Kim Jong-un

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Kizmet, May 5, 2017.

Loading...
  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    welding engineer-welding inspector
    Location:
    Back from Wakanda
    I really think it's wrong to wish bad things on people but it's hard not to think that Kim Jong-un is a person that the world could do without. It's wrong to want to kill him, right? I mean, it's wrong, isn't it? Like a really bad thing. But what if he sorta fell on some bullets, like one of those Russian guys? We wouldn't actually try to kill him, would we? No, the USA doesn't do things like that.:thinking:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/world/asia/kim-jong-un-north-korea-us-assassination.html?_r=0
     
  2. Johann

    Johann Active Member

    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    14
    It doesn't? What about Osama bin Laden? Not that I'm saying there was anything wrong with that...

    J.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  3. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator

    Messages:
    6,168
    Likes Received:
    4
    Occupation:
    Stay-at-home student.
    Location:
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    I believe in forgiveness, redemption, etc.

    However, I also believe that some people, by their actions, forfeit their right to life. Kim Jong-un is a murderer, a rapist, a thief and is responsible for the suffering of millions. Sure, he didn't start the fire, but he's the one whose currently holding the gas can.

    Now, in my idealistic heart, I'd prefer a trial, a life sentence, a moment of realization and a lifetime of remorse. In reality, the most practical way to stop a monster like that is to just kill him.

    The problem with doing such a thing is that it likely doesn't resolve anything. There are too many people who benefit too much from the current order in DPRK to expect it to completely fold upon one man's demise. By necessity, I expect that they'd appoint a new messiah-like leader to carry on the legacy.
     
  4. Johann

    Johann Active Member

    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    14
    Maniac's right, of course.

    J.
     
  5. decimon

    decimon Active Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Likes Received:
    9

    Kim is like Stalin and Mao in that no one is safe for a moment while he lives. The successors to Stalin and Mao were beastly enough but not suicidal or wishing to perpetuate a regime of abject terror for all.

    IOW, there's hope for some improvement should Kim be somehow deposed.
     
  6. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    Messages:
    2,200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas
  7. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    Messages:
    10,984
    Likes Received:
    14
    Occupation:
    This and that on the Internet
    Location:
    Northern Virginia & Dominica, West Indies
    The temptation to dispatch guys like Kim Jong-un, Nicolas Maduro, or Teodoro Obiang is easy to understand. But the problem with assassinating dictators is you never know when that's just going to make things worse, as with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.
     
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Messages:
    9,594
    Likes Received:
    8
    Occupation:
    Police Officer/Adjunct College Instructor
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Indeed; sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.
     
  9. heirophant

    heirophant Member

    Messages:
    712
    Likes Received:
    13
    Kim Jong Un's haircuts are enough to justify an airstrike.

    I don't think that we should be looking at striking North Korea in terms of morality. It isn't a matter of morality so much as it's a matter of interests and practical considerations.

    First, does North Korea represent an existential threat to the United States or to a significant part of it like SF, Silicon Valley (where I live), LA, or Hawaii? I don't think that Kim has ICBM's yet, but he does have submarine launched missiles that might conceivably carry a nuclear warhead. That capability is only going to grow greater the more we dither and the more time is allowed to pass.

    The North Koreans issue graphic threats almost every day, including videos showing American cities burning. They have torpedoed South Korean naval vessels, shelled South Korean islands and committed many other provocations. They will almost certainly be proliferators of nuclear technology, since nuclear weapons are all they have that make them a player on the world stage. Their only export, so to speak.

    So the question is whether we should make a preemptive strike on their nuclear, missile and submarine facilities. The longer we wait, the worse things get. (It should have been done in the 1990's, before they had any nukes.)

    First question: Can we launch a preemptive counter-force strike? Do we even know where the North Koreans' nukes are located? Can we destroy them with conventional (or nuclear) weapons? (I'd guess that they are in tunnels deep inside mountains.) Can we destroy their delivery systems if we can't eliminate the warheads? Can we destroy their fissionable materials processing plants even if we can't destroy the two dozen or so nuclear weapons they may already have? Would it be worth the danger of retaliation to South Korea certainly and maybe ourselves to eliminate North Korea's ability to make more nukes?

    Second question: What does South Korea think of doing that? They South Koreans are headed into a Presidential election and by all accounts the candidate topping the polls is somewhat anti-American, pro-Chinese and a champion of talks with North Korea. If South Korea isn't with us, I don't really see us doing anything. (And I don't see talks achieving anything besides giving Pyongyang more time.)

    Third question: Does the talk about engineering a coup in the North Korean military really have any chance of succeeding? North Korea is the world's best approximation to George Orwell's 1984, and I doubt if we have many agents there. There are almost certainly disgruntled officers and soldiers, given the regime's brutality, but they will be deeply closeted to protect their families. Identifying them might be impossible. And my impression is that the regime grades its forces on loyalty and fanaticism. Every young male is drafted. The most loyal and dedicated are moved into more elite units. The most elite and fanatical units have the best conventional equipment and no doubt the nukes. I fear that they are more like cults than military units and perhaps even Kim is afraid of them. He might have a tiger by the tail and feels that he needs to continue his brinksmanship to keep the crazier fanatics in his forces happy with his leadership. So any coup would probably bring about a civil war between loyal and disloyal forces, with the fanatics perhaps in the minority but in possession of the best equipment, training and conceivably the nuclear weapons. Things could get very ugly very fast.
     
