Politics Princess' Sweet Sixteen

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Assassinations and infiltration and heavy propaganda

 

Let's assume that works. It does down one of two way. Either someone else takes over and we trade one despot for another. Or the country falls apart and it's chaos with side dish of factional civil war. Neither gets the people in the gulag out.

 

 

Civil war would close down gulags fast. With your way of thinking there will never be change in NK

[Malcador]

We only hear about the mistakes. /winkywinky

 

Well, we also hear about the (potentially fake) successes when every SEAL publishes a book  

[smjjames]

 

Let's assume that works. It does down one of two way. Either someone else takes over and we trade one despot for another. Or the country falls apart and it's chaos with side dish of factional civil war. Neither gets the people in the gulag out.

 

 

Assassinations and infiltration and heavy propaganda

 

 

 

Civil war would close down gulags fast. With your way of thinking there will never be change in NK

 

 

Do you have any 100% guarantee of that? There will be disruption for a while, that's true, but whoever comes out on top could be just as bad, or worse.

 

Various countries could try to support their preferred strongman (or woman), but I don't think theres anyplace that has had a track record of doing that and having it succeed towards democracy almost all the time.

 

edit: culling quote pyramid.

 

edit2: quotes got screwed up, but not bothering to fix it here

Edited March 15, 2018 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

Well, we also hear about the (potentially fake) successes when every SEAL publishes a book

I honestly cant believe they let him even talk about it. The "celebrity" seems to be going to his head too. He recently got thrown off a flight and demoted.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Let's assume that works. It does down one of two way. Either someone else takes over and we trade one despot for another. Or the country falls apart and it's chaos with side dish of factional civil war. Neither gets the people in the gulag out.

 

 

Assassinations and infiltration and heavy propaganda

 

 

 

Civil war would close down gulags fast. With your way of thinking there will never be change in NK

 

 

Do you have any 100% guarantee of that? There will be disruption for a while, that's true, but whoever comes out on top could be just as bad, or worse.

 

Various countries could try to support their preferred strongman (or woman), but I don't think theres anyplace that has had a track record of doing that and having it succeed towards democracy almost all the time.

 

edit: culling quote pyramid.

 

edit2: quotes got screwed up, but not bothering to fix it here

 

 

Yes, I am 99% sure. Guards would be too busy fighting each other to keep people in

[smjjames]

And when whoever comes out on top reinstates those gulags? Ending up with another dictator who applies the same conditions isn't progress no matter how you slice it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

If shots are fired Kim will fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark, He has to figure once shooting starts nothing short of regime change will suffice. And he's right. If would be a waste of blood and treasure to fight any conflict that leaves him in power. So unless we're going to go all the way, don't go at all. Better to take the latter option, He can stay in power until he dies for all I care. As long as he stays on his side of the DMZ everything is fine. Now the trick is making HIM understand that.

 

 

Yeah, f*ck those gulaged millions of people as long as they are not dying on my yard

That's exactly how you feel about the middle eastern refugees, why are you getting pissy with GD for being consistent?

[Bartimaeus]

because THEY are dying on his yard

Edited March 15, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Chilloutman]

 

 

If shots are fired Kim will fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark, He has to figure once shooting starts nothing short of regime change will suffice. And he's right. If would be a waste of blood and treasure to fight any conflict that leaves him in power. So unless we're going to go all the way, don't go at all. Better to take the latter option, He can stay in power until he dies for all I care. As long as he stays on his side of the DMZ everything is fine. Now the trick is making HIM understand that.

 

Yeah, f*ck those gulaged millions of people as long as they are not dying on my yard

That's exactly how you feel about the middle eastern refugees, why are you getting pissy with GD for being consistent?

 

 

I don't understand what do you mean, I am not suggesting transporting all NK people to Europe. I for sure not wish people from middle east to die. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Terminator]

US is of course an expert on infiltration and assassination

 

just look at Bin Laden or teh Yemen operation and what a mess those were

 

they prolly can barely even kill a bug without a nuke

What the ****? Have you been listening to some false Chinese propaganda? Bin Laden was killed succesfully in year 2011 by Americans the mission was a success. There was some civilian casualties, but that is usually unavoidable when dealing with cowards.

