Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Taking away Kim Yong Un's toys

  1. Top | #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Back in the Kingdom
    Posts
    194
    Archived
    730
    Total Posts
    924
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by funinspace View Post
    A better solution IMPOV, in the world of 'if I were king', would be to privately negotiate with China. And offer to remove all US forces from the peninsula if they topple the Kim dynasty and make sure their nuclear weapons programs are all removed.
    That is IMO the safest solution provided China would agree to a Korean reunification and full autonomy after the coup.
    Not the installation of a kind of puppet regime under chinese control (like the actual Iraqi government for example)
    This would certainly be the cheapest solution for the US and probably the best for the vast majority of the NK people

  2. Top | #12
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    16,481
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,188
    Rep Power
    61
    You lost me at:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    North Korea regularly struggles to feed it's people.
    No, they don't "struggle to feed" their people. They starve their people.
    Everything you say following the premise that they struggle to feed the people that they are continually and conscientiously starving, is claptrap.
    Except that WW3 would suck. That's true.

  3. Top | #13
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,409
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    128,161
    Rep Power
    100
    It doesn't take China protecting North Korea to make any sort of invasion a very bad idea.

    The problem is that in effect Seoul is being held hostage. There are North Korean artillery emplacements that can shell the city.

    A palace coup by somebody sane would be a very good thing.

    (And note that there is no border between China and Japan!)

  4. Top | #14
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    30,823
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    73,296
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    If the entire political infrastructure solely hung around Kim Jong Un's neck, then killing him would magically save North Korea. But as with all things, it isn't that simple, and the guns aimed at Seoul, South Korea also add a sort of "don't screw with North Korea in such violent ways' vibe to 'em. North Korea went through this before, and 'survived'. Look at Myanmar, and that junta has survived. Despot authoritarian governments manage to get away with this stuff if 1) they lack resources we want and 2) have something to keep others out. North Korea has both of those going for it. The Kim dynasty is solely about sustaining the Kim dynasty, screw the nation. And the nation has thusly been screwed for decades.
    But in Myanmar's case, wasn't it the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi sucked as a leader? She was just as authoritarian as the Junta she was supposed to replace. Tried to reform and modernize a country and just ended up creating a massive mess instead. Robert Mugabe springs to mind. Eventually the armies patience ran out over her mismanagement and they had her removed. Based on what I've seen, that's how it looks like to me. The junta in power before, were a junta, and a dictatorship, but in retrospect they weren't kleptocratic. They seemed to have done a decent job in running the country (as well as communist dictators can do). Something Aung San didn't do.

    Kim Jong Un is a lunatic
    What? Aung San Suu Kyi really has never been in power power. The military has been running the show for decades.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out (again) on a limb
    Posts
    2,455
    Rep Power
    22
    How about if the world's leaders get together and offer complete amnesty and even significant guarantees of a safe and comfortable life to the top military leaders and their families if they stage a coup? The first thing that would happen is that Kim would start executing everyone who looked sideways at him.

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,106
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,852
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic.
    The problem is that countries are seldom if never invaded in order to start democracy. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya pop in my mind.
    Besides that, who are we to decide what another country needs ? That is th opposite of democracy
    I believe in Enlightenment values. I think all humans have the same basic needs. If we accept that then we do have the right to decide what another country needs.

    The 1848 revolutions in Europe all failed. Yet they propelled most of Europe on a trajectory towards democracy. Without the 1848 revolutions it would likely not have happened.

    I'm aware the chances of an invasion successfully transforming a country to democracy is slim. It usually needs gradual reforms over a long time.

    But that won't happen unless there's a knife to the throats of dictators. The threat of invasions can provide that knife.

    If a dictator stubbornly refuses to treat their own people with respect, I think invasion is justified. The knowledge that that is a likely outcome will act as a warning to any dictator.

    In the 60's dictators knew that as long as they kissed American or Russian assets, they had a free pass to do whatever they wanted to their own people.

    We got the dictators we deserved. It's no coincidence that we got a wave of democratisations following the end of the cold War.

    How the international community acts is important.

  7. Top | #17
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,106
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,852
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    You lost me at:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    North Korea regularly struggles to feed it's people.
    No, they don't "struggle to feed" their people. They starve their people.
    Everything you say following the premise that they struggle to feed the people that they are continually and conscientiously starving, is claptrap.
    Except that WW3 would suck. That's true.
    That's a fair point.

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,106
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,852
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    How about if the world's leaders get together and offer complete amnesty and even significant guarantees of a safe and comfortable life to the top military leaders and their families if they stage a coup? The first thing that would happen is that Kim would start executing everyone who looked sideways at him.
    I think we already have that. It's pretty universal. Following a revolution the new leaders need people who know how to run a country. So what usually happens in a revolution is that the educated elites near the top of the power pyramid stays. A revolution acts as a cheese slice only removing the top most layer of the power structure.

    That's why there's a huge difference between communist revolutions that removed everybody educated and those that kept things as they were. The first kind inevitably triggered immediate mass starvation.

    It was one of the things many reacted to after the fall of the Nazi government. Nearly all the top Nazis kept their jobs and prestige. Only a handful were removed, tried and punished. But it worked. If the occupiers hadn't done that it would have turned into utter chaos.

  9. Top | #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Back in the Kingdom
    Posts
    194
    Archived
    730
    Total Posts
    924
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    I believe in Enlightenment values.
    I think all humans have the same basic needs.
    If we accept that then we do have the right to decide what another country needs.
    zip

    I believe in Enlightenment values.
    So do I
    I think all humans have the same basic needs.
    So do I
    If we accept that, then we do have the right to decide what another country needs.
    Non sequitur.

    A worn out sophism that justified the invasion and destruction of many countries in order
    - to bring the real god
    - to bring civilization
    - to end oppression
    - to bring democracy
    etc

    It always turned out that the only reason was to serve the interests of the invader.
    Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan are the three latest ones where the vast majority of people were way better of before than after the invasion. Except obviously for a small minority that became filthy rich from the exploitation of their own people.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out (again) on a limb
    Posts
    2,455
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic.
    The problem is that countries are seldom if never invaded in order to start democracy. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya pop in my mind.
    Besides that, who are we to decide what another country needs ? That is th opposite of democracy
    I believe in Enlightenment values. I think all humans have the same basic needs. If we accept that then we do have the right to decide what another country needs. ...
    Sometimes we decide a country needs democracy and sometimes we decide they don't. It seems that whatever we decide it isn't based on what is good for the other country but what is good for our own countries. What I question is our right to decide what price that country must pay in order to become a democracy. I weep when I think of the devastation we inflicted on Vietnam and the continuing tragedy of land mines. There's a valid argument that we can intervene if it's a matter of our own survival. But the idea that invading a country is for their own good is a ploy. A disguise for ulterior motives.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •