Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $33,955
38%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 38% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by joey703

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Talk of War in North Korea is good.

    05/21/2010 4:02:39 PM PDT · 5 of 6
    joey703 to valkyry1

    “China needs put on the spot and how this crisis is handled could make them back off from Taiwan.”

    I think it’s about time...

  • Talk of War in North Korea is good.

    05/21/2010 4:01:25 PM PDT · 4 of 6
    joey703 to Buckeye Battle Cry

    “It’s going to get ugly”

    Too early to tell about that. I’d wait until money starts pouring out...

  • Talk of War in North Korea is good.

    05/21/2010 2:25:54 AM PDT · 1 of 6
    joey703
    Here, I am at advertising my own blog, but once again, I believe this article would be of direct interest to those on this site.
  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    03/19/2010 12:32:52 PM PDT · 16 of 16
    joey703 to Zhang Fei

    minus the four Han commanderies that never really controlled the peninsula. A liberal interpretation would put a quarter of the peninsula under “Han” Chinese control — some 2,000 years ago (Lolang gave out in 313 i believe)...

  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    03/19/2010 12:30:38 PM PDT · 15 of 16
    joey703 to Zhang Fei

    Heh, I don’t know if that was meant to be deliberately provocative or not. I’m of the position that losing Chinese loan words is a bad thing. But, I’m a bit confused as to what you mean in the Chinese realm.

    Korea won’t be part of the Chinese realm — I’m not sure what you mean by this, Korea was never a part of China (unlike Vietnam) and Korea is one of the few places where you don’t have an ethnic Chinese places in East Asia (Japan is the other).

    But, yes, there’s no way Korea will be part of the Chinese realm. Unification will only bring either (1) continued U.S. troops or (2) a unified and nuclear Korea... I don’t think the PRC would want either one ...

  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    03/19/2010 12:26:10 AM PDT · 13 of 16
    joey703 to Marechal

    South Korea does not want North Korea to fail for now. The Sunshine Policy is Dead. People in the South do believe unification will come, but it’s just that they have are so convinced that war or collapse will not occur.

    Heh, of course, China will not want a unified U.S. occupied Korean Peninsula. Does this mean this will not happen? This is 2010 and not 2100? The U.S.-ROK too also has a contingency plan (O-PLAN 5029, check globalsecurity.org).

    Will the U.S. let North Korean generals sell nukes to the highest bidder? No way in hell. The U.S. would, I believe, fight a war to ensure that this will not happen.

  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    03/19/2010 12:21:53 AM PDT · 12 of 16
    joey703 to Zhang Fei

    that’s only for ice-skating. what’s interesting is South Korea’s usage of pronouncing Asian countries with the Korean pronounciation of American names.

    For example, before Vietnam was literally a Korean reading of the Chinese characters for Vietnam; now, I believe it’s a Korean reading of the English word Vietnam.

  • China is not the key to North Korea

    03/19/2010 12:20:13 AM PDT · 1 of 1
    joey703
    I'm not here to advertize MY blog, but nonetheless... I think this article would be of interest to particularly the Free Republic crowd.
  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    11/04/2009 7:19:25 PM PST · 7 of 16
    joey703 to Zhang Fei

    Well, the point of that posting is not to define what is meant by pure, but the nostalgic way in which South Koreans look at North Korea as if it’s untainted (for that, I’d think those in Yanbian would be a better example).

  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    11/04/2009 7:00:41 PM PST · 6 of 16
    joey703 to Zhang Fei

    do you have a link for this?

  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    11/04/2009 6:16:10 PM PST · 4 of 16
    joey703 to thecabal
    So it’s the ROK’s fault that NK is an impoverished Commie hellhole?
    Exactly.
    It's no longer about legitmacy, both the DPRK and the ROK claim to be the only Korean state and as the rightful government for all "Koreans" on the peninsula. But, ROK seems to have given up, after they already won.
    A South Korean national is the UN Secretary General. Imagine a East German being the UN Secretary General during the Cold War? Just not possible.
    South Koreans continually come up with all types of excuses to ignore the atrocities being committed to the other half of "their nation." It's very sad.
  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    11/04/2009 6:12:54 PM PST · 3 of 16
    joey703 to TigerLikesRooster; John Valentine; Zhang Fei

    How you all been?

