Talk:Korean War/Archive 2

According to the statistics on the sidebar, British forces were the third most numerous (63,000 personnel) involved in the Korean War. Yet the article as it stands makes NO mention of Britain's role in the conflict. Why not??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.222.95 (talk • contribs)

I think its because they were removed from korea for killing all the jews in the country. Their leader, Adolf Hitler, was a known jew hater so it would make sense.80.254.147.52 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler led Britain? Compukid1 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^^Dude what the heck are you talking about? Do you know anything about history? They should have at least added that major battle (can't recall the name) where the British and Americans surrounded North Korea and pushed them over the 38th. squirll000 21:26, May 13, 2007

No, I don't understand that comment either. But as for singling out the British contribution; The article seems to refer generically to UN forces, which is about what I'd expect in a general article. For specifics on British and Commonwealth involvement its best to go to pages on that subject. Try the "battles" links for the Hook, Imjin River, Kapyong, Pakchon, or the "unit" links to 1st Commonwealth Division. Or is it worth writing a piece on it for the Legacy section? Xyl 54 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of nations who provided Medical Staff is included on the right hand side of the article, along with a list of those who provided troops. " Australia, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden, South Africa"

If this is a list of all those who provided medical staff, then obviously it should include the USA, France etc. On the other hand, if (as I suspect) it is intended as a list of those that provided medical staff _other_ than those that provided troops, then Australia should not be on the list, as it is (correctly) already mentioned in the list of the nations that provided troops. Ordinary Person 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I think it's kind of lame that the main picture for this article is of American troops, when this was the Korean War. I know America was involved in the conflict, but the main picture being of American troops makes them seem an especially important part, more important than other troops, of the war. Just wanted to point it out, maybe someone could get a good pic that really represents what the war was as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.11.117 (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Let me put this in perspective. That picture is of USMC 2Lt. Baldomero Lopez and his men storming the Inchon harbor. While many nations fought in the Korean War, it was the United States that launched the amphibious operation that saved UN lines, and sent the NKPA reeling. If you don't like, tough cookies. Quit trying to make history fair and politically correct, and just accept what happened for what it is. --MKnight9989 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am with the anonymous user on this one. The picture of some whats-his-name, is not symbolic of the conflict as whole or fails to be a strong symbol of the topic. See article on WW2 for a sample of descriptive picture. Also, I don't think he's trying to make this war politically-correct, but the picture doesn't hold with WP:BIAS guideline, as you're presenting the war from the POV of US. I believe that if you included your description of this picture along with it, then the picture would definitely got removed. So it is really about NPOV. --Ondrej--

Exactly. I agree with Ondrej. Tough cookies are for you. -Another user

I'll have to say that it looks funny how an open dictionary like Wikipedia is distorting democracy by pretending it is very democratic media letting people edit the articles. By reading these articles about Korean war which is another piece of work by some western guy, people would only get western/American view on this issue. I guess that the title of this article needs to be changed(leaving the main picture) to "How American troops have donated in Korean war" rather than just "Korean war" since there is no real Korean stuff in this article.(and hardly expected to have participations of Koreans) That way I won't have to be bothered reading some ridiculous discussions of their own. Kayoblue 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Prisoners of war were mistreated by all sides. The U.N. side was ultimately responsible for more deaths and violence than the communist side as there were more prisoners. As pointed out by Britain’s former Chief of the Defense Staff, Field Marshal Lord Carver: “The U.N. prisoners in Chinese hands, although subject to ‘re-education’ processes of varying intensity… were certainly much better off in every way than any held by the Americans….”^[1]

Carver’s assessment differs from other historical accounts which report frequent beatings, starvation, forced labor, summary executions and death marches imposed by the Communist forces on U.N. prisoners.^[2] North Korean forces committed several massacres of captured U.S. troops at places such as “Hill 312” on the Pusan Perimeter, and in and around Daejeon; this occurred particularly during early mopping-up actions. According to the U.S. Congressional report: “More than 5,000 American prisoners of war died because of Communist war atrocities and more than a thousand who survived were victims of war crimes. (…) Approximately two-thirds of all American prisoners of war in Korea died due to war crimes.”[1]

