text:
Short History of the Korean War
The Korean War refers to a period of military conflict between North Korea and South Korean regimes, with major hostilities lasting from June 25, 1950 until the armistice signed on July 27, 1953. Both Koreas were supported by external powers, with each attempting to re-unify Korea under their respective governments. While some have referred to the conflict as a civil war, many other factors were at play.[17] The term has also been used to describe both the events preceding and following the main hostilities.
After disputes arose regarding elections concerning the entirety of Korea[18], as well as escalating border conflicts at the 38th Parallel; the North Korean Army assaulted the South on June 25, 1950. The conflict was then expanded by the United States and the Soviet Union's involvement as part of a proxy war in the greater Cold War.
In South Korea, the war is often called 6·25 or 6·25 War (Korean: 6·25 전쟁), from the date of the start of the conflict or, more formally, Hanguk Jeonjaeng (Korean: 한국전쟁; Hanja: 韓國戰爭, literally "Korean War"). In North Korea, while commonly known as the Korean War, it is formally called the Joguk Haebang Jeonjaeng or Fatherland Liberation War (Korean: 조국해방전쟁; Hanja: 祖國解放戰爭). In the United States, the conflict was officially termed a police action - the Korean Conflict - rather than a war, largely in order to avoid the necessity of a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. The war is sometimes called The Forgotten War or The Unknown War because it is a major conflict of the 20th century that gets far less attention than World War II, which preceded it, and the Vietnam War, which succeeded it.[19] The war was a unique combination of the techniques utilized in both World War I and World War II, beginning with swift, fast-paced infantry advances following well-choreographed bombing raids from the air by the American military and its UN allies. However, following both sides' failures at holding the land captured, battles quickly evolved into World War I-type trench warfare in January 1951, lasting until the essential border stalemate at the end. In China, the conflict was known as the War to Resist America and Aid Korea (抗美援朝), but is today commonly called the "Korean War" (朝鮮 戰爭 Chaoxian Zhanzheng,[20] 韓國戰爭 Hanguo Zhanzheng, or simply 韓戰 Hanzhan).
Korea had been a unified country since the 7th century. During the 19th century, imperialist nations threatened Korea's long-standing sovereignty. After defeating China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, the Japanese forces remained in Korea, occupying strategically important parts of the country and exploiting the Korean people. Ten years later, the Japanese defeated the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), contributing to Japan's emergence as an imperial power.[21] The Japanese continued to forcibly occupy the Korean peninsula against the wishes of the Korean government and people, expanded their control over local institutions through force, and finally annexed Korea in August 1910.[22] From 1910 until 1945, the Japanese Governor General implemented a cruel and efficient set of policies aimed at eradicating Korean identity. After liberation in 1945, many Koreans expected to have control over their own country.
At the close of World War II, forces of both the Soviet Union and the United States occupied the peninsula in accordance with an agreement put forth by the United States government to divide the Korean peninsula. This decision, made by then Colonel Dean Rusk and Army officer Charles Bonesteel, was made because the 38th parallel was already on most maps of Korea.[23] The Soviet forces entered the peninsula on August 10, 1945 and remained north of the 38th parallel waiting for the US forces to arrive. A few weeks later the American forces who entered through Inchon and were lead by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge formally accepted the surrender of Japanese forces south of the 38th parallel on September 9, 1945 at the Government House in Seoul.[24]
Many Korean people had organized politically prior to the arrival of American troops.[25][broken citation]
Post-World War II division of Korea
Though the eventual division of Korea was considered at the Potsdam Conference,[24] boundaries, however, the wishes of the Korean people to be free of foreign interference were not considered.[citation needed] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Chinese Premier Chiang Kai-shek and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had stated a determination for Korean independence and freedom at the Cairo Conference. During the earlier Yalta Conference in February 1945, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin called for "buffer zones" in both Asia and Europe.[26] Stalin believed that Russia should have preeminence in China, and after the US requested that the USSR join in the war against Japan "three months after the surrender of Germany."[26] On August 6, 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on the Japanese Empire, and on August 8 it began the liberation on the northern part of the Korean peninsula. As agreed with the United States, the USSR halted its troops at the 38th parallel on August 26. However, on September 3 Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge, commander of XXIV Corps and designated U.S. Commander in Korea, received a radio message from Lt. Gen. Yoshio Kozuki, commander of the Japanese 17th Area Army in Korea, reporting that Soviet forces had advanced south of the 38th parallel only in the Kaesong area.[24] Hodge decided to trust the Japanese reports of events in Korea. U.S. troops arrived in the southern part of the peninsula in early September 1945.
On August 10, 1945, with the Japanese surrender imminent, the American government was unsure whether the Soviets would adhere to the proposal arranged by the U.S. government. A month earlier, Colonels Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel, after deciding in their 1/2 hour session[unreliable source?] that at least two major ports should be included in the U.S. zone, had drawn the dividing line at the 38th parallel in less than one-half an hour using a National Geographic map for reference.[24][27][28][29] Rusk, later U.S. Secretary of State, commented that the American military was "faced with the scarcity of U.S. forces immediately available and time and space factors which would make it difficult to reach very far north before Soviet troops could enter the area."[26]
The USSR agreed to the 38th parallel being the demarcation between occupation zones in the Korean peninsula, partly to better their position in the negotiations with the Allies over eastern Europe. It was agreed that the USSR would receive surrendering Japanese troops on the northern part of Korea; the U.S., on the southern side. The Soviet forces entered and liberated the northern part of the peninsula weeks prior to the entry of American forces. In accordance with the arrangements made with the American government, the Soviet forces halted their advance at the 38th parallel.
The American forces arrived in Korea in early September. One of Hodge's first directives was to restore many Japanese colonial administrators and collaborators to their previous positions of power within Korea. This policy was understandably very unpopular among Koreans who had suffered horribly under Japanese colonial rule for 35 years, and would prove to have enormous consequences for the American occupation.[18]
A second policy set forth by Hodge was to refuse to recognize the existing political organizations that had been established by the Korean people. Hodge sought to establish firm U.S. control over events throughout the southern half of the peninsula.[21] These policies would help give rise to the later insurrections and guerrilla warfare that preceded the outbreak of the civil war.[21][not in citation given]
In December 1945, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to administer the country under the U.S.-Soviet Joint Commission, as termed by the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers. It was agreed by the US and the USSR, but not the Koreans, that Korea would govern itself independently after four years of international oversight. However, both the U.S. and the USSR approved Korean-led governments in their respective halves, each of which were favorable to the occupying power's political ideology. Some elements of the population responded with violent insurrections and protests in the South.[21] The USAMGIK tried to contain civil violence by banning strikes on December 8 and outlawing the revolutionary government and the people's committees on December 12. Events spiraled quickly out of US control, however, when Koreans[who?] staged a massive strike on September 23, 1946 by 8,000 railway workers in Busan which quickly spread to other cities in the South. The Daegu uprising occurred on October 1, in which police attempts to control rioters caused the death of three student demonstrators and injuries to many others, sparking a mass counter-attack killing 38 policemen. It should be noted that at this time, the vast majority of members of the South Korean police force officers had been members of the Japanese police force during the colonial period.[citation needed] When the US forces sided with these former collaborators, it discredited the US in the eyes of many Koreans.[citation needed] Over in Yeongcheon, a police station came under attack by a 10,000-strong crowd on October 3, killing over 40 policemen and the county chief. Other attacks killed about 20 landlords and pro-Japanese officials. The US administration responded by declaring martial law, firing into crowds of demonstrators and killing an unknown number of people.[30]
In South Korea, an anti-trusteeship right wing group known as the Representative Democratic Council emerged, this group came to oppose these U.S. sponsored agreements.[citation needed] Because Koreans had suffered under Japanese colonization for 35 years, most Koreans opposed another period of foreign control. This opposition caused the U.S. to abandon the Soviet-supported Moscow Accords.[citation needed] The Americans did not want a communist government in South Korea, so they called for elections in all of Korea. Since the population of the South was double that of the North, the Soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose the election.[citation needed]
The government that emerged was led by anti-communist U.S.-educated strongman Syngman Rhee, a Korean who had been imprisoned by the Japanese as a young man and later fled to the United States.[31] The Soviets, in turn, approved and furthered the rise of a Communist government in the North. Bolstered by his history as an anti-Japanese fighter, his political skills, and his connections with the Soviet Union, Kim Il-sung rose to become leader of this new government and crushed any opposition to his rule by the summer of 1947.[17] In the south, those who supported Communism were driven into hiding in the hills, where they prepared for a guerrilla war against the American-supported government.[17]
South Korean President Syngman Rhee and North Korean General Secretary Kim Il-Sung were each intent on reuniting the peninsula under his own system. Partly because of numbers of Soviet tanks and heavy arms, the North Koreans were able to escalate ongoing border clashes and go on the offensive, while South Korea, with only limited American backing, had far fewer options. The American government believed at the time that the Communist bloc was a unified monolith, and that North Korea acted within this monolith as a pawn of the Soviet Union.
Rhee and Kim competed to reunite the peninsula which had been divided by foreign powers. Each regime used military attacks along the border throughout 1949 and early 1950.[32][33] Although Kim and his close associates believed in unifying Korea by force, Stalin was reluctant to embark on a course that might provoke a war with the United States.[34]
On January 12, 1950, United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a speech declaring that America's Pacific defense perimeter was made up of the Aleutians, Ryukyu, Japan, and the Philippines, implying that America might not fight over Korea. Acheson said Korea's defense would be the responsibility of the United Nations.[35]
In mid-1949, Kim Il-Sung pressed his case with Joseph Stalin that the time had come for a reunification of the Korean peninsula.[citation needed] Kim needed Soviet support to successfully execute an offensive far across a rugged, mountainous peninsula. Stalin, however, refused support, concerned with the relative lack of preparedness of the North Korean armed forces and with possible U.S. involvement.