  • South Korea Accuses North Korea of Launching Cyber Attacks

    11/04/2009 6:08:29 PM PST · 3 of 3
    joey703 to PGR88

    Sounds like great propaganda. I’d think South Korean “netizens,” who seem to be mobilize on their own to target sites that proclaim that the Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo/Takeshima) should belong to the Japanese.

  • North Korean - A purer language, I think not.

    11/04/2009 5:59:19 PM PST · 1 of 16
    joey703
  • English Translation of the DPRK constitution

    11/04/2009 5:56:02 PM PST · 3 of 3
    joey703 to Tijeras_Slim

    You’d be surprised. Up until 1980.

    See the overview portion of this posting...
    http://northxkorea.blogspot.com/2009/11/decal-response-paper.html

    South Korea is the regime that had was seen to really be the state lacking legitimacy at her inception; the country was dependent on American handouts (sounds a lot like the north now ?). And, Soviet troops quickly left the north and almost none, except for a very small handful of advisors by the dawn of the Korean War.

    This probably didn’t change until 1980s or so, or at the very least until probably 1988 (Seoul Olympics).

  • English Translation of the DPRK constitution

    11/02/2009 10:31:36 AM PST · 1 of 3
    joey703
    The fall of North Korean legitimacy.
  • My family during Japanese rule (over Korea)

    10/05/2009 11:24:08 PM PDT · 8 of 9
    joey703 to Chong

    The discussion is for people particularly like you.

  • My family during Japanese rule (over Korea)

    10/05/2009 11:23:41 PM PDT · 7 of 9
    joey703 to Chong
    Korea (Corea) is bigger than comfort women.

    Korea-Japan relations should be about more than the issue of comfort women as was the colonial period. There'll be a podcast posted on the website of the recent discussion of the topic today.

  • My family during Japanese rule (over Korea)

    10/05/2009 2:35:58 AM PDT · 1 of 9
    joey703
    It is defiinitely way too early for the Japanese emperor to visit South Korea.
  • When will Koreans accept that nobody else will unify the country for them?

    10/05/2009 2:33:15 AM PDT · 15 of 16
    joey703 to flowerplough

    Is that right? How do they act like they want unification?

  • When will Koreans accept that nobody else will unify the country for them?

    09/27/2009 5:01:48 PM PDT · 13 of 16
    joey703 to flowerplough

    and no, contrary to what you might think, it’s not that the government in SOuth Korea is full of Communist sympatheziers (although there are); it’s basically that South Korea doesn’t want to pay for unification (and put it off until it becomes even more expensive). Hence, the entire denial thing.

  • When will Koreans accept that nobody else will unify the country for them?

    09/27/2009 4:59:21 PM PDT · 12 of 16
    joey703 to flowerplough

    Businessmen and small owners in the United States don’t have (1/3) of half of their country working as slaves. It’s not the same when you talk about not trusting a government that you disagree with (the Obama Administration) and not trusting the DPRK. You’re analogy is downright ridiculous.

  • When will Koreans accept that nobody else will unify the country for them?

    09/26/2009 9:05:44 AM PDT · 8 of 16
    joey703 to flowerplough
    And as for re-unification, the Koreans I know are work-a-day, business-as-usual capitalists who saw the economic cost West Germany paid during that re-uni and aren’t interested in burning thru their won (and dollars) the way the West Germans plowed their marks into rescueing the Ossi’s.

    This isn't really true. I'd say the biggest cost seems to be the uncertainty of unification. That's why I believe South Koreans view unification with trepidation.
    Germany saw vast inflows of foreign capital during this time that helped finance their unification.

