digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at newsweek.com

US Colonel Admits He Sanctioned Mass Killings in South Korea

newsweek.com — AP IMPACT: US wavered over SKorean executions; US colonel wrote he sanctioned mass killing

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • keeneyedgirl, on 07/07/2008, -12/+3i'm just sad and feeling so tragic...
  • Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -7/+37I cannot even begin the imagine what we are going to find out in the next 50 years. We need to speed up the declassification process.
    • squinky86, on 07/07/2008, -12/+3I think we know more than we need to draw conclusions about what's going on. For example, >500 tons of yellow cake uranium (1) removed from Iraq is tremendous peace of mind (2). I applaud our government for that. Knowing that our brave men weren't allowed to save innocent lives from tyranny in South Korea is appalling (3).

      Sources:
      1) http://www.myecubby.com/book.php?isbn=978354028363 ...
      2) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_iraq ...
      3) posted story
    • nwoantibody, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6Actually, this and much worst has already been declassified, the real problem lies in the public who will bend down and wait for government-controlled main stream media to tell them what to think. If Faux news says it, it's real. If someone from the streets quotes a declassified government program, he's a nut conspiracy theorist.
      Sadly, the US doesn't have 50 years more to live due to this social lack of people taking responsibility by bringing these criminals to jail.
    • kaelyiesta, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4I would bet that if we knew more current war crimes in detail, we would be more likely to revolt against our leaders. Waiting until things are no longer relevant before revealing them fully is an excellent way for a government to control people just that much more.
      • HaoTian, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3I think you have far too much faith in general humanity. I don't think most people these days have the balls to take a stand for themselves.
  • j1337, on 07/07/2008, -4/+23It is a shame that U.S. troops on the scene did not do enough to prevent the South Korean army from slaughtering so many people. At that point in the war, there were only a few Americans on the ground in Korea, but it's possible those observers could have done more to convince South Korean officers not to kill so many civilians.

    However, the South Korean officers and soldiers who planned, ordered, and carried out the killings are primarily responsible for what happened. Most historians now agree that the early stages of the Korean War were far less of a Cold War proxy fight directed by the USSR/US, and more of a civil war. The mass executions mentioned in the article were a part of this brutal Civil War.
    • dakbonsa, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9I don't know if they would have convinced the Koreans given that Americans were also killing civilians at the same time. My grandfather was in the war, and at that time, Accused communist = automatic death sentence with no questions asked.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri_massacre

      No Gun Ri massacre was an incident during the Korean War in which between eight and about 150 South Korean civilians were killed by soldiers of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment between 1950-07-26 and 1950-07-29 near the village of No Gun Ri. This incident gained widespread attention when the Associated Press published a series of articles in 1999 that subsequently won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting.
  • dtele, on 07/07/2008, -9/+18And the US tried testing nerve gas on allied soldiers:
    http://digg.com/world_news/US_planned_nerve_gas_te ...

    There may be a lot more to come as documents are declassified
    • byrdgang, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4There may be...? You can bet that there's a lot the government is telling us.
      • whiterice0, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3Indeed there is. Keeping secrets is a difficult business in a Democracy.
    • whiterice0, on 07/08/2008, -9/+5a) I hate spam.
      b) what a load of crap. We were going to test Sarin nerve gas on allied troops? Aha.

      buried.
  • NuclearDruid, on 07/07/2008, -5/+13By the sounds of it, it must have been a tough decision to make. It's something we probably would not understand until put in a similar situation ourselves.
  • EatingPie, on 07/07/2008, -7/+7Is there some point where wrong is wrong, even in war? And can't we say that giving tacit approval makes us at least partially culpable? And I don't just mean this Colonel, but the US government -- President, Congress, and *people* -- behind him, telling him to stop communism at all costs.

    My actions haven't had such severe consequences -- trivial in comparison -- but I've acted similarly in my own life -- giving approval to something that's wrong, turning my head not to look, etc. I imagine the Colonel is haunted by his actions.

