Korea was "acquired from their occupiers" - which is false.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have to wonder, did the majority of the American public have this point of view? That it could be possible to end up with a satisfactory result? or was it the impression as many Americans have now? That the war was pointless and worthless? Only to realize in the future that there was some or reasonable chance of achieving some of our goals?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The pov of the majority of the American public is irrelevant. </p>

<p>Yes - the US govt./military made many blunders in Vietnam - but there was a reasonable chance for South Vietnam to have followed in the footsteps of South Korea (if better decisions had been made).</p>

<p>Otoh - insurgency, sectarian violence, regional instability and the rise of Iran as power in the region were all predictable consequences of the invasion.</p>