Over the next year, the North Korean leadership molded its army into a relatively formidable offensive war machine modeled partly on a Soviet mechanized force but strengthened primarily by an influx of Korean veterans who had served with the Chinese People's Liberation Army since the 1930s.[citation needed] By early 1950 the possibility of reunification through insurgency seemed closed, and Rhee's regime was gaining in strength if not popularity. Kim was left with the sole option of conventional invasion if he wished to unify Korea and remove foreign control.[34] By 1950, the North Korean military was equipped with modern Soviet weaponry, and it enjoyed substantial advantages over the Southern forces in virtually every category of equipment. On January 30, 1950, Stalin, via telegram, informed Kim Il-Sung that he was willing to help Kim in his plan to unify Korea. In the discussions with Kim that followed, Stalin suggested that he wanted lead and said that a yearly minimum of 25,000 tons would help. After another visit by Kim to Moscow in March and April 1950, Stalin approved an attack.[31][36] On March 9, 1950, North Korea had agreed to send to the Soviet Union 9 tons of gold, 40 tons of silver, and 15,000 tons of monazite concentrate as payment for additional Soviet arms, ammunition and military technical equipment.[37]
Under the guise of a counter-attack, the North Korean Army struck in the pre-dawn hours of Sunday, June 25, 1950, crossing the 38th parallel behind a firestorm of artillery. The North claimed Republic of Korea Army (ROK) troops under the "bandit traitor Syngman Rhee" had crossed the border first, and that Rhee would be arrested and executed.[24]
The United Nations Security Council was convened in a few hours and passed the UNSC Resolution 82 condemning the North Korean aggression unanimously. The resolution was adopted mainly because the Soviet Union, a veto-wielding power, had been boycotting proceedings since January, in protest that the Republic of China (Taiwan) and not the People's Republic of China held a permanent seat on the council.[38]
Critics charged that the information on this resolution was based on U.S. sources referring to reports of the South Korean army. The DPRK was not invited to sit as a temporary member in the UN which some say violated Article 32 of the UN Charter. It was argued that the situation in Korea did not fall within the scope of the UN Charter since the initial clashes between North and South Korean forces would have to be classified as a civil war. Since the USSR representative decided to boycott the United Nations with the announced purpose of preventing action by the Security Council, the legality of UN action was challenged; legal scholars[who?] argued that unanimity among the five permanent members was required to take action on important matters. [39] [40][need quote]
At the outbreak of war, the North Korean Army was equipped with 150 Soviet-made tanks, about 40 YAK fighters, 70 attack bombers, 60 YAK trainers and 10 reconnaissance planes.[24] These aircraft were assigned to the invasion while 114 more planes were serving in North Korea. Their navy had several small warships, and launched attacks on the South Korean Navy. North Korea's most serious weakness was its lack of a reliable logistics system for moving supplies south as the army advanced, but the South Korean forces were weak and ill-equipped compared to the North Koreans. Thousands of Korean civilians running south were forced to hand-carry supplies, many of whom later died in North Korean air attacks.
The South Korean Army had 150,000 soldiers armed, trained, and equipped by the U.S. military, and as a force was deficient in armor and artillery. The South Korean military had only 40 tanks, 14 attack planes, and few anti-tank weapons. There were no large foreign combat units in the country when the war began, but there were large American forces stationed in nearby Japan.[24]
The North's well-planned attack with about 415,000 troops achieved surprise and quick successes.[24] North Korea attacked a number of key places including Kaesŏng, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu and Ongjin.
Within days, South Korean forces - outnumbered, outgunned, and often of dubious loyalty to the Southern regime - were in full retreat or defecting en masse to the North. As the ground attack continued, the North Korean Air Force conducted bombing of Kimpo Airport near Seoul. North Korean forces occupied Seoul on the afternoon of June 28.
However, North Korea's hope for a quick surrender by the Rhee government and the reunification of the peninsula evaporated when the United States and other foreign powers intervened with UN approval.
Despite the post-World War II demobilization of U.S. and allied forces, which caused serious supply problems for American troops in the region, the United States still had substantial forces in Japan to oppose the North Korean military. These American forces were under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Apart from British Commonwealth units, no other nation could supply sizable manpower.
On being told of the outbreak of large-scale hostilities in Korea, U.S. President Harry S. Truman ordered MacArthur to transfer munitions to the ROK Army, while using air cover to protect the evacuation of U.S. citizens. Truman did not agree with his advisors, who called for unilateral U.S. airstrikes against the North Korean forces, but did order the Seventh Fleet to protect Chiang Kai-Shek's Taiwan. The Nationalist government (confined to the island of Taiwan) asked to participate in the war. Their request was denied by the Americans, who felt that it would only encourage intervention by the People's Republic of China (PRC).[citation needed]
American soldiers in Korea
The first significant foreign military intervention was the American Task Force Smith, part of the U.S. Army's 24th Infantry Division based in Japan. On July 5, it fought for the first time at Osan and was defeated with heavy losses. The victorious North Korean forces advanced southwards, and the half-strength 24th Division was forced to retreat to Taejeon, which also fell to the Northern forces. Major General William F. Dean, commander of the division, was taken prisoner.
By August, the South Korean forces and the U.S. Eighth Army under General Walton Walker had been driven back into a small area in the southeast corner of the Korean peninsula around the city of Pusan. As the North Koreans advanced, they rounded up and killed civil servants. On August 20, MacArthur sent a message warning Kim Il Sung that he would be held responsible for further atrocities committed against UN troops.[31]
By September, only the area around Pusan - about 10 percent of the Korean peninsula - was still in coalition hands. With the aid of massive American supplies, air support, and additional reinforcements, the UN forces managed to stabilize a line along the Nakdong River. This desperate holding action became known in the United States as the Pusan Perimeter.
U.S. forces target rail cars south of Wonsan, North Korea, an east coast port city.
In the face of fierce North Korean attacks, the allied defense became a desperate battle called the Battle of Pusan Perimeter by Americans. However, the North Koreans failed to capture Pusan.
American air power arrived in force, flying 40 sorties per day in ground support actions, targeting North Korean forces.[citation needed] Strategic bombers (mostly B-29s based in Japan) closed most rail and road traffic by day, and destroyed 32 critical bridges necessary for the conduct of warfare. Trains used by military and civilians alike waited out the daylight hours in tunnels.
Throughout all parts of Korea, the American bombers knocked out the main supply dumps and eliminated oil refineries and seaports that handled imports to starve North Korean forces of ammunition and other martial supplies. Naval air power also attacked transportation choke points. The North Korean forces were already strung out over the peninsula, and the destruction caused by American bombers prevented needed supplies from reaching North Korean forces in the south.
Meanwhile, supply bases in Japan were pouring weapons and soldiers into Pusan. American tank battalions were rushed in from San Francisco; by late August, America had over 500 medium tanks in the Pusan perimeter. By early September, UN-ROK forces were decidedly more powerful and outnumbered the North Koreans by 180,000 to 100,000. At that point, they began a counterattack.[24]
South Korean and allied forces move north
Main article: Battle of Inchon
In the face of these overwhelming reinforcements, the North Korean forces found themselves undermanned and with weak logistical support. They also lacked the substantial naval and air support of the Americans. In order to alleviate pressure on the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur, as UN commander-in-chief for Korea, argued for an amphibious landing far behind the North Korean lines at Inchon (인천; 仁川).
The violent tides and strong enemy presence made this an extremely risky operation. MacArthur had started planning a few days after the war began, but he had been strongly opposed by the Pentagon. When he finally received permission, MacArthur activated the X Corps under General Edward Almond (comprising 70,000 troops of the 1st Marine Division and the Army's 7th Infantry Division and augmented by 8,600 Korean troops) and ordered them to land at Inchon in Operation Chromite. By the time of the attack on September 15, thanks to reconnaissance by guerrillas, misinformation and extensive shelling prior to the invasion, the North Korean military had few soldiers stationed in Inchon, so the U.S. forces met only light resistance when they landed.
The landing was a decisive victory, as X Corps rolled over the few defenders and threatened to trap the main North Korean army. MacArthur quickly recaptured Seoul. The North Koreans, almost cut off, rapidly retreated northwards; about 25,000 to 30,000 made it back.[41][42]
Main article: UN Offensive, 1950
The United Nations troops drove the North Koreans back past the 38th parallel.
Urban combat in Seoul, 1950, as U.S. Marines fight North Koreans holding the city
The UN forces crossed into North Korea in early October 1950. The U.S. X Corps made amphibious landings at Wonsan and Iwon, which had already been captured by South Korean forces advancing by land. The Eighth U.S. Army, along with the South Koreans, drove up the western side of Korea and captured Pyongyang on October 19. By the end of October, the North Korean Army was rapidly disintegrating, and the UN took 135,000 prisoners.
The UN offensive greatly concerned the Chinese, who worried that the UN forces would not stop at the Yalu River, the border between North Korea and China, and might extend their rollback policy into China.[citation needed] Many in the West, including General MacArthur, thought that spreading the war to China would be necessary and that since North Korean troops were being supplied by bases in China, those supply depots should be bombed. However, Truman and the other leaders disagreed, and MacArthur was ordered to be very cautious when approaching the Chinese border.
