View Single Post
Old April 3 2013, 07:16 PM   #114
Rear Admiral
stj's Avatar
Location: the real world
Re: Defending Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica(mentions Dick Che

randomfan86 wrote: View Post
stj wrote: View Post
PS As to the supposition that the dictator Park was responsible for the south's economic development? It is a dubious idea. Park was not the first dictator in the south, but Syngman Rhee didn't spark an economic boom. As an alternative hypothesis, let me suggest that the US military spending on the Vietnam War, much of which was necessarily spent in East Asia generally, was more likely to have played a key role. Japan's similar economic speed up in economic development without the supposed benefits of dictatorship in roughly the same period strongly suggests this was more important. Korean chaebol were modeled on Japanese zaibatsu and Korean economic policy as I understood it were similarly modeled on Japanese economic policy. None were the creations of dictators.

May I further suggest that the desire to retroactively rehabilitate Park has more to do with justifying a war in Korea than historical truth? (If you say I cna't, just unread this question!)
Park was the one who implemented and managed the policies and his people are the ones who give him credit for the success that was generated by it. Over 10% growth for more than a decade. He is considered a great leader.

My point of mentioning Park is that he also tortured/oppressed/murdered his own people but since he was considered to be a great leader, for the SK people: the good outweighed the bad. So it should be for Cain.
My post gave reasons to believe that other people could have and would have implemented the same policies without the dictatorship. Your posts either assume that Park is responsible or cite some unknown subjects who consider Park a great leader. And I gave a good reason for that so-called opinion, the desire for war to reunify Korea on some southern leaders' preferred terms.

Since this is one of your key points, the inability to even attempt a refutations strongly suggests you're dead wrong. The Park example does not support you. Nor does the Cheney example. You may be correct that the show itself insists that Cain is not just a villain whose demise we are to cheer. At least, no one seems to have argued that point successfully. But what the show thinks is irrelevant to what we decide is right in the real world, and anyone has the right to apply the same reasoning to their opinion of a fictional character.

diankra wrote: View Post
Marc wrote: View Post

No it gets overlooked for ideological differences. Leaders (dictators) like park and Pinochet are supported not because of what they did but the political stances they took I.e they are still admired today because of their oppression of those on the political left.
Or hated for that reason - let's be balanced here
Balance? Right wing leaders routinely use violence and fear (despite the formal illegality in most cases) on behalf of a minority. In practice, a popular government rarely can take power because the right wing forcibly suppresses majority rule. It is unbalanced to claim that minority repression of the majority is morally equivalent to alleged majority suppression of the majority. Death squads are an integral part of right wing regimes, but not of left ones. That's not balanced either.
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline