Park Geun-hye Elected to S Korean Presidency - Page 5
Forum Index > General Forum |
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
| ||
seoul_kiM
United States545 Posts
After hearing what my dad had to say, it simply should not really matter because things just won't change for another five years. The Chaebols will have their way in the Korean market, the United States will still have its hands in anything it needs to, and Korea won't change much. The Saenuri party has the same conservative base and backing as the Han Nara Dang, so it doesn't really matter. My dad equated it to basically going from Reagan to H.W. Bush. The policies will remain quite similar, the people in control will be quite similar, and you won't see a real change in anything until the next president which hopefully Korea will be someone in the shape of Obama. I don't want to bring American politics into this but it would be a lie if anyone disagreed with the fact that Obama has made changes (good or bad). Korea has been this way since the start due to its roots not being in a democracy but in the military dictatorship. A traditional society with a rapidly advancing market is a recipe for conservatism (people want to remain socially traditional while continuing the success). It doesn't really matter to the Koreans because nothing will change dramatically. My dad was a student demonstrator in the 1970's and was arrested and jailed countless times due to his protests against the military dictatorship of Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo who were both successors, respectively, to the coup that was orchestrated by Park Chung Hee. It is a fact that Park improved South Korea's economy drastically but at what cost is the question that we need to ask ourselves. Many of you guys posting here regard his advances in Korea's economic policy as a high point and it is, but his disregard for the rights of the people is something that was despicable. The United States did not care because these military dictators would bend over for the United States. Democracy was something the students and intellectuals fought for and were repressed by military might. It's actually astonishing to see people completely disregard the human rights violations in South Korea back then and then turn around and when people want to restrict laws back in the US it becomes a huge issue. I'm not upset that she's president and this election has nothing to do with gender either. I believe Korea needs some more liberals and some more changes in their system for society to follow along with their rapid advances in technology and in the market. There's still corruption in Korea regarding the Chaebols and the government and it's something that only a liberal would tackle. Park Chung Hee created the Chaebols, why would they turn their backs on their political representative. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
The United States did not care because these military dictators would bend over for the United States. That's a common misconception of the left in Korea. The US did not "allow" the dictators to repress the citizens - they just couldn't do anything about it. Don't even start with the gwangju massacre because the modern interpretation of it by the korean left is completely wrong. The US did not "allow" chun doo-hwan to move korean troops to suppress and kill a bunch of civilians in gwangju (the korean military at the time was controlled by a US command). They wouldn't have allowed chun to move the troops. Chun circumvented it by bringing in the marines and special forces from the north-south border, which were military units not under the control of the US. If someone tells you that the US helped chun kill the civilians in gwangju, it's complete bullshit. So I disagree with the idea that the US "didn't care" about the military dictators. The US didn't remove park when he got in power because he was a hardliner against communism. They needed someone like him because at the time, the cold war was raging and the US was interested more in the integrity of its allies around the world. It's important to look at the context of the situation at the time instead of looking from a purely hindsight view and sum up park's presidency as a "violation of human rights". Thats too simplistic. It doesn't justify his human rights violations, but it also doesn't mean that he wasn't able to keep the south together in the face of a 2nd communist invasion from the north. | ||
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
| ||
ExceeD_DreaM
Canada500 Posts
Park was not voted for her policy, she was voted because she is an avatar of her father, an idol where the entire right wing can unite under. To be really honest, I have 0 faith in her ability as a politician. She is widely regarded as a 'Notebook Princess', referring to her inability to be an intellectual being nor improvise without having instructions written down for her. | ||
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:06 ExceeD_DreaM wrote: Simply put, neither side deserved to win. I believe (and general consensus from Korean portals) more voters in 20/30s shifted to Park than expected due to terrible foreign policy of the left party. This doesn't mean that right wing was excellent, just less 'bad'. Left wing expected a larger marginal win in Seoul, which is usually leaning towards left. They did not win by a large margin and that was the main cause of defeat. Park was not voted for her policy, she was voted because she is an avatar of her father, an idol where the entire right wing can unite under. To be really honest, I have 0 faith in her ability as a politician. She is widely regarded as a 'Notebook Princess', referring to her inability to be an intellectual being nor improvise without having instructions written down for her. she must have some political expertise...politics has been all of her life after all | ||
