And if all the troops are like CamFu? Then what?

Then God help us all. :D

I'm anti-politician. :D

It's a sad, sad day for humanity to be hearing a statement like this...

I realize that many people are angry over the events of the past year. I also realize that certain groups of people prove to be the ideal scapegoats since so many misinterpretations and bigotry regarding their cultures are evident in the media.

However, the some does not represent the whole. If we limit our perspectives and judgements on a group of people based only on the extremities that we can see (the iceberg effect as I like to call it), it is no more than bigotry and falsity.

If you recall, our country has had its share of shady happenings in the past that would entail some people to dismiss us as an evil empire. The masscre at No Gun Ri during the Korean war (where hundreds of South Korean refugees were slaughtered by the American troops) for one, proves that a country can sometimes be misrepresented by the actions of the bad few.

If you base your judgement on a group of people only by these extremities, it is called a bigotry.

Just stop it.

I'm basing my judgment on history, not this recent year. I don't care if you agree or disagree with my judgement. It is my judgement and that is that.

And what do you call it when you talk before you're acquainted with the full facts?

It's called a false conclusion or sometimes a hasty generalization.

I'm not understanding the point of this post...was it made to educated me that the No Gun Ri massacre was misconstrued (which proves ironic since the official statements from the Pentagon denied any deliberate killings and refused to apologize for the incident, calling it a "tragic occurence") by me? I only ask because you don't provide an explanation. I'm a bit confused.

But if you ARE saying that my views on the No Gun Ri incident is false, provide me some facts supporting your claim. I'll be happy to retract my position should you provide a valid and sufficient supporting data.

In any case, there were more mishaps in the world history caused by the United States than just this incident. Don't get me wrong, we, as a country, did many good things. But not everything we did was just. Even if the No Gun Ri incident is different than my construction of it (which I highly doubt), there are more than enough cases of wrongdoings we committed to prove my original point.

Has it ever occured to you that some people may view us in the same light as you shine on the Arabs? I mean, the descendents of the millions of native Americans the United States eradicated must have a strong feeling about us as well in that regard.

People are people. I think it's about time we get rid of the rudimentary "us" versus "them" mentality. In any case, you are entitled to your opinion and the right to express it - whether I disagree with it or not.

The point of the post was to tell you that you don't have all the information on the No Gun Ri incident. I'm just asking what you would call yourself, accusing people of murdering innocent civilians when you don't know the full facts of the situation. And you bringing this up very soon after the History Channel aired their special about the Korean War Crimes, I really hope that isn't where you're basing this all off of, but it could be coincidental.

Anyway, let's get on to the points here. Making a very long story short, here it goes. The NKPA forces had dressed up like civilians until they got behind enemy lines, then performed guerilla operations on the US troops. In No Gun Ri, the US troops were returning fire, not opening fire. Once a civilian shoots a gun, they no longer are a civilian.

If you were fighting a war, and there had been many instances of the enemy dressing up like civilians and moving with a large group of civilians before they open fire on you. Then, you're watching a large group of civilians, and people started firing upon you. What would you do? Sit there and eat a lollipop?

The bottom line in there is no evidence that US soldiers fired delibertly on Korean refugees. On top of that, there is many reasons to believe that they didn't shoot on the refugees for no valid reason. Considering that you're sitting on your ass in a chair, and they were in the middle of war, it's also very hard to realize the state of mind they were in, and understand why they would do things that they do. You're making assumptions, essentially accusing men who defend your freedom of murder, when you know nothing about it.

Looks to me like you're passing your own judgement on people.

I am a second-generation Korean-American living in the United States. I have lived in the States for over ten years, yet I am fluent in Korean and English. I am fully aware of the culture of both Korean and American societies.

My father, who turned 56 not long ago, lived through the Korean War during his boyhood. My grandfather, with whom I had a great relationship with and regrettably passed away last year, also lived through the Korean War. I have many uncles, aunts, and other reliatives who shared similar experience during the dark times of Korean history.