    Moreover, I would think that another twenty million consumers and cheap laborers and an entire half country to rebuild would be very profitable and much more useful than, let's say, speculating on whether land prices in Seoul will rise or not. Of course, then there's also the work that has been outsourced to countries like China can be brought back. There's actually studies that have shown that average South Korean incomes would continue to grow yearly (on average) after (peaceful) unification except that it just wouldn't grow as fast? That as a justification to "unification is too expensive" seems downright outrageous (In the meantime, the wealth gap between North and South grows unabated).

  • When will Koreans accept that nobody else will unify the country for them?

    09/26/2009 5:36:27 AM PDT · 1 of 16
    joey703
  • Follow up to Model-Minority Group

    09/23/2009 4:39:17 PM PDT · 7 of 7
    joey703 to BobbyT

    there’s other inherent factors as well; such as how much money they come with or how much education they have. I met a suprisingly large number of African - immigrant college graduates that have become taxi drivers in San Francisco...

  • Follow up to Model-Minority Group

    09/23/2009 2:52:27 AM PDT · 5 of 7
    joey703 to fours

    At the same time, I think what you said also, points at another controversial issue — the achievement gap between native born African-Americans and immigrant African-Americans.

  • Follow up to Model-Minority Group

    09/23/2009 2:50:30 AM PDT · 4 of 7
    joey703 to fours
    I agree; if drawing any conclusions from data divided according to such "loose" groupings, then definitely care should be exercised if/when you're drawing up conclusions.

    It seems like such a touchy subject though.

  • Follow up to Model-Minority Group

    09/22/2009 11:08:52 PM PDT · 1 of 7
    joey703
  • The Model Minority Group (Korean-Americans vs Korean-Chinese)

    09/20/2009 10:02:01 PM PDT · 12 of 13
    joey703 to SeekAndFind
    The major minority ethnic groups are Zhuang (16.1 million), Manchu (10.6 million), Hui (9.8 million), Miao (8.9 million), Uyghur (8.3 million), Tujia (8 million), Yi (7.7 million), Mongol (5.8 million), Tibetan (5.4 million), Buyei (2.9 million), Dong (2.9 million), Yao (2.6 million), Korean (1.9 million), Bai (1.8 million), Hani (1.4 million), Kazakh (1.2 million), Li (1.2 million), and Dai (1.1 million).

    Not too sure about these figures, but since all of them are Chinese citizens (unlike the very few minorities in Korea or Japan), but Manchu is no longer an ethnic group really. The Manchu language is no more and people do not call themselves Manchu-Chinese;they would say they are Han Chinese.

  • The Model Minority Group (Korean-Americans vs Korean-Chinese)

    09/20/2009 9:52:24 PM PDT · 11 of 13
    joey703 to SeekAndFind
    So, when you meet a Chinese, there is a 90% chance that he is a HAN.

    I agree; but as soon as you bring race into it it gets complicated.

    Here in the USA, blacks comprise about 13%, Hispanics about 15%, Asians about 5% and Whites about 68%.

    While in appearance the skin color gives away blacks versus whites, but if you think about it, China I would say is also diverse, although along a very different line. The 90% you speak of, is actually many different races assimilated into the Han Chinese majority. But you see, that 90% of China speak different languages and such.

    Anyways, I view their empire (similar to American) definition of what it means to be Chinese as bankrupt (for example, their treatment of Eastern Turks and Tibetans)... For more on that, check out this. But, yeah, perhaps, I could've been oversimplifying. It is a touchy subject after all and we are talking about Communist China and their history of conquering/assimilating people for many millenia.

  • The Model Minority Group (Korean-Americans vs Korean-Chinese)

    09/20/2009 9:43:06 PM PDT · 10 of 13
    joey703 to Tai_Chung
    I have a hard time believing that China is a multi-ethnic country comparable to the United States.