 

Now NK leader is much harder to assassinate (at least if he stays within NK) I can admit that. Military war would perhaps be better way to stop NK.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Terminator

[Gfted1]

HD was probably referring to the fact that we had to destroy our own secret stealth chopper because the tail rotor clipped a wall.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Well so what is USA going to do something about North Korea what do you think? I don't know but for some reason some Finnish forums are full of people who believe USA actually will take military action, but I know it is a tough choice to make and I don't have any specific beliefs regarding that subject but I keep an open mind for possibilities.

 

Speculation in Finnish forums hit so far that some believed USA would attack after Winter Olympics and now Winter Olympics is over.

 

In the news currently relationship between UK and Russia hit rock bottom after ex Russian spy was murdered in UK the Uk has now as responce deported many Russian diplomats that were in UK.

 

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks.

 

It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo.

 

So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day.

 

edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything.

 

 

Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points,  from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. 

 

So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is. 

 

Here is what I think you go wrong and you are from Finland like me so I don't consider you an super expert, not saying I am super expert but I was curious about USA people thoughts on the matter.

 

China would not attack USA if USA attacks North Korea. There is risk of China envolment of course if whole region erupts into chaos

Japan currently even have a valid more or less military alliance with Australia and that military alliance is pretty much against China.

 

Japan really hates China and Japan has steadily grown as military power in recent years. If China attacks USA we pretty much have a hornet nest World War 3 on horizon.

 

Look I have played Battlefield 3 and was thinking of maybe buying cheaply Battlefield 4 that is USA war against China and Russia.

 

I tell you what if China attacks USA on basis that USA attack Northkorea then Japan and Australia will support USA they hate very much China. China best interest in conflict USA vs NorthKorea is to stay out of the military action.

 

Best response it is pretty much about Trump what he decides also if he decides war there will be war and I don't believe one minute China will declare war on USA if USA attacks NorthKorea and don't accidentally attack China forces.

 

If you realistically want to eperience USA vs China war then you can buy Battlefield 4 computer game.

 

 

China does not need to declare war to USA to attack it, because there are lots of contested territories that China want to take under its control but has not done so because agreements with USA and its allies. But if USA attacks on North Korea which China sees at its protectorate, China will at least attempt to take some of those territories, because even though they have been relatively passive world power so far they will not ignore attacks on areas they see to be part of their home territories. 

 

People often ignore China's domestic politics, but in case of striking North Korea, those politics would play quite big part and force China's leadership to take action even if they don't necessary want to do so.

 

Also you should not underestimate China's military power on its own home turf and how much economic leverage they have.

[Malcador]

HD was probably referring to the fact that we had to destroy our own secret stealth chopper because the tail rotor clipped a wall.

 

If I recall the chopper got caught in its own downdraft due to the compound walls, but not sure.  Not sure if that is better or worse than hitting a wall with the tail, though

[Amentep]

 

US is of course an expert on infiltration and assassination

 

just look at Bin Laden or teh Yemen operation and what a mess those were

 

they prolly can barely even kill a bug without a nuke

What the ****? Have you been listening to some false Chinese propaganda? Bin Laden was killed succesfully in year 2011 by Americans the mission was a success. There was some civilian casualties, but that is usually unavoidable when dealing with cowards.

 

Now NK leader is much harder to assassinate (at least if he stays within NK) I can admit that. Military war would perhaps be better way to stop NK.

 

 

 

HD was probably referring to the fact that we had to destroy our own secret stealth chopper because the tail rotor clipped a wall.

 

Or he's thinking about the failed missile strike in 1998, the cancelled CIA operation in 1999, the CIA backed operation that hit a different truck than the one he was riding on in 2000, or the inability to find him in 2001 when they had him on the run... there's probably more as the US pursued Bin Ladin for 13 years before catching up to him.

