"If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will."

[Mightysword]

Just for a moment I will like all to remember how much better their lives are now, for those citizens of countries like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Libya who thanks to western intervention they can now look to a brighter future or not...

Afghanistan: it's worth to remember the most likely alternative to the current Afghanistan would be a Taliban Afghanistan ... you can't be serious if you think it would actually be better than the current one? Because if we were ok with a Taliban Afghanistan, why not just let ISIS does whatever it please?

Libya: I'm not sure what would happen in the long run, but I know in the shortrun what would have happened if the West didn't intervene. Gadafi was by all mean no less crazy then Kim, maybe even worse. If he had won that uprising he might make Apartheid looks like a third rate horror show.

Iraq: a bit unstable with a pretty laughable army, but it's still a more proper sovereignty now then it was under Saddam. You should really find some Iraqi political refugees from Saddam time and talk to them before you suggest thing was better than. Yes they get the sporoadict suicide bomb incident. But ask yourself this question: between living in the UK during their IRA struggle and living under a Soviet Stalin, which one is worse? And Saddam seems to be a lot more crazy then Stalin.

Bring wealth and culture to those countries and change will follow.

Not really, not with a leader like the Kim family. They are far too disconnected to allow any kind of distraction now. Even if you look at other countries in the region like China or Vietnam which is more or less still pretty much a dictatorship in disguise, they both at least recognize the need to incorporate themselves into the larger world, that's why they changed in the late 80' after the Soviet collapse. Mao was hyped up as a good, but Deng Xiaoping later famously said "it doesn't matter if it's red cat or black cat, he only needs cats that can catch mouse". Vietnamese leadership also made similar shift, they didn't exactly hype up anyone to be God after Ho Chi Minh. But North Korea, they decided to go down the path of GodHood instead.

It's worth to remember that the South have been trying that idea for "age", look at the Kaesong Industrial Zone and what came out of it. Bring in money and wealth you say? Whose money? And who will take the risk of going there? The moment you step in a place like a North Korean, you're a potential political hostage. My native country used to be a place like NK, just a lot less worse. You can only do business with a regular healthy dose if "grease money" to the official with very little winfall down to the populace themselves. And country like this has no stable policy, you can be a "great friend and good business partner" today and become a "enemy of the state and imperialist" tomorrow for no other reason than a swing of smooth of the "dear leader". So again, who will take that risk assuming you're talking about private entity. And Humanitarian effort? I can 99.9% guarantee you that 99.9% of any kind of investment or aid will just lining the pocket of those fatso.

[Ketraar]

and would Syria be as bad as it is right now if the west had intervened.

You mean if the "west" had NOT intervened, right? Pretty sure there was and is plenty of intervention from the "west".

MFG

Ketraar

[muppetts]

and would Syria be as bad as it is right now if the west had intervened.

You mean if the "west" had NOT intervened, right? Pretty sure there was and is plenty of intervention from the "west".

MFG

Ketraar

All the rebel weapons are from the USA, all the Government weapons are from Russia, it's a proxy war, it's about as intervened as you can fricking get!!

[muppetts]

Trump says he will do something if North Korea does another missle test, they do another test, he does nothing and the USA mainland is closer to North Korea than the so called 'Armada' he has steaming there LOL

So Obama fks up with his red line and the GOP goes nuts, their orange monkey makes his 1000th fk up and still SILENCE.

Spineless is the new Red.

[Santi]

Libya is currently in a civil war since Gadafi was deposed thanks to western intervention, on top of that because of the power vacuum they have an ISIS uprising and small warlords have proliferated in many parts of the country.

Iraq, since the USA invasion has experienced a civil war (the so called insurrection by the Sunni), ethnic cleansing in a massive scale, not only by Sunnis and Shia but by Kurds also, ISIS is and will be a force to be reckoning with for many years to come as they switch to guerrilla warfare.

Syria Civil war is the currently having top slot in the news.

Afghanistan, seriously? Russia invasion, USA training what it later turned out to be the Taliban, USA invasion.

It is better that Taliban or for that matter an Assad regime is in power, if it stops the bloodbath currently going on. A bloodbath that we created. And is not only death, but famine, sickness, displacement of millions of people from their homes etc...

North Korea is currently under sanctions, open up commerce, top class will get even more corrupt, corruption leads to enrichment of a few and enrichment of a few leads to malcontent from the populace and for political aspirations. Slow burn but it always have worked.

[philip_hughes]

I don't doubt the greed of many in power, i just don't know what the "right" thing to do is. 2 wrongs don't make a right but is it ok if 2 wrongs stop a war?

[Ketraar]

The problem with the notion of "lesser of two evils" is that for those getting the evil its a moot issue, since for them its just bad. I have a hard time dealing with the notion that the people making choices for others, invoking having the right answer, then utterly fail and the consequences effect others. Then shrugging with the misguided sense of "oh well we tried".