    Well, you can think about it linguistically. China resembles Europe more than the United States in a linguistic sense (think that most people have their own dialects and large linguistic subgroups, i.e. germanic/slavic/romance), but a language that most people can speak (like English in Europe vs Mandarin in China).

    But, ethnically speaking, it should be very, very diverse (it's just that the diversity doesn't span from people from different continents and skin colors)...I'd put India in this category too...

  • The Model Minority Group (Korean-Americans vs Korean-Chinese)

    09/20/2009 8:05:18 PM PDT · 2 of 13
    joey703 to TigerLikesRooster; John Valentine; Zhang Fei

    Thought you would like

  • The Model Minority Group (Korean-Americans vs Korean-Chinese)

    09/20/2009 8:04:15 PM PDT · 1 of 13
    joey703
    What's interesting is the posting argues you could replace the adjectives for Korean-Americans to those applied to the Korean-Chinese.
  • U.S. is 15 years behind South Korea in Internet speed [says a Union]

    09/19/2009 12:06:36 AM PDT · 47 of 47
    joey703 to DieHard the Hunter

    it looks like another natural advantage that these rice civilizations have (from their high population densities)...

  • Why should I care about Korea?

    09/15/2009 5:12:12 AM PDT · 8 of 8
    joey703 to Lucky Dog

    of which part? the whole natural order series of posts got started after the original post was interpreted by many that i was a communist...

    check the comments on:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2333248/posts

    and see, for the original post:
    http://northxkorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/id-blame-truman-but-north-korean.html

  • [Natural Order] Communism was unavoidable ... and of John Maynerd Keynes

    09/15/2009 3:01:50 AM PDT · 1 of 5
    joey703
    Continuing installment on the Natural Order posts on the Breaking Down Borders blog.
  • Why should I care about Korea?

    09/15/2009 2:58:16 AM PDT · 6 of 8
    joey703 to Lucky Dog

    Check out the unnatural series of posts on this blog:

    beginning with this one:
    http://northxkorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/unnatural-divison-and-unnatural-order.html

  • Why should I care about Korea?

    09/15/2009 2:57:01 AM PDT · 5 of 8
    joey703 to John Valentine

    Here’s a response just for Mr. John Valentine. :)
    http://northxkorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-order-communism-was-unavoidable.html

    I too find Communism repugnant.

  • Why should I care about Korea?

    09/14/2009 2:09:47 AM PDT · 2 of 8
    joey703 to John Valentine

    I’d really like for us to see eye to eye for some reason.

  • Why should I care about Korea?

    09/14/2009 1:55:35 AM PDT · 1 of 8
    joey703
    Oddly enough, human rights is a distant second.
  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/14/2009 1:52:47 AM PDT · 47 of 48
    joey703 to John Valentine; joey703

    for future response

  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/14/2009 1:52:05 AM PDT · 46 of 48
    joey703 to John Valentine
    Bullcrap. They certainly do. Ask any Korean from Cholla Namdo. For you to deny this reality indicates to me that despite a Korean American heritage, you don't know nearly as much about Korea as I do. I'd agree that these ethnic distinctions aren't particularly deep, or particularly racial, even though the history of Cholla runs contrary to Korean mythology. The election of Roh Moo Hyun in 2002 was a huge deal for Cholla.

    That's not an ethnic distinction. And, if anything, to argue anything along those lines you'd have to go waaaaaay back. To the times of Samhan and Buyeo.