China warned American leaders through neutral diplomats that it would intervene to protect its national security. Truman regarded the warnings as "a bald attempt to blackmail the U.N." and did not take it seriously.[43] The Chinese Government argued that in making Japan its main war base in the Far East, launching an invasion against Korea and the Chinese province of Taiwan, and carrying out active intervention in other countries in Asia, the United States was building up a military encirclement of China. [44][verification needed] The Chinese Government reported that the United States violated Chinese airspace, bombing peaceful towns and villages.[citation needed]
On October 15, 1950, Truman went to Wake Island for a short, highly publicized meeting with MacArthur. MacArthur, saying he was speculating, saw little risk.[citation needed] MacArthur explained that the Chinese had lost their window of opportunity to help North Korea's invasion. He estimated the Chinese had 300,000 soldiers in Manchuria, with between 100,000-125,000 men along the Yalu; half could be brought across the Yalu. But the Chinese had no air force; hence, "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter."[41][45] MacArthur assumed that Chinese wished to avoid heavy casualties.[citation needed]
U.S. soldiers fire a 105 mm howitzer in an indirect fire mission on the Korean battle line, near Uirson in August 1950.
On October 8, 1950, the day after American troops crossed the 38th parallel, Chairman Mao Zedong issued the order to assemble the Chinese People's Volunteer Army. Seventy percent of the members of the PVA were Chinese regulars from the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Mao ordered the army to move to the Yalu River, ready to cross.[citation needed] Mao sought Soviet aid and saw intervention as essentially defensive: "If we allow the U.S. to occupy all of Korea... we must be prepared for the U.S. to declare... war with China," he told Stalin. Premier Zhou Enlai was sent to Moscow to add force to Mao's cabled arguments. Mao delayed while waiting for substantial Soviet help, postponing the planned attack from October 13 to October 19. However, Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no nearer than sixty miles (100 km) from the battlefront. The Soviet MiG-15s in PRC colors did pose a serious challenge to UN pilots. In one area nicknamed "MiG Alley" by UN forces, they held local air superiority against the American-made Lockheed F-80 Shooting Stars until the newer North American F-86 Sabres were deployed. The Chinese were angry at the limited extent of Soviet involvement, having assumed that they had been promised full scale air support.[citation needed]
The Chinese made contact with American troops on November 1, 1950. Thousands of Chinese had attacked from the north, northwest, and west against scattered U.S. and South Korean (Republic of Korea or ROK) units moving deep into North Korea. The Chinese seemed to come out of nowhere as they swarmed around the flanks and over the defensive positions of the surprised United Nations (UN) troops.[46]
The Chinese march and bivouac discipline also minimized any possible detection. In a well-documented instance, a Chinese army of three divisions marched on foot from An-tung in Manchuria, on the north side of the Yalu River, 286 miles (460 km) to its assembly area in North Korea, in the combat zone, in a period ranging from 16 to 19 days. One division of this army, marching at night over circuitous mountain roads, averaged 18 miles (29 km) per day for 18 days. The day's march began after dark at 19:00 and ended at 03:00 the next morning. Defense measures against aircraft were to be completed before 05:30. Every man, animal, and piece of equipment were to be concealed and camouflaged. During daylight, bivouac scouting parties moved ahead to select the next day's bivouac area. When Chinese units were compelled for any reason to march by day, they were under standing orders for every man to stop in his tracks and remain motionless if aircraft appeared overhead. Officers were empowered to shoot any man who violated this order.[24]
Map of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir
In late November, the Chinese struck in the west, along the Chongchon River, and completely overran several South Korean divisions and successfully landed a heavy blow to the flank of the remaining UN forces. The ensuing defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history.[47] In the east, at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, a 30,000 man unit from the U.S. 7th Infantry Division and U.S. Marine Corps was also unprepared for the Chinese tactics and was soon surrounded, though they eventually managed to escape the encirclement, albeit with over 15,000 casualties, after inflicting heavy[specify] casualties on six Chinese divisions.[48]
While the Chinese soldiers initially lacked heavy fire support and light infantry weapons, their tactics quickly adapted to this disadvantage, as explained by Bevin Alexander in his book How Wars Are Won:
"The usual method was to infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics."
Roy Appleman further clarified the initial Chinese tactics as:
"In the First Phase Offensive, highly skilled enemy light infantry troops had carried out the Chinese attacks, generally unaided by any weapons larger than mortars. Their attacks had demonstrated that the Chinese were well-trained disciplined fire fighters, and particularly adept at night fighting. They were masters of the art of camouflage. Their patrols were remarkably successful in locating the positions of the UN forces. They planned their attacks to get in the rear of these forces, cut them off from their escape and supply roads, and then send in frontal and flanking attacks to precipitate the battle. They also employed a tactic which they termed Hachi Shiki, which was a V-formation into which they allowed enemy forces to move; the sides of the V then closed around their enemy while another force moved below the mouth of the V to engage any forces attempting to relieve the trapped unit. Such were the tactics the Chinese used with great success at Onjong, Unsan, and Ch'osan but with only partial success at Pakch'on and the Ch'ongch'on bridgehead."[24]
The U.S. forces in northeast Korea, who had rushed forward with great speed only a few months earlier, were forced to race southwards with even greater speed and form a defensive perimeter around the port city of Hungnam, where a major evacuation was carried out in late December 1950. Facing complete defeat and surrender, 193 shiploads of American men and material were evacuated from Hungnam Harbor, and about 105,000 soldiers, 98,000 civilians, 17,500 vehicles, and 350,000 tons of supplies were shipped to Pusan in orderly fashion. As they left, the American forces blew up large portions of the city to deny its use to the communists, depriving many Korean civilians of shelter during the winter.[41][49]
Fighting across the 38th Parallel (early 1951)
B-26 Invaders bomb supply warehouses in Wonsan, North Korea, 1951.
In January 1951, the Chinese and North Korean forces struck again in their 3rd Phase Offensive (also known as the Chinese Winter Offensive). The Chinese repeated their previous tactics of mostly night attacks, with a stealthy approach from positions some distance from the front, followed by a rush with overwhelming numbers, and using trumpets or gongs both for communication and to disorient their foes. Against this the UN forces had no remedy, and their resistance crumbled; they retreated rapidly to the south (referred to by UN forces as the "bug-out"). Seoul was abandoned and was captured by communist forces on January 4, 1951.
To add to the Eighth Army's difficulties, General Walker was killed in an accident. He was replaced by a World War II airborne veteran, Lieutenant-General Matthew Ridgway, who took immediate steps to raise the morale and fighting spirit of the battered Eighth Army, which had fallen to low levels during its retreat. Nevertheless, the situation was so grim that MacArthur mentioned the use of atomic weapons against China, much to the alarm of America's allies.[citation needed]
UN forces continued to retreat until they had reached a line south of Suwon in the west and Wonju in the center, and north of Samchok in the east, where the front stabilized. The People's Volunteer Army had outrun its supply line and was forced to recoil. The Chinese could not go beyond Seoul because they were at the end of their logistics supply line[citation needed] - all food and ammunition had to be carried at night on foot or bicycle from the Yalu River.
In late January, finding the lines in front of his forces deserted, Ridgway ordered reconnaissance in force, which developed into a full-scale offensive, Operation Roundup. The operation was planned to proceed gradually, to make full use of the UN's superiority in firepower on the ground and in the air; by the time Roundup was completed in early February, UN forces had reached the Han River and re-captured Wonju.
The Chinese struck back in mid-February with their Fourth Phase Offensive, from Hoengsong in the center against IX Corps positions around Chipyong-ni. A short but desperate siege there fought by units of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, including the French Battalion, broke up the offensive; in this action, the UN learned how to deal with Chinese offensive tactics and be able to stand their ground.
Roundup was followed in the last two weeks of February 1951, with Operation Killer, by a revitalized Eighth Army, restored by Ridgway to fighting trim. This was a full-scale offensive across the front, again staged to maximize firepower and with the aim of destroying as much of the Chinese and North Korean armies as possible. By the end of Killer, I Corps had re-occupied all territory south of the Han, while IX Corps had captured Hoengsong.
On March 7, 1951, the Eighth Army pushed forward again, in Operation Ripper, and on March 14 they expelled the North Korean and Chinese troops from Seoul, the fourth time in a year the city had changed hands. Seoul was in utter ruins; its prewar population of 1.5 million had dropped to 200,000, with severe food shortages.[42]
MacArthur was removed from command by President Truman on April 11, 1951 for insubordination, setting off a firestorm of protest back in the U.S. The new supreme commander was Ridgway, who had managed to regroup UN forces for the series of effective counter-offensives. Command of Eighth Army passed to General James Van Fleet.
A Chinese soldier killed by U.S. Marines of 1st Marine Division during an attack on Hill 105 in 1951
A further series of attacks slowly drove back the communist forces, such as Operations Courageous and Tomahawk, a combined ground- and air-assault to trap communist forces between Kaesong and Seoul. UN forces continued to advance until they reached Line Kansas, some miles north of the 38th parallel.
The Chinese were far from beaten, however; In April 1951 they launched their Fifth Phase Offensive (also called the Chinese Spring Offensive). This was a major effort, involving three field armies (up to 700,000 men). The main blow fell on I Corps, but fierce resistance in battles at the Imjin River and Kapyong, blunted its impetus, and the Chinese were halted at a defensive line north of Seoul (referred to as the No-Name Line).
A further Communist offensive in the east against ROK and X Corps on May 15 also made initial gains, but by May 20 the attack had ground to a halt. Eighth Army counterattacked and by the end of May had regained Line Kansas.
The decision by UN forces to halt at Line Kansas, just north of the 38th Parallel, and not to persist in offensive action into North Korea, ushered in the period of stalemate which typified the remainder of the conflict.
Stalemate (July 1951 - July 1953)
The rest of the war involved little territory change, large-scale bombing of the north, and lengthy peace negotiations, which began on July 10, 1951 at Kaesong. Even during the peace negotiations, combat continued. For the South Korean and allied forces, the goal was to recapture all of South Korea before an agreement was reached in order to avoid loss of any territory. The Chinese and North Koreans attempted similar operations, and later in the war they undertook operations designed to test the resolve of the UN to continue the conflict. Principal military engagements in this period were the actions around the Punchbowl, in the east, such as Bloody Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge in 1951, the battles for Old Baldy, in the center, and the Hook, in the west, during 1952-53, Battle of Hill Eerie in 1952, and the battle for Pork Chop Hill in 1953.
Territory changed hands in the early part of the war until the front stabilized.
The peace negotiations went on for two years, first at Kaesong, and later at Panmunjon. A major issue of the negotiations was repatriation of POWs. The Communists agreed to voluntary repatriation but only if the majority would return to China or North Korea, something that did not occur. Since many refused to be repatriated to the communist North Korea and China, the war continued until the Communists eventually dropped this issue.[citation needed]
In October 1951, U.S. forces performed Operation Hudson Harbor intending to establish the capability to use nuclear weapons. Several B-29s conducted individual simulated bomb runs from Okinawa to North Korea, delivering "dummy" nuclear bombs or heavy conventional bombs; the operation was coordinated from Yokota Air Base in Japan. The battle exercise was intended to test "actual functioning of all activities which would be involved in an atomic strike, including weapons assembly and testing, leading, ground control of bomb aiming," and so on. The results indicated that nuclear bombs would be less effective than anticipated, because "timely identification of large masses of enemy troops was extremely rare."[50][51][52][53][54]
On November 29, 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict. With the UN's acceptance of India's proposal for a Korean armistice, a cease-fire was established on July 27, 1953, by which time the front line was back around the proximity of the 38th parallel, and so a demilitarized zone (DMZ) was established around it, presently defended by North Korean troops on one side and by South Korean, American and UN troops on the other. The DMZ runs north of the parallel towards the east, and to the south as it travels west. The site of the peace talks, Kaesong, the old capital of Korea, was part of the South before hostilities broke out but is currently a special city of the North. North Korea and the United States signed the Armistice Agreement, with Syngman Rhee refusing to sign.[55]
Memorials to those who died can be found in many countries such as this one in Pretoria for South African casualties.
The total numbers of casualties suffered by all parties involved may never be known. Each country's self-reported casualties were largely based upon troop movements, unit rosters, battle casualty reports, and medical records.
The Western numbers of Chinese and/or North Korean casulties are based primarily on battle reports of estimated casualties, interrogation of POWs and captured documents.
The Chinese estimation of UN casualties states that the joint declaration of the Chinese People's Volunteers and the Korean People's Army said their forces "eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries." The vague "eliminated" number gave no details to that of dead, wounded and captured. Regarding their own casualties, the same source said that "the Chinese People's Volunteers suffered 148,000 deaths altogether (among which 114,000 died in combat, incidents, and winterkill, 21,000 died after being hospitalized and 13,000 died from diseases); 380,000 were wounded and 29,000 missing, including 21,400 POWs (of whom 14,000 were sent to Taiwan, 7,110 were repatriated)." This same source concluded with these numbers for North Korean casualties, "the Korean People's Army had 290,000 casualties and 90,000 POWs; there was a large number of civilian deaths in the northern part of Korea, but no accurate figures were available."[56]
The casulties of the various UN forces are listed in the infobox, along with their estimates of Chinese and North Korean forces.
A Sherman tank fires its 76 mm gun at enemy bunkers on "Napalm Ridge," in support of the 8th ROK Division May 11, 1952.
In the initial invasion stage of the war, North Korean armor was able to establish dominance using their Soviet-supplied T-34-85 medium tanks. The WW2-vintage North Korean tanks were facing a South Korean force with no tanks of their own and few modern anti-tank weapons.[citation needed]
Comparing the earlier M9 bazooka to the later, larger M20 model
The South Korean army had anti-tank rockets but these were World War II vintage 2.36 inch (60 mm) M9 bazookas. The bazooka rocket could easily penetrate the 45 mm side armor of the T-34-85s at any range, but the bazooka was nonetheless found to be ineffective.[citation needed]
As U.S. forces arrived in Korea, they were accompanied only by light M24 Chaffee tanks which had been left in Japan for post-WWII occupation duties (heavier tanks would have torn up Japanese roads).[citation needed] These light tanks were ineffective against the larger North Korean T-34-85 tanks.[citation needed] U.S. 105 mm howitzers were used on at least one occasion to fire HEAT ammunition over open sights.[citation needed]
As the U.S. buildup continued, shipments of heavier American tanks such as the M4 Sherman, the M26 Pershing, the M46 Patton, and the British Centurion as well as American and Allied ground attack aircraft were able to reverse the Communists' tank advantage.[citation needed]
However, in contrast to World War II's heavy emphasis on armor, few open tank battles actually occurred over the course of the Korean War. The country's heavily forested and mountainous terrain, as well as the poor road network, meant that tanks were able to operate only in small groups.
Further information: MiG Alley and United States Air Force Aircraft of the Korean War
MiG-15 shot down by an F-86 over MiG Alley
Over the course of the war, at least 16 B-29 bombers were shot down by communist aircraft.
The Korean War was the last major war where propeller-powered fighters such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair and aircraft carrier-based Hawker Sea Fury and Supermarine Seafire were used. Turbojet fighter aircraft such as F-80s and F9F Panthers came to dominate the skies, overwhelming North Korea's propeller-driven Yakovlev Yak-9s and Lavochkin La-9s.
From 1950, North Koreans began flying the Soviet-made MiG-15 jet fighters, some of which were piloted by experienced Soviet Air Force pilots, a casus belli deliberately overlooked by the UN allied forces who were reluctant to engage in open war with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. At first, UN jet fighters, which also included Royal Australian Air Force Gloster Meteors, had some success, but the superior quality of the MiGs soon held sway over the first-generation jets used by the UN early in the war.[57]
In December 1950, the U.S. Air Force began using the F-86 Sabre. The MiG could fly higher, 50,000 vs. 42,000 feet (12,800 m), offering a distinct advantage at the start of combat. In level flight, their maximum speeds were comparable - about 660 mph (1,060 km/h). The MiG could climb better, while the Sabre could turn and dive better. For weapons, the MiG carried two 23 mm and one 37 mm cannon, compared to the Sabre's six .50 (12.7 mm) caliber machine guns. The American .50 caliber machine guns, while not packing the same punch, carried many more rounds and were aimed with a superior radar-ranging gunsight. The U.S. pilots also had the advantage of G-suits, which were used for the first time in this war. However, maintenance was an issue with the Sabre, and a large proportion of the UN air strength was grounded because of repairs during the war.[citation needed]
Even after the Air Force introduced the advanced F-86, its pilots often struggled against the jets piloted by elite Soviet pilots.[citation needed] The UN gradually gained air superiority over most of Korea that lasted until the end of the war - a decisive factor in helping the UN first advance into the north, and then resist the Chinese invasion of South Korea. The Chinese and North Koreans also had jet power, but their training and experience were limited. With the introduction of the F-86F in late 1952, the Soviet and American aircraft had virtually identical performance characteristics.
After the war, the USAF claimed 792 MiG-15s and 108 additional aircraft shot down by Sabres for the loss of 78 Sabres, a ratio in excess of 10:1.[citation needed] Some post-war research has been able to confirm only 379 victories, although the USAF continues to maintain its official credits and the debate is possibly irreconcilable.
The Soviets claimed about 1,100 air-to-air victories and 335 combat MiG losses at that time. China's official losses were 231 planes shot down in air-to-air combat (mostly MiG-15) and 168 other losses. The number of losses of the North Korean Air Force was not revealed. It is estimated that it lost about 200 aircraft in the first stage of the war, and another 70 aircraft after Chinese intervention. Soviet claims of 650 victories over the Sabres, and China's claims of another 211 F-86s, are considered to be exaggerated by the USAF. According to a recent U.S. publication, the number of F-86s ever present in the Korean peninsula during the war totaled only 674 and the total F-86 losses from all causes were about 230.[58]
Direct comparison of Sabre and MiG losses seem irrelevant, since primary targets for MiGs were heavy B-29 Superfortress bombers and ground-attack aircraft, while the primary targets for Sabres were MiG-15s.
By early 1951, the battle lines hardened and did not change much for the rest of the conflict. Throughout the summer and early fall of 1951, the outnumbered Sabres (as few as 44 at one point) of the 4th FIW continued to seek battle in MiG Alley near the Yalu against an enemy fielding as many as 500 planes, although only a fraction of these were operational and active. Following Colonel Harrison Thyng's famous message to the Pentagon, the 51st FIW reinforced the beleaguered 4th in December 1951.[59] For the next year and a half, the combat continued in generally the same fashion.
