> Third from the left in 1955. I stand corrected - he was dissapeared in the 60s. > I said, which is primarily about how the US backed it's own military dicta

> Third from the left in 1955. I stand corrected - he was dissapeared in the 60s. > I said, which is primarily about how the US backed it's own military dictatorship in South Korea. The US "backed" an illiberal government with 300 soldiers. Meanwhile North Korea set up concentration camps, exterminated monks, executed "class enemies", those with property, priests, and nuns, and engaged in forced collectivization of land as part of widespread destruction of civil society -- all prior to the North's invasion of South Korea. Somehow you are trying to create a moral equivalence between a Stalinist dictatorship in North Korea with many concentrate camps in it, and South Korea - which although it is illiberal by modern standards, was by far more free and humane than anything on the Korean peninsula in the history of that land. Then you are arguing that the US "supported" the South because of these 300 American soldiers. Meanwhile the North had over 100,000 PLA and Soviet troops and hundreds and tanks and fighter aircraft. From this, you conclude that the North did not invade the South, as historians say, but that the US actually invaded Korea. Look, I know which Chomsky pamphlet you are getting this stuff from and it is an Orwellian reading of history. The 300 US soldiers is not an "invasion" of Korea by the US, and there is no comparison between the North and the South in the arena of human rights or freedom.