  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/13/2009 1:16:13 AM PDT · 41 of 48
    joey703 to tcrlaf
    for example, assuming "STALINGRAD was not the turning point in the East, it was KURSK, in July 1943, 6 months AFTER Stalingrad, followed by the Soviet Summer Offensive after it, that spelled doom for the Germans in the East, they RECOVERED from Stalingrad, but could not recover from the losses suffered at Kursk, and never regained the initiative after that." were true, which clearly is not. Stalingrad was the point where it no longer mattered what the Germans had and which battles they might win (such as a Kursk), but at that point, it was set that the Russians would win. What was not set was how long it would take...
  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/13/2009 1:12:08 AM PDT · 40 of 48
    joey703 to tcrlaf
    No Mention of SOVIET, or CHI-COM support of the North Koreans however... How unbiased this article is!!1 C’mon now, everybody repeat after me: EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, is America’s fault!!! you on the other hand i have no hope for.
  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/13/2009 12:54:23 AM PDT · 38 of 48
    joey703 to gogogodzilla
    And there would have never been a Korean war had the Allied powers allowed Japan to keep it as their territory. :-P

    Oh so, very true... And, that does bring up one of the worst betrayals in the history of betrayals (what South Korea did to the Republic of China (Taiwan)), which lobbied for an indepedent Korea in the 1943 Cairo Conference...

    Of course, from a Chinese perspective, it can also be argued, that China would never let the Korean peninsula be controlled by Japan... (Imjin Wars 1592,1597, Sino-Japanese War 1894)

  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/13/2009 12:47:39 AM PDT · 36 of 48
    joey703 to John Valentine
    A response on the blog is up

    Also, I think there was a moment, when the Soviet Union fell, and Germany re-united, that South Korea recoiled from the social turmoil and costs that reunification would have brought, and the opportunity that might have existed slipped away. This is what I'm talking about. Everything you argue I take for a fact except for a couple things and come with the conclusion that the crazy costs of unification that are being contemplated is ridiculous since Korea already paid the price of unification once (the Korean War) without seeing its natural conclusion.

    Ethnic distinctions in South Korean society (like between Cholla Namdo and Gyeonggi) are so minor that from a Western perspective they are virtually non existent. Ethnic distinctions do not exist in Korea (well up until recently) Well, actually this point doesn't even matter, but ethnic distinctions do exist between the English descendants in New England to the Scots/Irish in the Appalachians...

    The imposition of communist rule was both natural and unavoidable. The U.S. didn't liberate all of Korea...(looking at it from a 1950s point of view), since at that point in time the vast majority of the peasants in all of Northeast Asia did indeed favor Communism.. So, your argument about China being at equal fault doesn't apply. Also, the U.S. accounted for half of all wealth at that point in time, which puts things in perspective about what the U.S. really was capable of... also check Han's comment here:. Copied and pasted in full:

    And, in a similar light the U.S. was so caught up on the communist aspect of these "revolutions" going on in East Asia that the U.S. couldn't realize that these communist revolutions were really at the initial stage "a people's revolution" in that they really were people trying to build brand new institutions, after those of years past saw their countries become the play thing of foreign powers. Capitalist or Western Institutions lacked credibility to much of the people in this region at that time.

    The U.S. had she been more open-minded and confident (as should have accompanied her very sizeable wealth and power relative to the rest of the world) in her approach to this region, could have seen this and had supported a Mao or Kim Il Sung or Ho Chi Minh rather than a Chiang Kai Shek or a Rhee Syng Man (who America hated as much as those in South Korea did by the way)...

    The cold war would've been over before it had even started... It really wasn't about Communism in that part of the world, but the U.S. made it like that. Of course, with respect to Mao this goes before 1945... The U.S. would not have feared Communism to be this Monolithic plague. I'd like to point out how U.S. Vietnam veterans must've felt when a sitting U.S. president visited a united communist Vietname

  • Don't Blame Stalin Part III

    09/13/2009 12:35:18 AM PDT · 2 of 2
    joey703 to Zhang Fei; TigerLikesRooster; calex59; John Valentine; piytar; HuntsvilleTxVeteran
    Part III to ... part I: Don't Blame Stalin part II:Don't Blame Stalin II
  • Don't Blame Stalin Part III

    09/13/2009 12:32:27 AM PDT · 1 of 2
    joey703
    Part III
  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/12/2009 3:40:12 AM PDT · 33 of 48
    joey703 to joey703; John Valentine
    i will rewrite it clearer... I'm actually an American born, 2nd generation Korean-American. I'm apologetic about the grammar...