As North Korea had no significant naval presence, naval battles were infrequent. The only significant "battle" took place on July 2, 1950, between the U.S. cruiser Juneau, the British cruiser Jamaica, and the British frigate Black Swan, against four North Korean torpedo boats and two North Korean mortar gunboats. The torpedo boats attempted to attack but they were quickly destroyed by the Anglo-American fleet.[60] Numerous other communist ships were sunk during the war. Supply and ammunition ships were sunk by U.N. forces, denying use of the sea to the North Koreans. Juneau sunk several ammunition ships that had been present in her previous battle. The last instance of ship-to-ship battle in the war occurred at Inchon a few days before the battle, when the ROK ship PC 703 sank an enemy mine-laying craft and three other vessels in waters off the Yellow Sea port. For the remainder of the war, the role of the navies was to provide shore bombardment.[60]
Proposed use of nuclear weapons
Historian Bruce Cumings believes that Truman's allusions to the possibility of nuclear weapons use at a press conference on November 30, 1950 "was a threat based on contingency planning to use the bomb, rather than the faux pas so many assumed it to be."[61] Cumings argues that Truman sought MacArthur's removal primarily because he felt that MacArthur would not be reliable enough in a situation in which Washington had decided to use atomic weapons. Cumings notes that the same day as the press conference, orders were sent between top Air Forces generals for the Strategic Air Command to "augment its capacities and that this should include "atomic capabilities."[61] According to Cumings, the U.S. reached its closest point of using nuclear weapons during the war in April 1951. At the end of March, after the Chinese had moved large amounts of new forces near the Korean border, U.S. bomb loading pits at Kadena air base in Okinawa were made operational, and bombs were assembled there "lacking only the essential nuclear cores." On April 5, the Joint Chiefs of Staff released orders for immediate retaliatory attacks using atomic weapons against Manchurian bases in the event that large numbers of new Chinese troops entered into the fights or bombing attacks originated from those bases. On the same day, Truman gave his approval for transfer of nine Mark IV nuclear capsules "to the air force's Ninth Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons" and "the president signed an order to use them against Chinese and Korean targets." Remarking that the signed order was never sent, Cumings offers two reasons why this was the case. Firstly, Truman had used the crisis to convince the Joint Chiefs of the necessity of MacArthur's removal (announced April 10) and secondly, since the war was not thereafter escalated by the Chinese and Soviets, no necessity of using them presented itself.[61]
This viewpoint is contradicted however by the facts, as on November 30, 1950, President Truman at a press conference, remarked - no doubt extemporaneously - that the use of the atomic bomb was under active consideration, unintentionally implying to some observers that its use would be left to the discretion of General MacArthur. Even though subsequently he attempted to subdue the storm of protest and consternation which followed by pointing out that only he could authorize use of the atomic bomb and that he had not given such authorization, he could not avoid the real issue that any decision to use the bomb would be a United States, not a United Nations, decision. This led to a meeting December 4 with British Prime Minister Clement Attlee (who also represented the leaders of the other Commonwealth nations) and with French Premier René Pleven and Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, to discuss their concerns over the possible use of the atomic bomb. Indian Ambassador Pannikkar recalls, "that Truman announced that he was thinking of using the atom bomb in Korea. But the Chinese seemed totally unmoved by this threat.... The propaganda against American aggression was stepped up. The 'Aid Korea to resist America' campaign was made the slogan for increased production, greater national integration, and more rigid control over anti-national activities. One could not help feeling that Truman's threat came in very useful to the leaders of the revolution to enable them to keep up the tempo of their activities."[41][62][63]
Six days later, on December 6, 1950, after the Chinese intervention had forced the UN forces into a retreat from northern North Korea, General J. Lawton Collins (Army Chief of Staff), General MacArthur, Admiral C. Turner Joy and General George E. Stratemeyer, with key staff officers Hickey, Willoughby and Wright, met in Tokyo for a full discussion of what moves to take against the Chinese. They projected three hypothetical scenarios covering the next few weeks or months.[41]
In the first, they theorized that if the Chinese continued their all-out attack but with the UN Command forbidden to mount air attacks against China, no blockade of China set up, no reinforcements sent to Korea by Chiang Kai-shek, and that there would be no substantial increase in MacArthur's U.S. forces until April 1951 when four National Guard divisions might be sent, then the atomic bomb might be used in North Korea.[41]
Under the second scenario, the conferees assumed a situation in which the Chinese attack would continue but with an effective naval blockade of China put in effect, air reconnaissance and bombing of the Chinese mainland allowed, Chinese Nationalist forces exploited to the maximum, and the atomic bomb to be used if tactically appropriate. Given these conditions, General MacArthur said he should be directed to hold positions in Korea as far north as possible.[41]
Under the third scenario, in which the Chinese would agree not to cross south of the 38th parallel, MacArthur felt the United Nations should accept an armistice. The conditions of the armistice should preclude movement of North Korean and Chinese forces below the parallel. North Korean guerrillas should withdraw into their own territory with the Eighth Army remaining in positions covering the Seoul-Inch'on area, while X Corps pulled back to Pusan. An United Nations commission should supervise the implementation of armistice terms.[41]
So, while the U.S. had contemplated using the atomic bomb in Korea, Truman did not publicly threaten to use the bomb immediately after the Chinese intervention, but instead remarked about the consideration of using the bomb around 45 days later and only after UN forces were in retreat and had suffered some serious losses. MacArthur and other military leaders did not work on scenarios for using the bomb until after Truman's inadvertent remark during a press conference 6 days earlier. The decision not to use the atomic bomb also was not due to "a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate" but rather due to pressure from UN allies, notably Britain, the British Commonwealth, and France, who were concerned that if the United States became involved in a war with Communist China, American commitments to NATO would, through sheer necessity, go by the board. China then might have little difficulty in persuading the Soviets to move into western Europe, and without U.S. resistance to this aggression, they could take all of Europe at little cost.[41][64]
Main article: No Gun Ri massacre
Declassified U.S. document says:
"It is reported that large groups of civilians, either composed of or controlled by North Korean soldiers, are infiltrating U.S. positions. The army has requested we strafe all civilian refugee parties approaching our positions. To date, we have complied with the army request in this respect."
The document goes on to recommend establishing a policy revising the practice.
Prisoners massacred by retreating North Koreans in Daejeon, South Korea, October 1950
When parts of South Korea were under North Korean control, political killings, reportedly into the tens of thousands, took place in the cities and villages. The communists systematically killed former South Korean government officials and others deemed hostile to the communists, and such killing was intensified as North Koreans retreated from the South.[65]
South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, often with U.S. military knowledge and without trial, executed in turn tens of thousands of leftist inmates and alleged communist sympathizers in the incidents such as the massacre of the political prisoners from the Daejeon Prison and the bloody crackdown on the Cheju Uprising.[66] Gregory Henderson, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time, put the total figure at 100,000, and the bodies of those killed were often dumped into mass graves. Recently, the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission has received reports of more than 7,800 cases of civilian killings in 150 locations across the country where mass killings of civilians took place before and during the war.
Korean forces on both sides routinely rounded up and forcibly conscripted both males and females in their area of operations; thousands of them never returned home. According to the estimate by R. J. Rummel, a professor at the University of Hawaii, some 400,000 South Korean citizens were conscripted into the North Korean Army.[65] Before the September 1950 liberation of Seoul by the U.S. forces, an estimated 83,000 citizens of the city were taken away by retreating North Korean forces and disappeared, according to the South Korean government; their fate remains unknown.[67] North Korea insists the South Koreans defected voluntarily and were not held against their will.[68]
For a time, American troops were under orders to consider any Korean civilians on the battlefield approaching their position as hostile, and were instructed to "neutralize" them because of fears of infiltration. This led to the indiscriminate killings of hundreds of South Korean civilians by the U.S. military at places such as No Gun Ri, where many defenseless refugees - most of whom were women, children and old men - were shot at by the U.S. Army and may have been strafed by the U.S. Air Force. Recently, the U.S. admitted having a policy of strafing civilians in other places and times.[69][70]
U.S soldier taken prisoner and shot in the head with his hands tied behind his back
The North Koreans severely mistreated prisoners of war.[71] Historical accounts report frequent communist-imposed beatings, starvation, forced labor, summary executions, and death marches on UN prisoners.[72] North Korean forces committed several massacres of captured U.S. troops at places such as Hill 312 and Hill 303[73] on the Pusan Perimeter, and in and around Daejeon; this occurred during early "mopping-up" actions. A U.S. Congressional report alleges "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 crime (...) Approximately two-thirds of all American prisoners of war in Korea died due to war crimes."[74][75] The Chinese also used brainwashing "re-education" techniques on their prisoners.
The communists claimed having captured more than 70,000 South Korean soldiers, but they repatriated only 8,000. (In contrast, South Korea repatriated 76,000 North Korean POWs.)[76] In addition to some 12,000 deaths in captivity, some 50,000 South Korean POWs might have been press-ganged into the North Korean military.[65] According to the South Korean Ministry of Defense, by 2003 there were at least 300 POWs were still alive being held captive in North Korea. More than 30 South Korean prisoners managed to escape the North between 1994 and 2003, including a soldier captured in the war who escaped in 2003.[77] Pyongyang denied holding any POWs.
Main article: Legacy of the Korean War
The Korean War was the first armed confrontation of the Cold War and set the standard for many later conflicts. It created the idea of a limited war, where the two superpowers would fight in another country, forcing the people in that nation to suffer the bulk of the destruction and death involved in a war between such large nations. The superpowers avoided descending into an all-out war with one another, as well as the mutual use of nuclear weapons. It also expanded the Cold War, which to that point had mostly been concerned with Europe.
The Korean War damaged both Koreas heavily. Although South Korea stagnated economically in the decade following the war, it was later able to modernize and industrialize. In contrast, the North Korean economy recovered quickly after the war and until around 1975 surpassed that of South Korea.[citation needed] However, North Korea's economy eventually slowed. Today, the North Korean economy is virtually nonexistent while the South Korean economy is expanding. The CIA World Factbook estimates North Korea's GDP (PPP) to be $40 billion, which is a mere 3.34% of South Korea's $1.196 trillion GDP (PPP). The North's per capita income is $1,800, which is 7.35% of South Korea's $24,500 per capita income.
A heavily guarded demilitarized zone (DMZ) on the 38th parallel continues to divide the peninsula today. Anti-Communist and anti-North Korea sentiment still remain in South Korea today, and most South Koreans are against the North Korean government. However, a "Sunshine Policy" is used by the controlling party, the Uri Party. The Uri Party and President Roh, the South Korean president, have often disagreed with the United States in talks about North Korea. The Grand National Party (GNP), the Uri Party's main opposing party, maintains an anti-North Korea policy today.