[Terminator]

 

 

 

 

Well so what is USA going to do something about North Korea what do you think? I don't know but for some reason some Finnish forums are full of people who believe USA actually will take military action, but I know it is a tough choice to make and I don't have any specific beliefs regarding that subject but I keep an open mind for possibilities.

 

Speculation in Finnish forums hit so far that some believed USA would attack after Winter Olympics and now Winter Olympics is over.

 

In the news currently relationship between UK and Russia hit rock bottom after ex Russian spy was murdered in UK the Uk has now as responce deported many Russian diplomats that were in UK.

 

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks.

 

It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo.

 

So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day.

 

edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything.

 

 

Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points,  from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. 

 

So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is.

 

Here is what I think you go wrong and you are from Finland like me so I don't consider you an super expert, not saying I am super expert but I was curious about USA people thoughts on the matter.

 

China would not attack USA if USA attacks North Korea. There is risk of China envolment of course if whole region erupts into chaos

Japan currently even have a valid more or less military alliance with Australia and that military alliance is pretty much against China.

 

Japan really hates China and Japan has steadily grown as military power in recent years. If China attacks USA we pretty much have a hornet nest World War 3 on horizon.

 

Look I have played Battlefield 3 and was thinking of maybe buying cheaply Battlefield 4 that is USA war against China and Russia.

 

I tell you what if China attacks USA on basis that USA attack Northkorea then Japan and Australia will support USA they hate very much China. China best interest in conflict USA vs NorthKorea is to stay out of the military action.

 

Best response it is pretty much about Trump what he decides also if he decides war there will be war and I don't believe one minute China will declare war on USA if USA attacks NorthKorea and don't accidentally attack China forces.

 

If you realistically want to eperience USA vs China war then you can buy Battlefield 4 computer game.

 

 

China does not need to declare war to USA to attack it, because there are lots of contested territories that China want to take under its control but has not done so because agreements with USA and its allies. But if USA attacks on North Korea which China sees at its protectorate, China will at least attempt to take some of those territories, because even though they have been relatively passive world power so far they will not ignore attacks on areas they see to be part of their home territories. 

 

People often ignore China's domestic politics, but in case of striking North Korea, those politics would play quite big part and force China's leadership to take action even if they don't necessary want to do so.

 

Also you should not underestimate China's military power on its own home turf and how much economic leverage they have.

 

China is worlds 3rd biggest military power after USA the first and Russia second.

 

Japan do not want to threaten only NK. Japan wants to threaten China so they have said. Japan has done military alliance with Australia... Japan is the country that is most growing in military power currently in the region.

 

China do not want war with USA to much to loose in that war. In addition if China and USA would start full nuclear war against each other that would be the end of mankind.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Terminator
Removed duplicate Quote Pyramid

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

If shots are fired Kim will fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark, He has to figure once shooting starts nothing short of regime change will suffice. And he's right. If would be a waste of blood and treasure to fight any conflict that leaves him in power. So unless we're going to go all the way, don't go at all. Better to take the latter option, He can stay in power until he dies for all I care. As long as he stays on his side of the DMZ everything is fine. Now the trick is making HIM understand that.

 

 

Yeah, f*ck those gulaged millions of people as long as they are not dying on my yard

That's exactly how you feel about the middle eastern refugees, why are you getting pissy with GD for being consistent?

 

I don't understand what do you mean, I am not suggesting transporting all NK people to Europe. I for sure not wish people from middle east to die.

Intervention is what caused the conflict that resulted in refugees to flee to yuropoor, if you start a civil war in North Korea you're going to get refugees who don't want to be killed in the fighting.

[smjjames]

Intervention didn't start the conflict in Syria, but arguably non-intervention made the refugee wave worse and by the time there was intervention, Syria was already too much of a cluster**** for intervention to save it.

Edited March 15, 2018 by smjjames

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Intervention didn't start the conflict in Syria, but arguably non-intervention made the refugee wave worse and by the time there was intervention, Syria was already too much of a cluster**** for intervention to save it.

