At 1/8/16 06:00 PM, NeonSpider wrote:
I don't know that but I don't see that as very likely.
Are you something of an expert on NK? I admit, I am not. I'm just spitballing, using what limited knowledge of the country and totalitarian systems I know from both the modern and historical perspective and extrapolating from there. Seems like you're hoping, and wishing, and spitballing yourself but maybe I'm just reading it wrong and you've got some expertise I don't know about. If you do have some expertise on the region I'd love to hear about it since I always like to learn new things.
I don't think that's for us to decide though.
History says if it's our dime, we're going to want to. But realistically, if the idea here is to replace it with a regime that's "friendly" or (and really I think this would be the more desirable goal) re-unification with the South and they bow to it's regime, then yeah, we're going to need to have something of a hand in how the transition goes.
Wouldn't that be up to the North Koreans to decide?
If it's another dictator? Haha, no. Totalitarianism by it's nature takes the decisions out of the hands of the people and plants them firmly into the hands of the regime.
If it's better than what they've had, even if not up to Western standards, isn't that at least an improvement?
Depends on what you mean by "better". Is it better if say the new dictator says "ok, I will spend less on the military, and more on food....but the only people who eat are the ones that are loyal to me and people". Is that better? "better" is a subjective
It's a fairly standard term in the English language with fairly well-known meaning. I'm surprised you'd need it defined.
Ok, let me make a request if I may right now. Ok? Ok. Please don't do this contemptous "cute" sniping. I'm not trying to do that to you, yes, I may be asking you questions that I suppose I know the answer to already but I reserve final judgement until you've replied in case I am to be surprised. Also I think you'll see in a minute how when one tries to define a word the definition can turn and all of a sudden the ground which seemed firm is shakier. Thanks, onwards.
But let's define "sane" as the absence of delusional or magical thinking and the presence of rational thinking and decision-making. One who is "sane" should base actions more-or-less on established reality vs. what one who is "insane" might base them on. The current North Korean regime is extremely delusional.
Interesting definition there. Here's the thing though. Is not religion the very definition of "magical thinking"? We elected a President who said God "spoke to him" and was guiding his decisions. Pretty much every President we've had, and many other world leaders throughout history have held similar ideas and beliefs....so I guess we're ok with people who fit you're definition of "insane" (see why it's legal instead of medical?). As far as they're "delusion" are you a psychiatrist? Have you analyzed them? I always hold out the possibility that they don't believe in the cult of personality they've created, and that it's merely a tool, a means to an end for them.
Maybe, but simply "better than current" is still an improvement. Can't ask for Rome to be built in a day.
Wow, that's a low as shit bar. If that's the standard, then I think it's better the devil we know vs. one who may get in and decide it's time to nuke the neighbors.
Well, if a replacement dictator is worse than the replaced one, the new dictator can also be replaced, etc... If the people rise up against their own government it's not very well going to stand for long.
Nuclear. Fucking. Weapons. Are we forgetting they have those? Yes, they don't have ICBM's, but they have the capability of damaging their own country, and the ones in the immediate neighborhood. Do you really think if the shit hit the fan they'd hesitate to use them?
Who says America has to intervene everywhere?
How do you think the coup would be effected? It would almost certainly need some kind of American involvement, even if it was just a check...I'm increasingly concerned you don't have the first idea of even the most basic mechanics of what you propose.
Part of the problem of why America is hated different places in the world is because they do tend to just intervene everywhere.
Part of it yes, the other part though is some parts of the world inherently like strong men, chaos, and being violent fuckers who like to fight with everybody who isn't them.