The war affected other nations as well. Turkey's participation in the war helped it become a NATO member.[citation needed]
According to a September 7, 2007 NPR report, U.S. President George W. Bush stated that it is his administration's position that a formal peace treaty with North Korea would be possible only when the North abandoned its nuclear weapons programs.[78] According to Bush, "We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end - will happen when Kim verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons."[79] Some have characterized this as a reversal of Bush's stated policy of regime change with respect to North Korea.[80]
At the second Inter-Korean Summit in October 2007, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il signed a joint declaration calling for international talks towards a peace treaty formally ending the war.[81]
Pablo Picasso's Massacre in Korea (1951; in the Musée Picasso, Paris)
Artist Pablo Picasso's painting Massacre in Korea (1951) depicted violence against civilians during the Korean War. By some accounts, killing of civilians by U.S. forces in Shinchun, Hwanghae Province was the motive of the painting.[citation needed] Ha Jin's War Trash contains a vivid description of the beginning of the war from the point of view of a Chinese soldier and of the fear of retribution Chinese POWs felt from other Chinese prisoners if they were suspected of being unsympathetic to communism or to the war.
Unlike World War II, there are relatively few Western feature films depicting the Korean War.


text:
[View the story "Immigration plan: What the House thinks about it" on Storify]
Immigration plan: What the House thinks about it
Storified by Digital First Media· Tue, Jan 29 2013 07:11:31
A bipartisan group of senators revealed the broad outlines of a comprehensive immigration overhaul Monday. If a bill makes it through the Senate, though, it would face a rough road in the House.
Here's what some members of the House said about the plan:
Many House Democrats were generally supportive of the Senate plan.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
"We have not signed on the dotted line, and some important details are yet to be resolved, but what we have now is momentum. Momentum, plus encouragement from the American people, the president, and immigrant and Latino communities, will get an immigration bill across the finish line this year."
"The current immigration system has long been unacceptable for economic, security and humanitarian reasons. I'm encouraged by the cooperation that has gone into the senators' framework, which deals with our most important immigration challenges."
Though some worried about how Republicans would react.
Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
"As long as we can get a critical mass – I don't expect every single Republican to join with us – but as long as we can get a critical mass I think we can get this done. The House Democrats want to find solutions, want to find the right kind of compromise. We need someone to negotiate with, and as long as Republicans will come to the table and reject this 'my way or no way' negotiating strategy that they have up to now, maybe we can produce a compromise that makes sense."
Some House Republicans didn't like the path to citizenship.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, member of a key immigration subcommittee
"When you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration. By granting amnesty, the Senate proposal actually compounds the problem by encouraging more illegal immigration."
"Extending amnesty to those who came here illegally or overstayed their visas is dangerous waters. We are a nation of laws, and I will evaluate any proposal through that matrix."
Still, some key Republicans sounded positive.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
"Eight Senators have now agreed to four basic legislative pillars or immigration policy principles. They have 52 more Senators and 218 House Members to convince after they put their plan on paper in the form of a bill. I agree with most of the language in the very broad guidelines."
Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho
"A special pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants is inconsistent with our shared belief in respect for the law. We cannot expect others to truly respect our laws if we do not have a consistent set of principles, so I will evaluate the proposed 'tough but fair' provision regarding citizenship."
While others left the door open to other proposals.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chair of the immigration subcommittee
"The current immigration system is broken and inspires confidence in no one. So, proposals which balance the humanity which defines us as a people with respect for the rule of law which defines us as a republic are welcome."
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
"The American people and members of Congress have a lot of questions about how this would work, what it would cost, and how it will prevent illegal immigration in the future."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Requirements for electrical installations are noted in Art. 110. Unfortunately, many of these are overlooked or misunderstood in the typical facility.
While your electrical distributor is no doubt a valuable asset, it's not true that everything they sell is "Code-compliant" under all conditions of use. It's up to you to understand the application and judge whether the equipment is suitable. Section 110.3 lists eight factors to consider.
Sometimes, it's tempting to save money and get "creative" with the components you have on hand. However, custom modifications of an electrical component will typically void its listing and labeling for any use. A certified testing lab hasn't tested it with that particular modification. This kind of "cost savings" is prohibited by 110.3(B). If you count the labor costs, it's also likely that simply purchasing the correct component costs less than doing the modification work.
You can use only the wiring methods that are included in the NEC [110.8]. The term "wiring method" includes raceways, each type of which has its own Article in Chapter 3. An example of a violation is using a pipe nipple in a run of rigid metal conduit.
Breakers must do more than just protect the wiring. The NEC requires they clear a fault without extensive damage to the equipment [110.10].


text:
Solar Generators; Control Valve Boosters
Ask the Experts is moderated by Béla Lipták (firstname.lastname@example.com), editor of the Instrument Engineers Handbook . In this column, he and his co-authors welcome questions concerning process measurement and control or optimization, but ask that in order to eliminate misunderstandings, the process control-related questions be accompanied by P&ID sketches using ISA symbols.
QUESTION: I am designing a small organic Rankine cycle unit to produce about 1.2 kilowatts of electrical power. The working fluid is refrigerant R-134a. The heat source is a tank of solar heated water at about 150 °F. and the heat sink is the basin water in a swamp cooler or small cooling tower that will be at about 65 °F to 75 °F.
A copper coil immersed in the solar-heated water tank will serve as the boiler, and the condenser will either be a brazed plate heat exchanger or a copper coil immersed in the cooling tower or swamp cooler basin.
Heat-pump-assisted 1.2 KW solar electricity generator for a private
An automotive scroll compressor will be converted to serve as the expander by removing the compressor's check valve. The turbine will be shaft coupled to an alternator that will produce electricity. The pump will probably be a DC- electric motor-driven gear pump.
I am aware that turbines are typically speed controlled, and boilers are usually pressure controlled.
My question is how do I control this system? I have thought of two approaches:
- The boiler could be fitted with a pressure transducer that would serve as an input to a PID process controller. The PID controller would issue a 4-20 mA command signal to a device that would convert the signal to a pulse width modulated power output that would vary the gear pump's motor speed to maintain constant boiler pressure.
- The shaft of the scroll expander could be fitted with a speed sensor that serves as the input to a PID controller. The PID controller would issue a 4-20 mA command signal to a device that would convert the 4-20 mA command signal to a pulse width modulated power output that would vary the gear pump's motor speed to maintain constant expander speed.
In the first case, the boiler pressure would be controlled, but the expander speed would be uncontrolled. In the second case, the expander speed would be controlled, but the boiler pressure would be uncontrolled.
I'm not very comfortable with either case. Can you suggest the proper control solution?
Larry Bingham
Answer: Einstein said, "The future cannot be guided by the thinking of the past." This also holds true for our profession. The control requirement of renewable energy processes requires new control strategies. So, while your plan to make your own electricity from solar source is good, I would not use either of your schemes, but would do the following.
The main variable in your process is the insolation. The changes in insolation are reflected by the temperature of the solar hot water. Therefore, a simple control scheme (Figure 1) is to look at both the temperature difference between the solar collector (T1) and the solar water tank (T2) and start the water pump (P1) when T1 > T2 by over, say, 20 °C and stop it when it drops to 10 °C using a differential thermostat ΔTC-1.
The same holds true for the Rankine cycle refrigerant pump (P2). Because the condenser (swamp) temperature is more or less constant, I would not bother with detecting the ΔT and would just look at the boiler (water tank – T2) temperature and keep P2 running whenever the T2 temperature is above 60 °C (140 °F), bringing P2 to full speed as T2 reaches, say 70 °C, controlled by TC-2.
If you want to maximize the efficiency of the system, you can do better than the above, but such an approach costs more, and I do not think it is justified. In that case, the measured variable would be the ΔT between the boiler and condenser waters (both variables). You would prepare a three-dimensional plot, where the coordinates are ΔT, refrigerant flow and net electricity production. The net electricity produced is the difference between the power generated minus pumping power invested. This three-dimensional surface will have a maximum value for each ΔT. You would read the flow corresponding to that maximum and set the pump speed to match it. With a large system (a geothermal power plant using ground water or a lake as its heat source), this might make sense. You might get another 10% more power, but with your system (where the basin temperature is relatively constant and the system is small),the effort required does not pay.
Béla Lipták
QUESTION: How do you select a suitable volume booster for a cylinder actuator + positioner for double-acting/ spring-return cylinder actuators? Is it possible to have an example of the selection process?
Answer: The vendor should know what is really needed. If this is a new installation, I would purchase the system assembled and tested. If a retrofit, I would ask the vendor representative to make a recommendation, but use common sense to check it. In any event, be certain that the air supply is adequate. If a large actuator is involved, the compressed air source can easily limit the actuator speed. I have seen large air tanks installed near large valves in critical service, in this case, a large air compressor anti-surge valve.
Cullen Langford
Answer: In my experience, inserting a booster between a positioner and valve actuator introduces dead band into the loop, resulting in a limit cycle when controlling pressure and liquid level. I do not recommend this practice.
Join the discussion
We welcome your thoughtful comments.
All comments will display your user name.
Want to participate in the discussion?Register for free
Log in for complete access.
No one has commented on this page yet.
RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments


text:
Seedorf's Milan job is safe, insists Berlusconi
Clarence Seedorf's job at Milan is safe despite a poor run of results, club president Silvio Berlusconi has revealed.
Seedorf, who took over at Milan in January, has overseen a slump in form as the Serie A giants have lost five of their last six matches in all competitions.
Fan protests preceded Sunday's 4-2 home loss to Parma as ex-Milan forward Antonio Cassano bagged a double for the visitors.
Milan were also dumped out of the UEFA Champions League by Atletico Madrid last week and the club's supporters have lost patience.
Seedorf and a number of key players met with Ultras leaders after Sunday's defeat in a bid to calm tensions and Berlusconi has now given former Milan midfielder Seedorf a vote of confidence.
Berlusconi told SkySport24: "Seedorf is not up for debate.
"He will still be the Milan coach next year. Milan are a badly built team."
