7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He only likes yes men. 

What could go wrong?

Quote

Based on its trajectory and distance, the missile would have a range of more than 13,000 km (8,100 miles) - more than enough to reach Washington D.C., the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists said.

In related news, the Union of Concerned Scientists announced the opening of their new headquarters in New Zealand.

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I've appreciated your participation in this topic but I have never understood why someone needs to "see a link" that corroborates or justifies or seconds another poster's viewpoint. Their posts stand on their own and one is left to accept their premise or reject it, be informed by it or not. Up to you.

That's a fair thing to say, but in my defence, I find it tiresome and pointless to argue with a perpetual 'Ah, but is it?' 'Ah, but does it?' Anyone can do that on any subject. This is why I was asking for any articles with a viewpoint contrary to the ones I posted. I was not asking for a 'Really? Prove it' link.

9 hours ago, Morch said:

If there's one thing you can count on it's the possibility of anything getting worse. Nuclear arms in the hands of a dictator, but one with a certain logic to his actions may be preferable to having a new guy (or guys) in partial control trying to figure an agenda in a chaotic situation. The chances for something going BANG by accident, rather than by design, rise considerably.

Or, a more sane person could take charge and calm things down. I know there are moderates in the NK government because Kim has either killed them or jailed them. LOL

 

Easy to spin this either way.

10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Get rid of Kim and you've solved more than 50% of the problem.

 

just like getting rid of saddam and gaddafi did

29 minutes ago, punchjudy said:

 

just like getting rid of saddam and gaddafi did

Worked great for Panama, Grenada, East Germany, etc.

12 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Most countries problems stem from their leaders. Zimbabwe is another excellent example.

 

The recent regime change in Zimbabwe took place with a credible alternative at hand. Not necessarily an improvement, but so far no chaos in the streets.

 

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Or, a more sane person could take charge and calm things down. I know there are moderates in the NK government because Kim has either killed them or jailed them. LOL

 

Easy to spin this either way.

Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. Most recent examples of regime change introduced without a clear alternative turned out badly. Perhaps even worse than previous situations.

 

 

 

 

If the global community acted together, the odds of a successful regime change would be better. Sadly, some of the major players are dictators. Democracy scares them.

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

If the global community acted together, the odds of a successful regime change would be better. Sadly, some of the major players are dictators. Democracy scares them.

 

I don't know that there are awful lot of examples where the "global community" "acted together" on such issues, to make such a strong statement. Experience may indicate, though, that foisting instant democracy on countries and people, may not always carry the results intended.

Edited December 1, 20178 yr by Morch

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know that there are awful lot of examples where the "global community" "acted together" on such issues, to make such a strong statement. Experience may indicate, though, that foisting instant democracy on countries and people, may not always carry the results intended.

Instant democracy isn't necessarily needed. Removing brutal dictators is. The people deserve better. But considering the world today, options are few.

 

One good example is Panama. It's worked out relatively well.

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know that there are awful lot of examples where the "global community" "acted together" on such issues, to make such a strong statement. Experience may indicate, though, that foisting instant democracy on countries and people, may not always carry the results intended.

 

Democracy isn't the goal. Hanging debt paper is.

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Instant democracy isn't necessarily needed. Removing brutal dictators is. The people deserve better. But considering the world today, options are few.

 

One good example is Panama. It's worked out relatively well.

 

Panama is nothing like North Korea, though. There's no real basis for assuming that circumstances and consequences could be applied. We do not have an argument with regard to the undesirability of "brutal dictators", just that experience shows removing them without a well thought out plan and/or popular support, may prove less than a stellar success, to put it mildly.