    -Pie
    • byrdgang, on 07/07/2008, -4/+4Giving tacit approval = not partially, but fully culpable.
    • solid12345, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4So it is our manifest destiny to make sure these nations act civilized?

      You can't have it both ways, you cannot argue for western nations to leave certain countries alone and then at the same time order us to make sure they stay civilized.
  • EricL89, on 07/07/2008, -3/+14This did not have to be on 9 pages.
  • LoJack, on 07/08/2008, -7/+2Nah... he must have been brain-washed by the Communists.
  • cheezintern, on 07/08/2008, -4/+4war is hell, unless any of us were there, we can't really pass judgment...of course I'm not defending him.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1I'm pretty sure I don't have to "be there" to call someone a monster for committing mass murder.
    • INTERNETMASTER, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1yeah at first I thought mass murder was wrong, but war is hell, so it's ok I guess!
  • jub0r, on 07/08/2008, -3/+7I read about this and similar acts a while back in the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson
    http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences ...

    I can't wait until we're reading about similar events in Iraq and Afghanistan. : (
    • masterm1nd, on 07/08/2008, -3/+2So in other words, you hope some bad ***** went down?
      • jub0r, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3Did I need to put Sarcasm tags around that? I guess the frowny face at the end didn't adequately convey my meaning. I'd draw a bigger picture, or maybe use my hands, but Digg only lets me put in text.

        What I meant to say was. "I wish we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq. The longer we stay there, the more likely ***** like this is going to happen." I've already heard of things like this happening in Afghanistan while our troops watch. It makes me want to choke the ***** when I hear McCain advocating an extended stay in Iraq and using Korea as an example of why such an occupation would be just peachy.
  • neuronic222, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3As a country, we have a duty to acknowledge and accept responsibility for our participation (to whatever degree) in these horrific events. This is sad, and anyone who says differently doesn't understand how tragically precious human life is. Until we learn that we are bound to our mistakes.
    • Antimatty, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1human life is not precious. we are self important monkeys . walking sacks of meat who like to think of ourselves as special and made in "gods image" . we are just animals and life is a biological process.
      • Tabris, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1OK, Tyler Durden.
      • neuronic222, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0in all the known universe, the billions of galaxies that contain billions upon billions of stars and planets, we are the only planet (given what we know) that supports life. Human life is among the most rare and sublime features of the entire cosmos. yes, we are "self important monkeys," but you don't need a god to understand how significant human life is.
  • originaldna, on 07/08/2008, -5/+4What do u expect from the most evil country on the planet/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzfakBarivk
  • edebolt, on 07/08/2008, -3/+7Just because Americans were there and involved does not mean they were in control. It was such tough conflict that approx 80K US soldiers were lost and it sank the Truman Presidency. The last thing you want to do is to start a war with your supposed allies (S.K.). Are we to believe the S.K. were just lukewarm about killing these people? On the proverbial fence? It's probably that they were adamant and the US commanders did not want to draw the line on that one issue.... my 2 cents. flame away.
  • craighoxton, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4"The horror, the horror..."
  • JointVenture, on 07/08/2008, -3/+11Read the article, it was KOREANS not Americans.
    • ladybyron, on 07/08/2008, -4/+2I guess you have a hard time understanding the word "sanctioned" huh?
      • JointVenture, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Music majors should only speak when spoken to, especially emo wannabe's.
  • acudoc, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4"Dulce bellum inexpertis." War is delightful to the inexperienced. (Erasmus)

    So much remains hidden in wars. How else could the latest batch of scumbag politicians rally support for escapades in the blood trade.
  • Jason2008, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1I think we should allow South Korea into the Stone Age
  • scarecrow2k6, on 07/08/2008, -2/+0Whether its was America or not...U.S.A won't be liked by anyone after 10+ years... . I feel sorry for all the people who suffered for whatever reasons but I have a feeling that we will have a better future where one country won't have full control over everyone.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0With an attitude like that the Hawks will make you their bitch in no time at all. There has not been a single good outcome for us the USA from the US Korea involvement - other than the MASH movie and TV series. In fact it seems to be increasing costs.
  • solid12345, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3As usual, completely take responsibility away from the host nation and blame the US. Just like the US got blamed when that Vietnamese colonel shot his N. Vietnamese enemy in the street.