Milan sit 11th in the Serie A table, a whopping 40 points behind leaders Juventus and 12 points behind city rivals Inter - who occupy fifth spot.


text:
2007-10-31 / Library
At the Library...
Copiague 50 Deauville Blvd. 631-691-1111 •On Friday, November 9, 1 to 3 p.m.., for adults over the age of 18, The Suffolk County Visiting Nurse Service will be at the Library to administer flu shots. Medicare Part B and Medicaid will be accepted or a $35 check. Call 631-261-7200 for more information.
You must be an online subscriber to view this story.


text:
The eternal problem with Tomorrowland is that the commonplace reality of today inevitably catches up to and ultimately surpasses the ultramodern imagined future of yesterday.
Disneyland's forward-looking land of tomorrow has seen many evolutions since opening day in 1955. Through the years, there have been major expansions in 1959 (Monorail), 1977 (Space Mountain) and 1986 (Star Tours) as well as complete makeovers in 1967 (New Tomorrowland) and 1998 (New New Tomorrowland).
The current iteration has a retro-futuristic science fiction fantasy theme that was designed to be a bit more timeless but nonetheless is showing its age.
Photos: Top 10 Tomorrowland rides of the past
With the release of "Iron Man 3" and plans for "Star Wars" and "Tron" sequels in the works, I thought it would be a good time to do a bit of "blue sky" dreaming about what Walt Disney Imagineering might have in mind for the New New New Tomorrowland.
What follows is some speculation mixed with a healthy dose of conjecture blended with a heaping helping of armchair imagineering. Take it for what it's worth.
During the Bob Iger era, Disney has become a company of brands - from Pixar to Marvel to Star Wars. And the Mouse has a ton of underused intellectual properties - such as Iron Man, Tron and Wall-E- that would fit perfectly in any Tomorrowland reboot.
Using that logic, Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters and Star Tours are a lock for the foreseeable future while conceivably everything else in and around Tomorrowland is potentially in play. That means Innoventions, Astro Orbiter, Captain EO, Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, Autopia and even the venerable Space Mountain could be scrapped or modified to make way for a reimagined land. And then there's the queue area next to Star Tours, the abandoned Rocket Rods track and even some backstage acreage. All in all, that's quite a bit of real estate to work with.
So let's take each of the brands one at a time and see how they might fit into a renovated Tomorrowland.
Star Wars
Disneyland has been surveying annual passholders about their interest in a Star Wars-themed land, according to SlashFilm.
The logical location for such a land would be behind Star Tours in a backstage area between Space Mountain and Main Street USA, a spot that has been mentioned as a possible home for other mini-lands in the past.
A Star Wars mini-land is reportedly in the design phase for Disneyland Paris and the topic of rampant speculation at Disney's Hollywood Studios in Florida.
Redd Rockett's Pizza Port in Disneyland would be perfect place for a Mos Eisley Cantina complete with an audio-animatronic alien jazz band.
Iron Man
I have to admit I did a double take when I first saw a tweet announcing plans for the Iron Man Tech: Presented by Stark Industries exhibit at Disneyland's Innoventions building. For a brief, fleeting moment I thought Disney had finally announced the long-rumored Iron Man ride. Instead what we got was a walk-through of movie sets and props that feels like the future queue of the long-rumored E-Ticket attraction.
We had been wondering for a while where Disney would first introduce Marvel characters into the parks, but this feels like a baby step.
Hong Kong Disneyland will reportedly get the first Marvel-themed land, according to the China edition of the Wall Street Journal.
Fans have been dreaming of a Tron LightCycle ride since the original film came out in 1982. The 2010 release of "Tron: Legacy" only reignited the wishful thinking.
It seems like a fairly foregone conclusion at this point that a LightCycle ride will be part of Shanghai Disneyland on opening day - although Disney has been decidedly tight-lipped about plans for the new Chinese park.
That has naturally led to speculation about a Tron-themed Vekoma Motorbike coaster on the old PeopleMover/Rocket Rods track at Disneyland. I would have to imagine the same problems that plagued Rocket Rods would have to be addressed before a LightCycle coaster was ever added to the elevated track.
The heartfelt Pixar film about a trash-compacting robot in the distant future of 2805 seems like a natural fit for Tomorrowland without the worry of a troublesome expiration date.
Not too long ago the rumor mill churned out a gem of an idea for a Wall-E dark ride at the Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland in Florida. A carbon copy would fit nicely in any number of spaces at Disneyland.
For now, all these ideas remain pipe dreams and pure speculation until Disneyland makes an official announcement about the fate of Tomorrowland and sticks a shovel in the ground. A project as massive as a reimagined land could take years to execute and might happen all at once, in phases or not at all. Until then, we can only wait and wonder what the future holds for the New New New Tomorrowland.
Related theme park stories and photo galleries
Disneyland: Fantasy Faire | Mickey & the Magical Map
Universal Studios Hollywood: Wizarding World of Harry Potter
Six Flags Magic Mountain: Full Throttle
Knott's Berry Farm: Timber Mountain | Coast Rider
SeaWorld San Diego: Aquatica
U.S. parks: Top 13 for 2013 | Disney World | Cedar Point | Top 10 water coasters
International parks: Top 13 for 2013 | Shanghai Disneyland | Disneyland Paris | Top 20 water parks
> Follow the Los Angeles Times Funland theme park blog on Twitter, Facebook and Google+


text:
Editor's Note: The generation was classed as PC, Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. If we included handhelds, these lists would never have been finished...
Halo 3
The Master Chief is an incredibly boring character and those Warthogs drive really badly, but Halo 3 is one of the best games I've ever played - it was the game that really introduced me to the world of Xbox Live multiplayer. I remember a Christmas afternoon online and how strange it felt to be talking into a headset rather than relying on a keyboard for my hilarious smack talk.
Friends were made, enemies were publicly shamed, and all in all it was a very different way of playing video games for a young Christopher Bratt. Despite some issues with matchmaking, it proved a fantastic example of why Xbox Live could legitimately justify a subscription fee in my eyes. I still see Halo 3 as having one of the best multiplayer infrastructures on the console in terms of allowing you to play with your friends with ease.
Setting up lobbies was straightforward enough, but I loved that the game allowed you to bring in players locally and take them into online matches with you - something few games tend to support. My college days were spent well, with a group of hardened Halo veterans in the never-ending quest for the next Skill Rank.
Oh they were the best of times. The very best of times.
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Ten hours into a campaign and everything goes south. Did I move in too quickly? Or have I just been screwed over by XCOM's buggy spawning system once again? Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter anymore. My veteran soldiers are all dead, the Council has given up on me, and there's no coming back from this. Ten hours into a campaign and it's game over.
It took me around 15 attempts to complete Enemy Unknown on Classic Ironman and every single time I named my soldiers, customised their armour, grew attached to them and watched them get torn apart one by one. It's emotionally devastating and all kinds of frustrating at times, but man, what a ride.
After playing so many games which are terrified that you won't succeed, it was a wonderful change in pace to play one that properly punished you for making mistakes. Decisions felt important and the tension wasn't scripted well in advance.
XCOM, I'm sorry I didn't know you before, but I sure am glad that you're back.
I've heard a lot of people compare Minecraft to playing with a big box of Lego. That's a fairly decent way of describing the appeal of the game, but it doesn't really do it justice in my mind.
For me, it's that mentality but you can play it with people from all over the world with the click of a button. Then, you can probably have a solid crack at recreating your house at a 1:1 scale, or a castle, or y'know... King's Landing if you've got a few weeks...
It's a game about imagination and teamwork and logging into your friend's server to hide TNT underneath their favourite buildings. It's a game that you can play with your best mate, or an architect, or your nan. It's a game that has changed independent game development forever and showed that even a very small team can make something unbelievably successful with the right idea in mind.
I may have grown up with games like Mario, Pokémon and Final Fantasy (which explains a lot), but many of this generation will likely remember Minecraft as the game of their childhood. How freaking cool is that?
Read Editor-In-Chief Simon Miller's Games of the Generation here.
Read Video Production Editor Matt Lees' Games of the Generation here.
Read Editorial Director Tom Orry's Games of the Generation here.
Read News Editor James Orry's Games of the Generation here.
Read Reviews and Features Editor Steve Burns' Games of the Generation here.
Read Deputy News Editor Dave Scammell's Games of the Generation here.


text:
The recent events in Newtown, Conn., are shaping school safety discussions in Delaware County.
The recent events in Newtown, Conn., are shaping school safety discussions in Delaware County.
The Delaware school board has begun discussions as the district prepares to ramp up its safety procedures in light of last month's shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Amid the discussion of building renovations and additions to be funded as part of the bond issue the district hopes to pass in May, the board has talked about incorporating a redesign of all building entrances.
"Safety is something we were already discussing, but it has gained more emphasis after the horrible incidents in Connecticut," said Superintendent Paul Craft.
Craft said each building is unique, so there will be several different solutions as to how each entrance will be redesigned.
"Some may see a buzzer system and some may have an observed area that all guests must pass through before receiving admittance into the building," he said.
In Montpelier, Ohio, the local school board voted to arm their custodial workers with guns. Some have suggested teachers should carry guns in schools, but Craft said that idea is not being considered by the district.
"My preference is that if we are to expand our armed presence in the buildings, that they would be licensed police officers or the equivalent," he said.
The district currently has two school resource officers who monitor the schools. Both are regular Delaware police officers who are armed.
Craft said the officers have been answering teachers' questions about safety procedures and drills.
He said after the shooting in Sandy Hook, he received several dozen emails with a wide range of opinions.
"I had people saying, 'never bring guns into any of the schools' to 'all your teachers should be armed'," he said.
Craft said the board and the city are continuing to discuss school safety and are allowing the voices of constituents to contribute to their discussions.