logikly
United States329 Posts
On December 20 2012 02:48 ExceeD_DreaM wrote: I am not sure what you mean by 'they were not thinking'. Are you implying that the two girls (that were 15 years old at the time..) purposely got in the way of the vehicle? Or they weren't just looking? How can you possibly say that the American troops weren't the ones to be blamed for for running them over? And by the way, I disagree with all the Anti-American sentiments using this incident. Even the parents of those two girls asked to not be used politically any longer, yet the pro-North parties are oh so persistent. You're talking about the incident in 2002 correct? | ||
Soliloquist
Korea (South)89 Posts
i fear for what she may do will lead into riots and protests. i mean dictator blood flows in her veins and she did promise a lot of stuff.. man what was the majority of korea thinking... voting a Dictator's daughter.. | ||
EchoZ
Japan5041 Posts
| ||
seoul_kiM
United States545 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:53 white_horse wrote: + Show Spoiler + The United States did not care because these military dictators would bend over for the United States. That's a common misconception of the left in Korea. The US did not "allow" the dictators to repress the citizens - they just couldn't do anything about it. Don't even start with the gwangju massacre because the modern interpretation of it by the korean left is completely wrong. The US did not "allow" chun doo-hwan to move korean troops to suppress and kill a bunch of civilians in gwangju (the korean military at the time was controlled by a US command). They wouldn't have allowed chun to move the troops. Chun circumvented it by bringing in the marines and special forces from the north-south border, which were military units not under the control of the US. If someone tells you that the US helped chun kill the civilians in gwangju, it's complete bullshit. So I disagree with the idea that the US "didn't care" about the military dictators. The US didn't remove park when he got in power because he was a hardliner against communism. They needed someone like him because at the time, the cold war was raging and the US was interested more in the integrity of its allies around the world. It's important to look at the context of the situation at the time instead of looking from a purely hindsight view and sum up park's presidency as a "violation of human rights". Thats too simplistic. It doesn't justify his human rights violations, but it also doesn't mean that he wasn't able to keep the south together in the face of a 2nd communist invasion from the north. I completely agree with you in the fact that the United States did not have much to do with the Gwangju Massacre and the modern day interpretations are erroneous in many ways but as the leader of the free world and the guiding torch light of democracy the United States did not care about the way the dictatorships went about business. It's simply the neo-realism school of international relations where the United States did not have to change anything South Korea was doing because it was benefiting themselves. I give my complete compliments to Park (father) for his advances of the Korean economic policy back then and also for keeping South Korea together during the Cold War, but those human rights violations committed by the dictatorship (not the US) are fact. People were jailed for voicing their opinions, petitioning was outlawed, the right to assemble was also illegal, unless of course, it benefited the regime. I believe that it is fair to simply say the Park regime was a dictatorship that disregarded human rights. I didn't mean to completely disregard his strides in other areas but aren't human rights the most important? | ||
ssi.bal-listic
United States568 Posts
Watching their debates, I actually think my school has better debaters than them. They weren't debating but just reading off their papers. So low quality compared to american debates AND they both looked untrustworthy and didn't seem to know what they were talking about | ||
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:24 ssi.bal-listic wrote: Just gonna say one thing. Watching their debates, I actually think my school has better debaters than them. They weren't debating but just reading off their papers. So low quality compared to american debates AND they both looked untrustworthy and didn't seem to know what they were talking about the presidential debate has been criticized a lot by the media because it wasnt really a debate | ||
RvB
Netherlands6079 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:16 Soliloquist wrote: its unnerving for me who has relatives in korea and being a korean myself.. finding out her dad was a dictator? who knows what she'll try to reform.. a new goverment, a new constitution?.... anythings possible.. i fear for what she may do will lead into riots and protests. i mean dictator blood flows in her veins and she did promise a lot of stuff.. man what was the majority of korea thinking... voting a Dictator's daughter.. You know children can have way different ideals than their parents lol... What's next we jail children of murderers because the blood flows in their veins? | ||
TiTanIum_
Brazil1335 Posts
On December 20 2012 01:12 MHT wrote: No MC!? Wtf is this shit, election rigging? MC is in HSC, so my guess is that he forfeited his spot in the election. | ||
ExceeD_DreaM