Carver's assessment was that of the Chinese, not the combined Communist forces (which included the North Korean forces). Thus Carver's assessment is not neccesarily different from other historical accounts. --Naus 03:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the China section it says: "However, the western forces suffer a disadvantage in air power, logistics, morale and manpower reserves." Presumably this is supposed to mean, "(Communist and) Chinese forces suffered disproportiante casualties because of their lack of air power, poor logistics, morale and manpower reserves." I think this needs to be changed

in one of the pictures it says "Mig shot down over mig alley" this WAS KOREA THAT WAS IN VIETNAM—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.167.159 (talk • contribs)

You're mistaken, MiG Alley was in the Korean War. Parsecboy 01:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the cleanup should be in the Korean War Legacy area because that in itself is a large part of the article. -- Warfreak 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Australia from the list of countries with medical staff in the Korean War because Australia was already listed among the countries that participated in the Korean War. JediScougale 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It says Canada sent 47 billion troops....WTH?

According to this book [2], the elections in the South were considered free and fair by UN obsevers not corrupt as this article states (unsourced). Could this be changed if no one else has any conflicting evidence?

I find this article far too centred on American actions. It was a UN mission, but all I read in the articles is "America this" and "America that". come on, sure they were one of the largest forces, but that doesn't mean this article should focus on them, it makes it seem they did it all alone, which is totally not true.

--216.110.236.207 08:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok but it was a American dominated UN coalition.

yea if it werent for the US u can forget about any hope for south korea winning the war, the US was essentially the mainman for the UN. also this whole war was largly about american foreign policy by the end stages.

let me guess, both of you are American? this just reaks of POV!!! read it again: U.S. forces were joined by troops from 15 other U.N. members or The other foreign powers allied with the United States quickly agreed with American actions, volunteering their support for the intervention. This all stated despite the fact that it was a UN resolution, not an American declaration of war and inviting all its buddies to join up.

--216.110.236.207 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole article stinks of some random americans showing their flags off. why not include full detail on other countries that also participated in the war, especially the two korean sides?

Here's a suggestion: quit bitching about it here, find some good sources on other countries' involvement, and rewrite the article to include them. Complaining about pro-American bias here will achieve little if you're not willing to do some actual work to improve the article. Parsecboy 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

because people re-edit to turn it back to biased article again and it is frustrating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.35.20.64 (talk • contribs)

If people are deleting sourced information, then you need to talk with an admin, at very least it's disruptive editing in violation of WP:NPOV. Parsecboy 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am an American, so I am sure whatever I say will be met with ridicule, but here goes: America was the only superpower that participated in the Korean War. The ROK Army was a joke, and by '53 the NKPA was a skeleton of it's former self. It really became a war of UN vs. China. The United States provided most of the troops during the fighting, and has provided most of troops after the fighting. If you want to add more information concerning UN involvement, then quit bitching and just do it. --MKnight9989 14:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Yankees, you should obey wikipedia's rule of civility, telling us that we're acting like bitches and ordering us around to do this and do that. That is exactly why people like 122.35.20.64 don't edit before discussing it on the talk page first.

--216.110.236.207 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should heed your own advice and stop using perjoratives like "Yankees". No one is ordering you around. But you can't expect editors to take you seriously if all you're going to do is take the easy way out and complain about something, but not care enough to actually do the work required to make the fixes you're complaining about. In short, walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Parsecboy 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about America being the main force that won the war (I'm a Korean) but I agree that without the US, Korea woill be Communist by now. Or maybe not. Or maybe yes. If UN forces were not there, possibly the DRP would have won the battle for the Perimeter. But if the ROK Army had managed to break the line and go up to the boundry now, it would be status quo ante bellum probably, as the Chinese would have had no reason to help the DRP.c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''User:Kfc1864Talk to me 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,so I think it needs to be slightly modified.c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''User:Kfc1864Talk to me 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