  10. TomE

    TomE New Member

    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Professor, Course Developer, Consultant
  11. ThePatriotHistoria

    ThePatriotHistoria New Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Military
    Location:
    United States
    Let his own people decide what to do with him. If he is to be removed from power, a referendum should be held on what do with him.
     
  12. decimon

    decimon Active Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Likes Received:
    9

    Is there a King Kong facepalm picture somewhere?
     
  13. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    welding engineer-welding inspector
    Location:
    Back from Wakanda
    Here's the last group of people who asked for a referendum

    [​IMG]
     
  14. ThePatriotHistoria

    ThePatriotHistoria New Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Military
    Location:
    United States

    You misunderstood. I'm not stating to hold a referendum on rather or not he should stay in power. It's obvious he and his regime has abused their authority and should be removed, hopefully bringing about reunification under a democracy. I'm referring to holding a referendum to properly discuss his punishment. Rather it be life imprisonment, execution, etc... I've taken a few classes in regards to China and Korea. There values vastly differ from ours. A referendum would reflect what the general populous (including "miners" slaves) want to do with him. Essentially a more democratic Nuremberg trial. I believe we all know the end result here, but rather than the "West" executing another "leader", let the people make that call so we can escape any criticism.
     
  15. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    welding engineer-welding inspector
    Location:
    Back from Wakanda
  16. heirophant

    heirophant Member

    Messages:
    712
    Likes Received:
    13
    Well sure, theoretically.

    But how could a free referendum possibly take place in North Korea?

    I think that from my perspective (I'm an American) the more interesting question is what the US should do about him and his growing nuclear capabilities. As I suggested above, there don't seem to be any good options that are remotely realistic.
     
  17. ThePatriotHistoria

    ThePatriotHistoria New Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Military
    Location:
    United States
    I sort of addressed this already, however I will double down as this is very simple. He should and likely will be removed from power by an outside force, rather it be China or a "Western" power. I am also in the United States, and would love to deter any nuclear capability, by both N.K. and Iran. That said, I do want to keep the United States out of both countries judicial proceedings. I'm more of a nationalist and not a globalist, I don't want our country being blamed for how a country's leader is removed and dealt with. I do however concur he should be removed from power, soon and swiftly. If we cannot do it peacefully, then special operators in our military should be able to arrange his removal.
     
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    Messages:
    10,984
    Likes Received:
    14
    Occupation:
    This and that on the Internet
    Location:
    Northern Virginia & Dominica, West Indies
    I think you're exaggerating the capabilities of U.S. special forces. And even if they could somehow pluck Kim out from his own highly militarized capital, the next thing that would happen would be that Seoul would be turned into the world's largest mass grave by PDRK's artillery.
     
  19. Johann

    Johann Active Member

    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    14
    Or possibly multiple widely-distributed mass graves by DPRK's nukes. C'mon. Nobody (sane) wants to risk that. :shock: For example, did killing Osama bin Ladin stop ISIS and extremism? Not saying there was anything wrong with doing that - but you kill one bad guy - however bad - and a hundred more are born. Do it anyway, if it seems right, I guess - but be aware that killing one bad guy is not a cure (or even much of a deterrent) for evil. Maniacs are glad to die. They think they'll be revered as martyrs.

    J.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2017
  20. ThePatriotHistoria

    ThePatriotHistoria New Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Military
    Location:
    United States
    To both you and Steve... As current military I can assure you, we have the capability to do just what I said. Even the Israeli's were able to do it. If you don't believe me, ask Syria's President, Assad about his former Minister of War who was building a nuke plant. To be clear, we more than have the capability to remove any person off the Earth that we want. Osama's fate was shrouded in political clout, otherwise I suspect we would have removed him much earlier.

    But with that, those are some serious concerns regarding a dictators replacement so I do agree with you two on that. However Osama and ISIS do not constitute a proper parallel. For more information on this please look up who Osama represented, as opposed to how ISIS was spawned, and the in-fighting that was going on between the two groups not even a year ago. It apparently took a MOAB to get those guys on the same team. But rest assured we'll split the difference with another one :). Also on the topic of Osama, he at least wore combat boots, one of the warlords that replaced him war New Balance Tee's while trying to show off his "skills" in firing a fully automatic weapon. Worse than Osama mentally? Sure. But more pleasant on the battlefield as well.

    Now, I stand by my convictions in that I would prefer the N.K. people determine the ultimate fate of their dictator after he is removed from power. You have to stir up democracy one way or the other, and it's a sure fire way to show the power of a democratic system. Then we'll convert it to a Republic and tick them all off ;-)
     

Share This Page