4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You say it isn't relevant, others may disagree. Far as I recall, you are not averse to making the opposite argument with regard to other countries, regimes and conflicts. Some may point out that someone apparently less bound by moral constraints (or subscribing to a different set of morals) might be more likely to act dangerously. Another version of the same would raise concerns over incompatibility of moral positions possibly leading to misunderstandings, and them dangerous consequences.

This is not the venue to discuss my alleged positions on other topics. But nice try.

And it might equally be pointed out that a person motivated chiefly by the desire for survival even if that means committing the most vile acts, would be especially unlikely to be suicidal. And has been pointed out, nothing this Kim is doing is fundamentally different from what Kims before him have done. And the most coherent explanation I have seen for their behavior is that it is motivated by a desire to continue to rule as despots.

And of course, I have seen no realistic plan for removing him from power.

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

This is not the venue to discuss my alleged positions on other topics. But nice try.

And it might equally be pointed out that a person motivated chiefly by the desire for survival even if that means committing the most vile acts, would be especially unlikely to be suicidal. And has been pointed out, nothing this Kim is doing is fundamentally different from what Kims before him have done. And the most coherent explanation I have seen for their behavior is that it is motivated by a desire to continue to rule as despots.

And of course, I have seen no realistic plan for removing him from power.

You call him a despot.  So are you for or against Kim's current actions. 

 

Based on what you posted, I'd say Kim is hardly mentally stable.  Not one I'd trust with a nuclear weapon. LOL

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

You call him a despot.  So are you for or against Kim's current actions. 

 

Based on what you posted, I'd say Kim is hardly mentally stable.  Not one I'd trust with a nuclear weapon. LOL

I've given up trying to dent your obtuseness.

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

This is not the venue to discuss my alleged positions on other topics. But nice try.

And it might equally be pointed out that a person motivated chiefly by the desire for survival even if that means committing the most vile acts, would be especially unlikely to be suicidal. And has been pointed out, nothing this Kim is doing is fundamentally different from what Kims before him have done. And the most coherent explanation I have seen for their behavior is that it is motivated by a desire to continue to rule as despots.

And of course, I have seen no realistic plan for removing him from power.

 

Pointing out that a position presented as principled isn't always so is, IMO, relevant.

 

Again, I'm not overly confident in long distance analysis of Kim's psych. My point is simple - there's a whole lot at stake. Whether one feels we have a good assessment of how Kim may react to multiple scenarios, and whether this is a solid enough basis for decision making (bearing in mind them high stakes) is debatable. I don't think we have a good enough idea of how far he'll be willing to go in order to preserve his rule, or possible reaction in case he thinks all hope is lost.

 

Never suggested that there is a realistic plan for "removing him from power". What's been said repeatedly is that there are no easy solutions to this, not from a military angle and not from a diplomatic one.

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Pointing out that a position presented as principled isn't always so is, IMO, relevant.

 

 

If it were relevant by the standards of this forum, then the moderators certainly wouldn't object to me contesting your assertion in detail.  Want to place a bet how that would go?

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I've given up trying to dent your obtuseness.

Be nice.  I think a post saying that is not far behind these.

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

If it were relevant by the standards of this forum, then the moderators certainly wouldn't object to me contesting your assertion in detail.  Want to place a bet how that would go?

Give it a shot! LOL

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If it were relevant by the standards of this forum, then the moderators certainly wouldn't object to me contesting your assertion in detail.  Want to place a bet how that would go?

 

Why don't you take it up with them instead of derailing the topic?

 

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I've given up trying to dent your obtuseness.

That makes two of us.

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Why don't you take it up with them instead of derailing the topic?

 

The derailment began when you brought it up.

19 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The derailment began when you brought it up.

 

You mean that short comment embedded within a post, as opposed to you repeatedly making an issue out of it?

Please get back on topic and stop with the personal remarks.

 

Worth a read.  Great insight from a guy on the inside.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/north-korea-defector-ri-jong-ho/index.html

Quote

North Korean money man reveals smuggling operations

"It was not just high level officers, officials, but their families, their children (and) their followers," Ri told CNN in his first interview to a major US broadcast network. "It was not just once or twice a year -- it was ongoing throughout the year, thousands of people being executed or purged."