and it clearly says South Korea had about 100,000 more forces......c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't a forum to discuss who was more important during the war. If the article doesn't discuss the RoK Army fighting enough, then find sources that document it, and include it in the article. 'Nuff said. As for "if the RoK Army had managed to break the line...", that's a pretty damn big "if" without the Americans. Parsecboy 14:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Parsecboy. If you think there is an American/Western slant to the article, then I would suggest to first, research articles in your own country (South Korea?). You probably have many excellent articles or other publications there that we do not have access to. Go through them and start filling out the histories of the various ROK Army (or other military) units that fought in the war (start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_units_and_formations_of_the_Korean_War). Once there is sufficient documentation on those unit's pages (for proper Wiki-linking), then come back to this article and make appropriate edits. Without references from reliable sources, it's difficult to distinguish complaints from valid criticism. The ROK Army of today is a far different and more capable Army than what existed before, during, and (for several decades) after the Korean War. wbfergus 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK,KOrean War Maintenance man.:)just a joke.c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm British and I hardly like the Americans, but I certainly agree with *them* on this matter. Although other countries like Britaindid take part and were in several battles, it was the Americans who spearheaded the UN. This article covers a general view of the conflict, its causes and impact, go write an article on the battles fellow brits! Henners91 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

North Korea attacks South Korea 25 June 1950 Task Force Smith at Osan, South Korea 5-6 July 1950 Kum River Line defense (Taejon) 11-22 July 1950 Pusan Perimeter defense 4 Aug -- 16 Sept 1950 Inchon Landing 15 Sept 1950 Liberation of Seoul (1st return) 21-30 Sept 1950 Advance into North Korea (west coast) 1 Oct -- 27 Oct 1950 Withdrawal to Ch'ongch'on River Defense Line and second advance toward the Yalu (west coast) 28 Oct -- 25 Nov 1950 Landing at Iwon and race to the Yalu (east coast) 31 Oct -- 27 Nov 1950 Withdrawal to Imjin River Line (west coast) 28 Nov -- 23 Dec 1950 X-Corps withdrawal (east coast) 1 Dec -- 24 Dec 1950 Withdrawal to Defense Line "D" (roughly along the 37th Parallel -- P'yongt'aek [W] to Samch'ok on east coast) 26 Dec 1950 -- 29 Jan 1951 Advance to Line Boston(south bank of the Han River south of Seoul - I Corps) 18 Feb 1951 -- 6 Mar 1951 Advance to Phase Line Kansas ( north of Seoul to just north of the 38th Parallel - east coast [2nd Liberation of Seoul) 4 -- 21 April 1951 1st Chinese Spring Offensive 22 -- 29 Apr 1951 Defense lines Golden (I Corps) and No Name (IX & X Corps) 29 Apr 1951 -- 19 May 1951 2nd Chinese Spring Offensive 17 -- 22 May 1951 Advance to Phase Line Kansas (3rd Liberation of Seoul) 22 May 1951 -- 10 Jun 1951 Advance to Phase Line Wyoming (Imjin River in I Corps sector north of Seoul to north of 38th Parallel in IX Corps and X Corps sectors) 13 Jun 1951 -- 4 Oct 1951 Line Jamestown (MLR in I Corps Sector -- West) 7 Oct 1951 -- 27 July 1953 Line Missouri (MLR in IX Corps Sector -- Central) 23 Oct 1951 -- 27 July 1953 Line Minnesota (MLR in X Corps Sector -- East) 16 Oct 1951 -- 27 July 1953 MAJOR COMMUNIST OFFENSIVES