My paternal as well as maternal family are from Kyung-Sang Do - the county in which the No Gun Ri incident occured. Both families have some ties to some of the survivors of the incident.

With these facts provided, let me just say that the data I have of No Gun Ri could be skewed. It could be incomplete. And it could also be problematic. However, they are far from incomprehensive to render me useless in making the decision as to whether the incident was an accident, massacre or tragedy.

I've heard quite a few stories where American soldiers opened fire on refugees during the incident. granted, they could have been North Korean troops desguised as civilians, but does that suspicion grant the soldiers to open fire without checking them out first?

Some of the survivors had told my grandfather that the shots came without warning. In fact, most of the shots were rendered this way according to what the survivors had told my grandfather.

Perhaps murder was an incorrect term to apply to this situation. Murder entails intent to kill. The gunners may have not had an intent to kill the refugees. But they fired shots at civilians without checking them out to see if they were desguised. And that, to me, is inexcusable. Can you refute this?

But let's get back to my original point: every country has its share of shady history. No country ever does the just thing all the time. I was not generalizing the United States as an evil society due to the No Gun Ri incident. As a matter of fact, I think we're in a just frame of mind despite some lapses we may have bore. However, I was pointing out that every country, whether it'd be Arab, Asian, european or American, commits wrongdoings. viewing a group of people based on these mishaps is wrong, plain and simple.

Just as I did not dismiss America as an evil nation based on the No Gun Ri (whether it'd be legitimate or not), do not dismiss a nation based on what extremities you may see.

Hmm... exactly one year ago... and Bush has started his campaign. I believe that september 11 was really good for Bush' popularity.. :(

You're missing one part to what I said. The Koreans began firing at the Americans, they returned fire. When you're fighting a war, you're trying to keep yourself, and the man next to you alive. When this group of "civilians" has some people take out guns and shoot at you, you're not going to try to negotiate with them, you'll shoot back. The group of refugees were also not supposed to be at No Gun Ri, so if troops saw people start opening fire, they won't sit back and play nice. This is war, we're not playing cops-and-robbers in the backyard.

I don't care if you're Korean or Canadian, the fact remains you don't know exactly what happened at No Gun Ri, so you shouldn't be passing judgement that America massacred a bunch of civilians. I don't care if you're Korean or not, you're now living in a land where people are innocent until proven guilty, and these people haven't be proven guilty. Find a better example.

I don't know if you could substantiate your claim as to whether the Koreans began firing at the American soldiers first (if you cannot prove this, you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of). I don't know exactly where you are getting your source of information (possibly http://www.army.mil/nogunri/, which I found to be absurdly euphemistic). But I am basing my judgements of the incident on the things I have heard from people who have had contact with the survivors of the incident. I hardly think that your source of information is more accurate than the testimonials of primary evidence.

Here's another point: some soldiers - new to the war thing or whatever - were given orders to stop the refugees from passing through the area. They assumed this to mean they could use firearms - not with an intent to kill, but to war - to warn the refugees from passing through. There is not doubt that some of thse shots, in fact, killed civilians. In which case, it would be a wrongdoing.

In any case, I don't think you are arguing my main point: every country has its shady history. If you're not arguing this point and just pointing out my alleged fault in logic in providing an example to that point, that's fine. But to me, that seems trivial compared to understanding the big picture of things.

I'm not saying the Koreans did fire first. I'm just giving you the other side of the story. And who's to say that they didn't fire warning shots first, but when the refugee wouldn't stop, they had to use deadly force. There's a lot of stuff you don't know, which is why you shouldn't starting blaming people until you're acquainted with the full facts, which you're not, and never will be.

I don't understand, if this statement is true - that we can never know the full facts, and since we can't know the full facts, we can't judge anything, shouldn't you judge me in saying that I've made a false conclusion?