  • ladybyron, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3I was wondering how anyone could excuse the horror of these acts - now I realize I just had to come read comments from some people here.

    You know it's possible to love your country and still show some shame when things like this come out. That used to be what made people respect Americans - our humanity.
  • jefree, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3It is not the responsibility of America to police the world and take responsibility for everything that happens and correct it. You do what you think is right when you can, but you make the best choice that is reasonably possible and you let the rest of the world work it out. If it was Sudan troops who allowed the South Koreans to kill 100,000 enemy soldiers who would have been freed to do the same to them then no one would expect anything different.
  • crackberri, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1A good Commie is a dead Commie!
  • RRJackson, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1First off, nine pages? This crap has to stop. And it's Newsweek, not some pathetic blog.

    Second, we didn't make him a general? This is the kind of action that defines great leadership. We shouldn't just have allowed it to be done, we should have done it ourselves. We should be doing this sort of thing in Iraq. And Iran. And Syria. And Saudi Arabia. And Somalia. And Libya. And...
    • neuronic222, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0...that is a weak and pitiful thing to say. those who aren't strong enough to stand up for human dignity do things like this (or stand by and watch). i hope you develop the strength to speak against such sad events.
      • RRJackson, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I live in a nation that was founded through genocide. Hopefully one day our citizens will understand how well that worked out for us in the past and start getting to work on changing the future. We can thin the herd considerably and profit at the same time.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0Does anyone know the total USA cost in current dollars of the
    Korean"Conflict"? It must be staggering considering all the original
    costs, those associated with North Korea nuclear paranoia and their
    extortions for that, servicing the DMZ, ship diesel and flight fuel
    wasted, Pentagon overhead and overspending. Also should not South Korea
    be more ahead now as part of China? Would China have been slowed down if
    the Koreas were more a burden for them than us? The Hawks will hate
    getting these things out to the public. But we have to remember
    Eisenhower’s patriotic warnings about the power of the War Industry
    interests. We must get control over the Hawks and not be so gentle this
    time.
    • flashingcurser, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You lost me at "South Korea be more ahead now as part of China". Did you mean North Korea? North Korea is a sovereign nation that China wants little to do with. Remember that when Japan attacked Korea, China wouldn't allow them to flee there, they had to run to Russia. This is where Koreans learned communism, not China. China has sold arms to NK, but little else.

      If you want to be angry about something, we had a trade treaty with Korea that was supposed to give us exclusive trade with Korea and they were supposed to be protected from Japanese invasion. We reneged on that in 1910:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_ ...
      A copy of the 1882 treaty with Korea:
      http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:K2bR7N4WXLgJ:w ...
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the information. This was a leap toward conjecturing what the Koreas would be like today without the US/UN Korean Conflict. One possibility I think is that there would have become one Korea somewhat like a Vietnam but much more closely affiliated with China, or maybe dominated by China. I would like to know your conjecture.
      • flashingcurser, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1If we had have upheld the treaty of 1882 and protected the Koreans from the Japanese. We would have gone to war with Japan much earlier. This would have been beneficial to us and the Koreans. For us, we likely would have not have had Pearl Harbor and Japan wouldn't have joined the Axis powers. Korea has always been very strategic to the Japanese (even in medieval times), from the Korean peninsula they could access the real target-- China. They did just that after "annexing" Korea and (in the process killing tens of thousands of innocent Koreans) they attacked Manchuria from Korea killing millions of Chinese. During the annexation the Chinese didn't want Koreans in fleeing into their country. To the Chinese these fleeing Koreans could be Japanese spies, racially the Chinese did not like Koreans, and if anything else with the extreme poverty in China the Koreans would have been a burden. Koreans were not welcome in China. When the Japanese came where could Koreans run to? Russia. This is where Koreans, especially the ones in the north who could escape to russia, learned communism. When the US finally did intervene, in ww2, the communist Koreans came back to North Korea from Russia.
        Prior to all of this mess, Korea had been a monarchy. A monarchy that was very intelligent, peaceful, and working hard to become a modern republic. I suspect that without Korean "annexation" to the Japanese they would have succeeded in becoming a modern state. Koreans to this day are Christians and Buddhists, they are a very spiritual people. For this reason, I doubt that communism would ever be very appealing to Koreans with out massive indoctrination. When they fled from the Japanese they got just such indoctrination. Also a very peaceful culture leaned cruelty and war at the hands of the Japanese. If would have done the right thing in 1910 there would be a unified Korean republic that would be our best allies in Asia.
  • mrzack, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1How do you say Perestroika and Glasnost in English??????? If the American people found out what their govt did in the past 50 years, there would be......probably nothing done. They'd shrug the shoulders and go back to watching foolsball and drinking beer and playing the xbox.
  • veersite, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1"But the declassified record shows he finally told his South Korean counterpart it "would be permitted" to machine-gun 3,500 political prisoners, to keep them from joining approaching enemy forces." -- article