Intervention in Iraq created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, who is a big player in the Syrian conflict. The US also funded rebel groups to fight Assad.

[smjjames]

Well, intervention AND screwing things up and not following through on the long hard road of nation building is what caused that.

[Gfted1]

Or he's thinking about the failed missile strike in 1998, the cancelled CIA operation in 1999, the CIA backed operation that hit a different truck than the one he was riding on in 2000, or the inability to find him in 2001 when they had him on the run... there's probably more as the US pursued Bin Ladin for 13 years before catching up to him.

Could be. Since HD used the singular form of "operation" I just assumed the most recent. Ill have to Google up all the failed Yemeni operations before I can talk about them.

[Elerond]

 

China does not need to declare war to USA to attack it, because there are lots of contested territories that China want to take under its control but has not done so because agreements with USA and its allies. But if USA attacks on North Korea which China sees at its protectorate, China will at least attempt to take some of those territories, because even though they have been relatively passive world power so far they will not ignore attacks on areas they see to be part of their home territories. 

 

People often ignore China's domestic politics, but in case of striking North Korea, those politics would play quite big part and force China's leadership to take action even if they don't necessary want to do so.

 

Also you should not underestimate China's military power on its own home turf and how much economic leverage they have.

China is worlds 3rd biggest military power after USA the first and Russia second.

 

Japan do not want to threaten only NK. Japan wants to threaten China so they have said. Japan has done military alliance with Australia... Japan is the country that is most growing in military power currently in the region.

 

China do not want war with USA to much to loose in that war. In addition if China and USA would start full nuclear war against each other that would be the end of mankind.

 

 

But would USA declare war to China, if China takes away Taiwan's and Hong Kong's autonomies and taking direct control over lots of world's electronic manufacturing or if China takes over Senkaku Islands and builds their military base there in order to make it easier to strike to Japan there, or if China increases their naval power South China sea and so on?  And what would Australia do if China threatens to block their imports and exports?

 

Meaning that China and USA don't need to go in full on war in order to have fight over things that effect big economical and political impacts.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Elerond

[Guard Dog]

You would think the US would have learned by now two concrete lessons:

 

1. Don't involve yourself in someone else's civil war. If you like them and they are killing each other them mediate. If you don't like them then get out of their way.
2. Don't destabilize a balanced situation no matter how unfavorable you might think it is right now. You make it worse every time. As Chill pointed out there is a compelling humanitarian reason to want to help NK people in gulags. But nothing we can do will accomplish that. Suppose we do go to war. The outcome as absolutely assured but it won't be quick. It will take more than long enough for all of them to starve or be murdered by their guards. And if the country is collapsed one way or another them millions of people are turned into refugees. Well, they can't go south because of the DMZ and to the north is China who is not exactly know for nuanced and humane treatment of NKs crossing their border. It's better to do nothing than do the wrong thing.

Iraq under Hussien was a counterweight to Iran in the region. Iraq today works pretty closely with Iran. That's not an improvement. 4500 dead and 1M wounded Americans and untold numbers of Iraqi's so Iran can have a new little buddy is not a win politically speaking.

[Zoraptor]

 

Intervention didn't start the conflict in Syria, but arguably non-intervention made the refugee wave worse and by the time there was intervention, Syria was already too much of a cluster**** for intervention to save it.

Intervention in Iraq created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, who is a big player in the Syrian conflict. The US also funded rebel groups to fight Assad.

 

 

And actual intervention by the west in Syria would have achieved precisely one thing- many of the people living in government ruled areas, plus the 7 million IDPs living there, would have fled the Saudi/ Turkey vetted moderate* Wahhabi/ Ikwhan head choppers, and then their constant, inevitable, infighting. Early enough and you might just have the same number of refugees, they'd just be all the Kurds, Christians, Armenians, Yazidis, Syriacs, Alawites, Shia, secularists etc fleeing Ergogan's dream of a neo ottoman Republic of Northern Syria and the Saudi dream of Caliph Muhhamed bin Salman instead of 'Ibrahim'.

