Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
Many of course would like to see a peaceful reunion.
|
That's true. I would also like to see a peaceful reunion -- or 'resolution', rather -- if it were possible.
Komitsuki, you mentioned that you are South Korean, am I correct? What do South Koreans mean when they suggest a
reunion? On what terms would they have it? I have always suspected it as being somewhat of a misnomer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by komitsuki
How I see it in South Korea. Yes. When this president came into power few years ago, he publically said that "I hate the North". First leader in 18 years to say so.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by komitsuki
The best way to maintain South Korea is to be pro-USA as well as being pro-North at the same time. That "rat" destoryed what South Korea represented the best.
|
The U.S. wouldn't bombard the South simply for not being Pro-American. At least, not from a martial standpoint. Your distrust of the media and goverment is relatable.
However...
When we are referring to North Korea, we may essentially be referring to Kim Jong Il or the leadership of their regime. After all, Kim Jong Il
is today's North Korea. Does taking a Pro-North approach, to some degree, equate to supporting Kim Jong Il? Is it not safe to assume that everyone disagrees with Kim Jong Il's methods?
Don't misunderstand, I'm not standing up for the President, particularly. He may be as bad as you express of him to be. But that's not really my point. The President can be any cold-hearted dog, but I mean to exhibit the principle of the nation, in general. If the South truly wanted to be an independant entity (reunited or not) shouldn't the freedom to
choose be valued? Or is there an implied willingness to fall under the North's control?
I'm sorry for the questions. I'm really trying to understand the argument.