Canada500 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:11 jinorazi wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 05:06 ExceeD_DreaM wrote: Simply put, neither side deserved to win. I believe (and general consensus from Korean portals) more voters in 20/30s shifted to Park than expected due to terrible foreign policy of the left party. This doesn't mean that right wing was excellent, just less 'bad'. Left wing expected a larger marginal win in Seoul, which is usually leaning towards left. They did not win by a large margin and that was the main cause of defeat. Park was not voted for her policy, she was voted because she is an avatar of her father, an idol where the entire right wing can unite under. To be really honest, I have 0 faith in her ability as a politician. She is widely regarded as a 'Notebook Princess', referring to her inability to be an intellectual being nor improvise without having instructions written down for her. she must have some political expertise...politics has been all of her life after all She speaks 5 languages? I think that is about it | ||
ExceeD_DreaM
Canada500 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:16 Soliloquist wrote: its unnerving for me who has relatives in korea and being a korean myself.. finding out her dad was a dictator? who knows what she'll try to reform.. a new goverment, a new constitution?.... anythings possible.. i fear for what she may do will lead into riots and protests. i mean dictator blood flows in her veins and she did promise a lot of stuff.. man what was the majority of korea thinking... voting a Dictator's daughter.. Well, a lot of people thought voting for the other party was worse due to their weak, untrustworthy foreign policy. The number of pro-North people in their party is incredible. There are some Kim Il Sung worshipers in there. | ||
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On December 20 2012 01:25 koreasilver wrote: I enjoy my motherland's infinite wisdom in placing a dictator's daughter on the presidency. Not like I had any hopes in S. Korean politics anyway, but this is just comical. Are you surprised? South Korean politics are terribly corrupted. The bad thing is that the US backed the old dictatorships to the extreme, of course for our own interests. If the US government was in the hands of corporations and financial institutions as much as South Korean govt. is, the world would be a much different place, as in, we'd be conquering/exploiting EVERY single place a multinational or bank had interest in. There'd certainly be large-scale riots here, that's for sure. The Korean people are too complacent and blind, by comparison. | ||
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:53 white_horse wrote: + Show Spoiler + The United States did not care because these military dictators would bend over for the United States. That's a common misconception of the left in Korea. The US did not "allow" the dictators to repress the citizens - they just couldn't do anything about it. Don't even start with the gwangju massacre because the modern interpretation of it by the korean left is completely wrong. The US did not "allow" chun doo-hwan to move korean troops to suppress and kill a bunch of civilians in gwangju (the korean military at the time was controlled by a US command). They wouldn't have allowed chun to move the troops. Chun circumvented it by bringing in the marines and special forces from the north-south border, which were military units not under the control of the US. If someone tells you that the US helped chun kill the civilians in gwangju, it's complete bullshit. So I disagree with the idea that the US "didn't care" about the military dictators. The US didn't remove park when he got in power because he was a hardliner against communism. They needed someone like him because at the time, the cold war was raging and the US was interested more in the integrity of its allies around the world. It's important to look at the context of the situation at the time instead of looking from a purely hindsight view and sum up park's presidency as a "violation of human rights". Thats too simplistic. It doesn't justify his human rights violations, but it also doesn't mean that he wasn't able to keep the south together in the face of a 2nd communist invasion from the north. By that logic, the US doesn't "allow" Saudi Arabia to repress its citizens, we just "need someone like them" because we need allies in that region of the world... | ||
farvacola
United States18768 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:59 sunprince wrote: By that logic, the US doesn't "allow" Saudi Arabia to repress its citizens, we just "need someone like them" because we need allies in that region of the world... You bring up an interesting point, though the context of the Cold War changes things somewhat. Still, the US does enjoy these "hands-off" allegiances quite a bit it would seem. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:59 sunprince wrote: By that logic, the US doesn't "allow" Saudi Arabia to repress its citizens, we just "need someone like them" because we need allies in that region of the world... Fair enough. But the US was in intense pressure to secure anti-communist regimes at a time when they perceived the soviet union was aggressively trying to spread communism around the world, which they felt that they had to stop, so the context is different. People accuse the US of gross abuse of its hegemonic power around the world, as well as neglect of human rights violations in certain countries, but then when it attempts to do something, then it's meddling into the business of other people. Damned if you do and damned if you don't right? People will always find a way to blame the guy whose on top. | ||
| ||