NKPA 1st Phase (Seoul) Operations 25 Jun 1950 -- 29 Jun 1950 NKPA 2nd Phase (Suwon)Operations 30 Jun 1950 -- 6 Jul 1950 NKPA 3rd Phase (Taejon) Operations 7 Jul 1950 -- 20 Jul 1950 NKPA 4th Phase (Naktong) Operations 21 Jul 1950 -- 30 Aug 1950 NKPA 5th Phase (Pusan) Operations 31 Aug 1950 -- 15 Sep 1950 CCF (PLA) 1st Phase (warning) Operations 25 Oct 1950 -- 24 Nov 1950 CCF (PLA) 2nd Phase (main attack) Operations 25 Nov 1950 -- 24 Dec 1950 CCF (PLA) 3rd Phase (counterattack in Wonju - Chipyong-ni areas) Operations 11 Feb 1951 -- 17 Feb 1951 CCF (PLA) 4th Phase (First Spring Offensive) Operations 22 Apr 1951 -- 29 Apr 1951 CCF (PLA) 5th Phase (Second Spring Offensive) Operations 17 May 1951 -- 22 May 1951 CCF (PLA) 6th Phase - canceled and strategic objectives switch to limited operations 1 Sep 1951 CCF attack on Western & Central Fronts 6 Oct 1952 -- 13 Oct 1952 CCF Kumsong River Offensive (ROK II Corps) 14 July 1953 -- 20 July 1953 MAJOR WITHDRAWAL OPERATIONS BY US FORCES

Withdrawal to the Pusan Perimeter 3 July 1950 -- 3 Aug 1950 Evacuation of Hungnam 1 Dec 1950 -- 24 Dec 1950 Withdrawal from North Korea to Line "D" 2 Dec 1950 -- 16 Jan 1951 MAJOR UN OFFENSIVES

Inchon Landing & capture of Seoul 18 Sept 1950 -- 30 Sept 1950 Breakout from the Pusan Perimeter 16 Sept 1950 -- 27 Sept 1950 Operation Thunderbolt 25 Jan 1951 -- 20 Feb 1951 Operation Killer 21 Feb 1951 -- 7 Mar 1951 Operation Ripper (Flanking of Seoul) 7 Mar 1951 -- 4 Apr 1951 Operation Rugged (securing Phase Line Kansas) 1 Apr 1951 -- 15Apr 1951 Operation Dauntless (securing Phase Line Utah) 10 Apr 1951 -- 22 Apr 1951 Operation Detonate (3rd return to Seoul and retaking Phase Line Kansas north of the 38th Parallel) 20 May 1951 -- 8 Jun 1951 Operation Piledriver (securing Phase Line Wyoming and The Iron Triangle) 3 Jun 1951 -- 12 Jun 1951 Operation Commando (Securing Phase Line Jamestown) 3 Oct 1951 -- 15 Oct 1951 Operation Nomad and Polar (Securing Phase Line Missouri) 13 Oct 1951 -- 22 Oct 1951 PURSUIT AND MOPPING UP OPERATIONS

Pursuit and mopping south of the 38th Parallel 28 Sept 1950 -- 30 Nov 1950 Pursuit north of the 38th Parallel to Yalu River 5 Oct 1950 -- 27 Oct 1950 Iwon Landing and pursuit to Yalu River (east coast) 31 Oct 1950 -- 27 Nov 1950 LIMITED OPERATIONS -- 26 JUNE 1951 THROUGH 27 JULY 1953 (After peace talks initiated)

I CORPS

Operation Doughnut (to seize dominate terrain features in the Sobang Mountains) 1-4 July 1951 Raid on Kwijon-ni 3-8 Aug 1951 Operation Citadel (to move MLR forward to then existing Outpost Line of Resistance -- OPLR) 18-19 Aug 1951 Operation Clean-Up (attempt to sweep enemy forces from front of I Corps positions) 9-10 Sept 1951 Operations Clean-up II (to secure railroad running north from Uijongbu) 29 Sept -- 3 Oct 1951 Operation Polecharge (to secure dominate three hills) 16-18 Oct 1951 Attack on Hill 199 24-30 Oct 1951 Defense of Hill 200 5-10 Nov 1951 First battle of Porkchop Hill 22-25 Nov 1951 Operation Clam-up (ceased activity to lure enemy patrols) 10-16 Feb 1952 Operation Counter (to secure 11 key terrain features on outpost line) 7-25 Jun 1952 First Battle for Old Baldy 26 June -- 17 July 1953 Second Battle for Old Baldy 17 - 22 July 1952 Third Battle for Old Baldy 1-4 Aug 1952 Forth Battle for Old Baldy 18-21 Sept 1952 Defense of Outpost Kelly 18-30 Sept 1952 Fifth Battle for Old Baldy 23-26 Mar 1953 Third Battle for Porkchop Hill 23-26 Mar 1953 Defense of Outpost Carson, Elko, and Vegas 28-30 Mar 1953 Forth Battle for Porkchop Hill 6-11 July 1953 Defense of Outpost Dale & Westview 23-24 July 1953 IX CORPS