 

And then the west would have wrung their hands and said "my goodness, who would have thunk it... Ho hum, how about that Chelsea vs Barce match or Kim Kardashian's mammaries?"; and all after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc.

 

The west is utterly useless at interventions having good results- biggest refugee source in Europe is actually fricking Kosovo, their only supposed success- so much so that you have to question Poe's Law. And no it isn't deliberate in the proper sense, it's just utter denial of reality and constant reliance on utterly crap 'expert' opinions from interested parties.

 

*the 'moderate' Turkish backed forces in Afrin include literal child beheaders- indeed Harakat Nureddin Al Zinki was US vetted as well, which shows how good their judgement would have been in any intervention.

[Terminator]

 

 

China does not need to declare war to USA to attack it, because there are lots of contested territories that China want to take under its control but has not done so because agreements with USA and its allies. But if USA attacks on North Korea which China sees at its protectorate, China will at least attempt to take some of those territories, because even though they have been relatively passive world power so far they will not ignore attacks on areas they see to be part of their home territories. 

 

People often ignore China's domestic politics, but in case of striking North Korea, those politics would play quite big part and force China's leadership to take action even if they don't necessary want to do so.

 

Also you should not underestimate China's military power on its own home turf and how much economic leverage they have.

China is worlds 3rd biggest military power after USA the first and Russia second.

 

Japan do not want to threaten only NK. Japan wants to threaten China so they have said. Japan has done military alliance with Australia... Japan is the country that is most growing in military power currently in the region.

 

China do not want war with USA to much to loose in that war. In addition if China and USA would start full nuclear war against each other that would be the end of mankind.

 

 

But would USA declare war to China, if China takes away Taiwan's and Hong Kong's autonomies and taking direct control over lots of world's electronic manufacturing or if China takes over Senkaku Islands and builds their military base there in order to make it easier to strike to Japan there, or if China increases their naval power South China sea and so on?  And what would Australia do if China threatens to block their imports and exports?

 

Meaning that China and USA don't need to go in full on war in order to have fight over things that effect big economical and political impacts.

 

Interesting discussing. I dont think China will conquer Japan you greatly underestimate Japan. Japan dont even need USA to defend vs China. Australia would likely make their BETA military alliance with Japan to full military alliance if China will harass them. Australia is not a poor country. I am sure they can increase the military budget if the demand rises and Japan is constantly increasing military budget already.

 

Hong Kong? Their autonomy is already taken away step by step and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to start a war with China and nobody wants to attack China based on whatever happens in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is doomed anyway its fate is sealed and it is doomed.

 

Taiwan? Taiwan is an interesting chapter. History goes that communists stayed in mainland and nationalists moved to Taiwan. Taiwan has been very stubborn in resisting main land China. Regarding Taiwan future I find it very hard to predict for some reason don't know why Taiwan seems to do better then say Hong Kong with China mainland authorities.

 

Taiwan is so much resisting so I would not sign out the possibility of civil war Taiwan vs mainland. I think they mainly try diplomacy.

 

If China tries to take Taiwan by force there will be war and Taiwan hates China:

 

Yes China can go have their wargames with Taiwan that would result in massive military casualties to China mainland and a destroyed Taiwan not a great way to improve China economy and in the aftermath there can be lingering guerilla warfare with terror attacks from pissed of Taiwanese people who have lost the war.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Terminator

[smjjames]

The Senkaku islands? it doesn't seem like those islands are worth going to war over, theres supposed to be some oil in the area, but nothing confirmed or explored. That situation seems closer to 'historical map claim dispute' (which you guys in Europe would be familiar with) type argument than anything else, despite the islands never being permanently inhabited.

 

Hong Kong was a colony of China that Britian took from China and held for over 100 years. Also, the difference between Hong Kong and Taiwan is that Hong Kong is a city-state while Taiwan is a full country. The fact that Taiwan is backed by the US probably makes mainland China more inclined to cooperate with Taiwan than bully them around with impunity.