A public forum and discussion about school safety will be on the agenda at a combined Delaware City Council and school board meeting set for 7 p.m. Jan. 28 at Delaware City Hall, 70 N. Union St.
"School safety is still an area that we want to continue to discuss in a public-forum setting," Craft said.
During the Jan. 14 meeting of the Big Walnut school board, Assistant Superintendent Gary Barber offered an update on security measures, some taken since the Connecticut shooting.
"I think the one thing we've done a good job this (school) year is being hyper-vigilant, even before the tragedy in Connecticut," Barber said.
The district has revised its crisis plans, updated its building plans, held practice drills and met with law enforcement and fire officials to go over various emergency scenarios.
Since the shootings, Superintendent Steve Mazzi and other officials have instituted a few changes.
Special phones have been installed at the high school, the intermediate school, and at Big Walnut and Souders elementary schools.
These phones allow communication with the school office and also take photos of people seeking access to locked main doors. The phones and installation cost about $2,300 each.
The district will spend about $1,900 this year to use the services of the Safe School Helpline, which will accept anonymous calls 24/7 related to bullying, drugs and other threats to the schools.
In addition, an architect has reviewed the main entrances to those four schools to see if different configurations in the older buildings would make access to them more secure. No decisions have been made.
"We're just trying to balance between making our schools warm and secure and Fort Knox," Barber said.


text:
Here's what I learned about stock car racing last night: It requires a lot of shuttle runs, garage floors are never dirty, and the people who do it live in gigantic stainless steel kitchens (which are also never dirty.)
I was really looking forward to HBO's reality mini-series about NASCAR's reigning four-time champion—if you missed it, the whole first episode is online—because I honestly believed I would get something useful out of it. Last fall's "Hard Knocks" series about the Cincinnati Bengals was riveting because I really felt I learned something about football and the way a team functions. Even their "24/7" boxing documentaries, which don't dwell very long on the science of boxing, at least you give some insight into the insane dedication required to put your body through a championship fight. But was is the point of "Road To Daytona"?
The show is clearly meant to be a hand-holding introduction for people who know little-to-nothing about auto racing, but what exactly are they getting out of it? Jimmie Johnson is the best. Okay, but what makes him better than Jeff Gordon? Why do you need 25 men on a race car team? What the hell does that left wheel carrier do? Why does it take 12 seconds to do a pit stop? Can't you do it in six? What does that switch do? How do they keep their floors so damn clean?
Real NASCAR fans must have been bored to tears. If they were hoping for a behind-the-scenes look at Johnson's personal life, they got none of that. He mixes his own protein shakes! He knows how to cook at least one meal from scratch! His wife is a former model! Just like you and me!
Unlike those previous HBO shows, where cameramen move silently among the participants, all the talking was done in controlled interviews. You're not watching a story. It's being told to you. There was more discussion about cookies than there was about engines. The biggest public relations problem for the sport is that so many people just don't get it. They don't believe these guys are athletes and they don't see the difference between driving in a circle for three hours and driving to work on the turnpike. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about cars and even I have trouble believing it sometimes. But nothing in the first episode would dispel the myth that drivers are as interchangeable as spark plugs.
This was a golden opportunity to explain to "Other America" how auto racing works and, so far, they've squandered it. I'm not optimistic that another 90 minutes will get the job done.


text:
Latest Whatsap Status 2018 Siste Whatsapp Status
Communication | 5.6MB | Update: 2018-03-15 | Version: 4.3 | Requires: Android3.0 or later
Communication | 5.6MB | Update: 2018-03-15 | Version: 4.3 | Requires: Android3.0 or later
Sorry, this app is now not available to download. Download 9Apps to find more similar apps and amazing coupon information.
Hot applications make large number of downloads. 10,000+ users downloaded Latest Whatsap Status 2018 Siste Whatsapp Status latest version on 9Apps for free every week! You can enjoy it by use in your own phone. This hot app was released on 2017-10-22. Why not download and play it now?
Most recent Status contain the most recent status message.
This Application Gives Client all New And Most recent Status.
This Application Is 100% disconnected, so no need of web.
Client can impart status and set status to this application.
This application secured all import status message classes like
- Valentines Status
- New Year Status
- Love Status
- Sweet Status
- Insane Status
- Separate Status
- Sentimental Status
- Dismal Status
- Fb Status
- Status for Whatsapp
- Companions Status
- Engagement Status
- Birth Status
- Shrewd Status
- Commemoration Status
- Christmas Status
- Grimy Status
- Diwali Status
- Eid Status
- Enthusiastic Status
- Exam Status
- fourteenth August and 26th January Status
- Sympathy Status
- Jokes
- Pregnancy Status
- Status Quotes
- Fathers Day Status
- Music Status
- Clever Status
- Great Morning Status
- Holi Status
- Islam Status
- Children Status
- Kiss Status
- Miss You Status
- Mother Day Status
- Inconsiderate Status
- Valentines Status
Squash Status
Charming Status
Cool SMS
Brave Status
Tolerable Status
Messy Status
Enthusiastic Status
Engagement Status
Exam Status
Tease Status
Young ladies and Young men Status
Good Fortunes Status
Great morning Status
Great night Status
Hi Status
Affront Status
Kiss Status
Life Status
Love Status
Missing You Status
Hindi Love Status,
Companionship status for whatsapp,
Entertaining whatsapp Status,
Dismal status in Hindi,
Sentimental whatsapp Status,
Moving status in Hindi,
Great Morning status,
Great Night Status,
Demeanor status in Hindi,
Status for whatsapp gatherings,
Birthday Status,
Separate Status Hindi,
Celebrations welcoming status,
Love Message Masala,
Love SMS Status,
Propose Day SMS 18
Chocolate Day SMS 18
Teddy Day SMS 18
Guarantee Day SMS 18
Valentine's Day SMS 18
Embrace Day SMS 18
Kiss Day SMS 18
Multifaceted nuance Jokes
Clever Jokes
Motivational Status
Underhanded Status
Decent Status
Connections Status
Sentimental Status
Inconsiderate Status
Tragic Status
Valentine Status
New Year Status
Application contains Celebration Status and Shayari likewise like Holi Status, Christmas, Valentine Status and Shayari.
Perhaps it is time to have a fresh look at the size of Application installation package. This top Communication app is just 3.2M. what's far more important is that even this application is very small, it offers you rich user experience compare to other big application. 9Apps also provides other hot Communication appsgames for android mobile phone. 9Apps - The powerful all-in-one android phone manager, helps you to manage your android phone more convenient.


text:
Kelly is great but the dildos spoil it
Shibari is a Japanese word for a uniquely Japanese style of very sexually-oriented rope bondage. "I live my fantasies as they come to me," says Kelly, a very intelligent and well-read girl. Her first appearance on XLGirls.com was a hardcore XXX scene with a big-cock dude and she's one of the stars of the movie Plush Control. "I'm very open about my sexuality, so long as it's not hurtful, I'm open to trying it at least once." What is sexy to Kelly? "Intelligence is sexy. I really believe in the fact that the brain is the sexiest organ. The flirting, the courting, all of that, it's just not fun without some intelligence behind the moves, the words...I always get turned on by a sexy, smart guy. I guess you could say that I'm into confident men. But cockiness is definitely not sexy. I like the man to make the first move. But I can be impatient, so if he doesn't, sometimes I do things to that get him to initiate things. I'd rather a man just take me by the hand and whisk me away!"
Date: November 25th, 2008
Duration: 80


text:
Mabel M. Rodriguez, PhD, LCSW
Assistant Professor
PhD, Barry University, 2014.
MSW, Florida International University, 1992.
BSW, Indiana University, 1990.
Areas of Interest
- Ethics and Values
- Mental Health
- Diversity
Mabel M. Rodriguez has been a member of the Barry University School of Social Work since 2002 serving in a variety of capacities including Assistant Director of Field Education, Director of Admissions and Enrollment, and currently as a faculty member.
Dr. Rodriguez's professional interests include values and ethics, mental health, and diversity. She has twelve years of experience in direct clinical practice with individuals, families, and groups while having worked in a myriad of settings; including hospitals, inpatient psychiatric units, partial hospitalization programs, day treatment programs, skilled nursing facilities, and private practice.
Dr. Rodriguez is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker in the state of Florida and is a Registered Clinical Supervisor with the state of Florida. Dr. Rodriguez is active in the professional community and has served two years as an executive committee member for the board of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Youth Alliance. She has presented at local, state, and national conferences in the areas of professional values and ethics, advance directives, diversity, medical errors, and the invisibility of bisexual persons. Dr. Rodriguez is a member of CSWE.


text:
Contact us 24/7: 1 800 638680
View product details
Zoom In
Need a second opinion? Ask your personal shopper:
Need a second opinion? Ask your personal shopper:
GET EXPERT ADVICE Need a second opinion? Ask your personal shopper:
- - Fits true to size, take your normal size
- - Low-rise briefs
- - Model is 177cm / 5'10", bra size 32C and is wearing a UK size 10
Melissa Odabash's 'Martinique' bikini has been crafted in Italy from an incredibly soft stretch fabric. The twisted bandeau bikini top has molded cups for a smooth silhouette and boned sides for added support. Adjust the tie-fastening back for a personalized fit, adding the the optional halterneck straps to keep it secure when swimming.
Wear it with: Melissa Odabash Bikini, Chloé Sunglasses.
- - Baby-pink stretch-polyamide
- - Ties at back
- - 86% polyamide, 14% elastane
- - Hand wash
- - Designer color: Rose
- - Lotion, sunscreen, oil and chlorine can cause discoloration of this item; this is not a manufacturing defect. Please follow care instructions to keep your swimwear in the best condition
- - Made in Italy
Product Code: 833829
Shop more:
For alternative suggestions, contact our Fashion Consultants
Help & Advice
Product Code: 833829