Operation Cat & Dog (to destroy enemy positions and capture prisoners.) 26-28 June 1951 Attack on Hill 272 and 487 12-15 July 1951 Operation Cow Puncher (to move Phase Line Utah forward to Phase Line Wyoming) 2-3 Aug 1951 Operation Ohio-Sloan (to secure new positions on Phase Line Wyoming) 8-12 Sept 1951 Operation Cleaver (Tank/Infantry raid into Iron Triangle) 21 Sept 1951 Operation Clam-up (to lure enemy patrols and capture prisoners) 10-15 Feb 1952 Operation Showdown (to secure Hill 598) 14-24 Oct 1952 Defense of Hill 301 24-28 Oct 1952 Defense of Outpost Charlie and King 28 Oct - 4 Nov 1952 (IX Corps withdrawn Nov 1952) X CORPS

Attack on Hills 1059, 1120 and 1179 26-30 July 1951 Battle of Bloody Ridge (ridge between Hills 900 & 983) 27 Aug -- 5 Sept 1951 First battle of Heartbreak Ridge 9-12 Sept 1951 Second battle of Heartbreak Ridge 13-29 Sept 1951 Attack on Hills 851, 1220 & adjacent ridges 7-15 Oct 1951 Operation Clam-up (to lure enemy patrols and capture prisoners) 10-15 Feb 1952 Defense of Heartbreak Ridge area 6-7 Sept 1952 Defense of Heartbreak Ridge area 3-4 Nov 1952

Yeah, thank you very much.c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 06:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see alot of text in here saying that sort of thing. besides maybe just trying to get dirt on the US, it isnt exactly cited. I believe it should be removed or at least the North Korean and Chinese war atrocities should be documented as well.

The thing is, the construction was so poor in the rural areas, it would relatively easy for even a hand grenade to wipe out several houses (based upon personal observations when I was in Korea in the mid-70's). So, in all fairness, any statements regarding "people's houses being blown up" applies equally to all parties involved in the Korean War. It's also part of war, even today with more accurate targeting mechanisms, that civilan property is destroyed and civilian deaths occur, especially when opposing forces are fighting in or around "built-up" areas, like villages, towns or cities. Thinking otherwise, especially during the Korean War era, is ludicrous. If your enemy is in a building, you will fire into the building. If there are a lot of your enemy in an area, you will call in artillery fire or other "mass-destruction" weapons, like bombs. That is simply what war fighting is about, always has been and probably always will be. wbfergus 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The author is missing essential points of the Korean War. His/her points are limited on the superficial facts like conflicts between Capitalism (South Korea) vs. Communism (North Korea), who started war, and how many (innocent) people were killed (so cruely), etc.

I, as a Korean, list my points to the war as essential questions that are very clear in respect to what US/Soviet/Japan/Chinna took advantage of from the war:

1. Was The US (well) aware of that North Korea will make the war sooner or later?

  If yes, then why US army left South Korea?
  Very important point is that, after the Korean War, 
  US and Japan's Economy got better or Not?
  What about chinna? 
  At least, they could avoid their own war against US/Taiwan alley.

2. Then why the US decided to stop war, instead of repelling the Communist?

3. Why Mao decided to support North Korea? Because of their comradeship?

  At the time of the Korean War, note,
  Chinna was also fighting against Zhang and US allies. 
  Mao wanted to hold their war in Korea as much longer as they could, 
  so that US/Taiwan ally had to postpone their war to Main Chianna.

4. What about J. Stalin?

  He was kind of skeptical to the war because,
  he knew that Soviet wouldn't get much money from Korean War,
  even if N.Korea won.