    Does political prisoners necessarily equal a pacifist non-aggressor? Could they be counted on not to pick up arms once released? What other circumstances were ia factor? Would NOT killing them be tantamount to ordering your own troops to put their guns in their mouths and pull the trigger? What other forces were at play that we don't know about, if any?

    I wasn't there, but I would hate be presented with the choice of machine-gunning unarmed men... or letting them go and knowing they would be armed and fighting my own men in a few days.

    Not the easy decision it is made out to be, I'm afraid, if you are interested in the welfare of your own force. I hate to put it like that, but it' may be the truth. I'd like to hear more from the men who were there.
  • shakajumbo, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6Buried for mis-leading headline sensationalism. Why would you choose the headline "US Colonel Admits He Sanctioned Mass Killings in South Korea" when the Newsweek article is self entitled "AP IMPACT: US wavered over S. Korean executions". You see, when you write, "he sanctioned" it tends to lead people (who didn't have time to read the article) to believe he was responsible, when the artilce its'self reads on page 1:

    "The most important thing is that they did not stop the executions," historian Jung Byung-joon, a member of the 2-year-old commission, said of the Americans. "They were at the crime scene, and took pictures and wrote reports."

    now that statement alone puts this article in a whole new light, and rests the focus squarely where it should be.


  • flashingcurser, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3How much responsibility does an army have for what its allies do in their own country? Setting aside the fact that we started Iraq, pretty hard thing I realize, will the Americans be responsible for what Iraqi police forces do to there own citizens? When we pull out of Iraq they will be forced to be a sovereign nation, are we responsible for them then?

    The preemptive war war-mongers would say YES! They would say that we must be the worlds police. This is how we get into these messes in the first place.
  • flashingcurser, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@ mrzack Did you even read my comment? You seemed to have missed the entire point. "Perestroika and Glasnost" was about what the soviets were doing to their own people, not what they did to others. If life was better in Soviet Russia they would have been content with their vodka, soccer, and vacations on the Black Sea. So "BOOYA" back "in yo face sucka foo-al"
    And again, the US has not done anything to its own citizens that would equal any Soviet leader.
  • aadyss, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Many liberal respondents here appear to have run out of things to hate and have now turned the hatred inward. Well, if you desire to embrace self hate fine, but count me out. I'm not searching for an unattainable utopia they so infatuates the left. Sometimes life can be downright ugly but most of life is beautiful, therefore I acknowledge the ugly but always celebrate the beauty. For those who predict the demise of America, I hope you will not be too disappointed when your rantings fail to materialize.
  • KWillets, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0There's a good writeup on this here: http://rokdrop.com/2008/07/08/rehashing-korean-war ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.