    Han

    Author of Breaking Down Borders : Korea

  • Don't blame Stalin.

    09/12/2009 3:36:47 AM PDT · 32 of 48
    joey703 to John Valentine
    This "natural order of thing" argument is yours, not mine. And frankly, I don't know quite what it means except that in the author's mind it means that Communist insurgencies ought to have been allowed to engage in subversion at their will with no resistance from the West, or specifically from the United States, because that upsets the "natural order of things". Wow, how hard is it to understand this. I'm going to make you the target audience for my next posting as well. I really would like for us to see eye to eye here, but... perhaps, it's not as obvious as you think it is, hence... the three part posting (i'll write the 3rd later), it's 3:14 pm here... The "natural order of things" was bolded in those two articles...

    Can't you see where I'm arguing from? If anything, I wouldn't be a communist, but a traditionally minded American with conservative values that's trying to look at things from a Korean point of view?

    What I meant in the two articles by the natural order of things are:

    #1. It's not in the natural order to have a divided Korean peninsula or rival Korean states.Korea has pretty much had the same borders with the same homogenous group of people since 664 AD.. even without having to resort to the most ridiculous exercise of revisionist/nationalist history that has become the Balhae debate. So, imagine a country that has had one ethnic group... No minorities whatsoever for 1300 years... Consistently... Where's your sense of other in society? I mean if you look at American History, the identity of what it means to be American has gone from being defined by a particular ethnic group and religious denomination to a set of values and principles (and i'd like to language tradition as well -- "language")... But, in Korea, it has been the same for 1300 years, either you're Korean ("we") or an outsider (even "Chinese" would count here). If you go back far enough into Korean history, you'd actually see that Ming, yes, Ming Chinese emissaries in Korea were not allowed to even travel outside certain roads without Korean "interlopers" in not what is North Korea, but what was Joseon (a unified Korea)... So, as you can see, take these xenophobic tendencies that have lasted for more than a millenia and add that with colonialism and an unconcluded civil war and you are left with the bizarre state that is North Korea today that builds dams to kill other Koreans (And of course, a South Korea in denial).

    #2. The natural order of things has also shown that Northeast Societies, or more precisely, Confucian societies have a favorable advantage when trying to obtain sustained economic growth(you can check the CBO's report on The Role Foreign Aid has Played in the Economic Development of South Korea and the Philipines (1997), for the exact link, i believe it's somewhere on my blogfor that)). But anyways, Korea being a Confucian society and the Philipines not. Thus, as in the 1950s it was the prevalent view or the Washington Consensus that export oriented development or that sustained economic development in Northeast Asia was just not going to happen, when first Japan and then the four Asian Tigers (all Confucian societies by the way) showed sustained economic development... then it was argued that these Korea's economic development was a miracle... (since all these tigers minus Korea were small island states)... I argue that it is not... I view that Confucian societies also enjoy (though not nearly to the same extent that American or Anglo-Saxon societies do with their strong legal and political institutions combined with free market enterprise and strong innovation)... that is a natural tendency to get rich... So, in this view, if Korea was destined to be rich at some point or well off, would it not have been better for Korea to have been unified during a civil war regardless of who did the unifying... I believe either route would have led to the same thing eventually... a prosperous Korea with strong democratic institutions (though favoring somewhat socialist principles of wealth distribution that all Confucian societies, such as Japan, have also shown)...

    Perhaps, this is clearer... I will re-write it better on the blog shortly...

    -Han

    Author of Breaking Down Borders : Korea

    p.s. I'll also be podcasting the course i'm teaching and the first class will have a specific slide hinting at this... that have traditionally favored education East is that the Confucian societies that have value Hence, it's weird to have a peninsula that's divided. This has led to a very bizarre state that is North Korea. Everything about North Korea is weird.. I think there's going to have to be a part III...