5. Regardless of the war,

  Should be the Korea a form of war-prize [indemnities] to US from 
  the Pacific War against Japan?  
  This is the very starting point of the Korean War
  together with "Kasra-Taft Secret Conspiracy" to Korea.

6. Most Important!

  Do both N. and S. Korean want the war again?
  Then how about US, Japan, and Chinna?
  Do they really want United Korea without any further war?
  
  %%%%%%% Korean should NOT be the bloody yammy to them again.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Yes, the US may have had an inkling that conflict between North and South was inevitable, but it was no more likely than the French-Vietnamese conflict of the 1950s, or any other regional conflict. In the period following the war, the US couldn't exactly keep soldiers everywhere there might be a conflict brewing. Remember, the US, despite its best efforts, is not a global policeman, in every place, every time. I would say the Japanese economy improving after the war had less to do with the war directly, and more to do with the fact that it was several years after the end of WWII, so of course it was going to improve. That and UN servicemembers stationed there surely helped stoke the economy. As for Mao Zedong, he supported North Korea because he wanted to supplant the USSR as the leader of the Comintern. There may have been motivation to distract the West from the Taiwan issue as well. As for your "Kasra-Taft Secret Conspiracy", perhaps you should provide some sources for that, because I've never heard of it. Do you think many South Korean economists want a united Korea? Not likely. Do you know the damage it would do to South Korea's economy to absorb North Korea? Just look at the German reunification at the end of the Cold War, and increase the negative effects several times over. Parsecboy 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, what is your point? Good friend100 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, why is it so important to remove this image? You say that it might be offensive. Well, Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not censored for things that might be considered offensive. There's no good reason why this image should be removed from the article. Parsecboy 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the wikipedia didn't allow sex and violence explicit images appeared.And this picture portray the bloody description of soldier.If we allow this kind of pics added into wikipedia without control,some more violent and gory pics will be uploaded and presented to the future wiki readers.Just imagining the Jews will see the explicit and high resolution pictures of Holocaust,this kind of pics should be included in wiki,but not in a very high detailed and resolution forms.It makes the readers too uneasy.--Ksyrie 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

check this one  ,the resolution is so high and too detailed.If you insisted on the same photo,I will prefer a lessdetailed one--Ksyrie 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does permit images that are blatantly sexual in nature. Just peruse the WikiCommons category for "sex". If your argument for removing this image is that it's offensively violent, I assume you just haven't gotten around to [[3]] or [[4]] yet? [[5]]isn't exactly the most peaceful image, now is it? My point here is, you seem to be a pro-China POV editor. Accuse me of lacking good faith, but when you make highly POV posts like this, and this, I can't help but assume so. P.S., I scaled the picture to make it more manageable for other editors who wish to join this discussion. Parsecboy 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that some of these pics made me uneasy like this one Image:Deadparagermany.jpg,it is the first time I have noticed this picture,hoping someone to change it to a more blurring version,and for other two pics you had listed,they are not so explict to give the readers too much bad impressions.It's hard to describe it in words.In brief,such too detailed violent pics shall be controled to be show to public.I will agree to restrict the vivid violent pics.--Ksyrie 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For the talk pages materials,I meant no intention to hide my POV,but only limited to talk pages and not the wiki articles.--Ksyrie 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, those photographs are indeed disturbing but at least they expose people to the horrors of war, and they have good verifiability since they were taken by US military combat photographers in fact that same image of the dead Chinese soldier is used in a PBS article here[6] on the Korean war. Regarding your question whether photographs of holocaust victims would be acceptable, we already have a large collection on wikipedia commons of stacks of bodies of concentration camp victims look [7]. I don't think pornography and these photos can really be compared, these are encyclopedic, porn is just for sexual gratification Bleh999 06:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not someone upload some highresolution dead american bodies?--Ksyrie 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have some that aren't copyright protected or at least fair use, go right ahead. Parsecboy 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Seoul Guess what. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't. So, each of several battles is described in literally few words. This is kind of stupid, as tens of thousands of people died. --HanzoHattori 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The total number of United Nations men is 1,205,605. Help me edit the total, my account is not working and I am too lazy to create a new one...

Richard the Crusader 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)