This is an old concept of people in power playing Real Life Europa Universalis.

MFG

Ketraar

[Usenko]

Brinkmanship with nuclear weapons. A fun game for all concerned . . .

(In a "Not-fun-at-all" sort of a way)

[Morkonan]

The problem with the notion of "lesser of two evils" is that for those getting the evil its a moot issue, since for them its just bad. I have a hard time dealing with the notion that the people making choices for others, invoking having the right answer, then utterly fail and the consequences effect others. Then shrugging with the misguided sense of "oh well we tried".

This is an old concept of people in power playing Real Life Europa Universalis...

Bad things happen. Often, when one is faced with a terrible situation, there's not going to be any outcome that someone not in that situation would call "good." Sometimes, such situations have nothing but outcomes that one would consider unacceptable. Unless, of course, the situation itself is ultimately worse than any possible fix and it, itself, will not provide an inevitable solution to... itself.

I don't think there's an individual person, culture or nation that doesn't hold to one of their most desired states being one of "stability." Everyone loves the heck out stability. This obsession with it trends all the way up to Foreign Relations between superpowers - They may hate each other, but so long as they can predict each other's actions and reactions, they can form some basis for a common purpose, if nothing other than to prevent a war.

If "something bad" exists, what should our reaction be? Do nothing and maybe it will go away? Well, what if we had the power to make the Something Bad not happen anymore? Then, we're partly responsible for it continuing if we do nothing, right? What if doing something to stop the Something Bad might result in more, but different, Something Bad, but there's a chance for Something Good occurring where there was no such chance, before?

It'd be great if there were no Something Bads and nobody was blamed for them, since they didn't occur. It'd also be great if acting to stop or prevent a Something Bad didn't sometimes also result in more Something Bads occurring. But, real life isn't like that and instability is always a result of Change, small or great.

The truth is that stability, even if it is tyrannical, endears itself to many and even the oppressed value it, since they have some measure of predictability in their lives. But, it's also true that the more robust and stable the Something Bad is, the less chance there will ever be an eventual Something Good to happen.

TLDR: Bad Things rarely fix themselves.

Personally, I was against intervention in Libya in the way it occurred. IMO. it was primarily due to concerns over the stability of petroleum supplies to Europe and certain French economic interests in the region. France called in its "Allies" card and... we're off to Libya.

The reason that Libya and other countries that have experienced the instability of forced regime change suffer so much is that they fail to command the attention and concern of others AFTER a regional threat has been removed. People will pay a lot of money for bullets, but they don't have the same enthusiasm for paying for bandaids.

The days of an Emperor MacArther overseeing the rebuilding of a defeated nation are over. And, the days of a defeated people, especially those as fractured and divided as those in the Middle East, having the perseverance and ability to come together for a common purpose other than destruction are also... over.

But, does that mean that we should no longer try to fix Something Bads?

[greypanther]

if we were ok with a Taliban Afghanistan,

In fact this is what we will almost certainly have sooner rather than later. They now again control about a third of Afghanistan, I believe. How long before they control the majority of the country again? What use has all that money that we spent in that country expelling them? What use has all those UK and USA troops lost lives, been? I would say none at all, all wasted for no gain, as things return violently, to a tribal country and a thorn in the worlds side. As Afghanistan has been for many centuries.

Why did we go into Afghanistan anyway? Ignoring much history, refusing to learn the lessons.

And Saddam seems to be a lot more crazy then Stalin.

Do not get me wrong, I know Saddam was bad, very bad indeed, but saying he was madder; worse than Stalin has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this forum. Stalin killed millions of people, many millions of his own people, the only person who could be said to be worse, maybe, is Hitler or Mao. The only reasonable comparison, would be the fact that both were allies to an extent, then became arch enemies. Maybe I am misunderstanding things, but we obviously had very different History lessons!

Edit:

Brinkmanship with nuclear weapons. A fun game for all concerned . . .

(In a "Not-fun-at-all" sort of a way)

I suspect this is already very close. He does not need the ballistic missiles, he has already as good as said he will deliver the nuclear attack using his methods. I would be very careful around cargo ships. Just imagine the chaos if he manages to deliver a warhead this way? It could very well cause major problems for world commerce.

[Ketraar]

If "something bad" exists, what should our reaction be? Do nothing and maybe it will go away? Well, what if we had the power to make the Something Bad not happen anymore? Then, we're partly responsible for it continuing if we do nothing, right? What if doing something to stop the Something Bad might result in more, but different, Something Bad, but there's a chance for Something Good occurring where there was no such chance, before?

I'll answer with this quote

Why did we go into Afghanistan anyway? Ignoring much history, refusing to learn the lessons.

As it stands, history shows that when foreign Powers try to "do the right thing", be it defining how South-American countries should be structured, or which dictator should rule over oil land or the more bland "lets bring democracy to the oppressed", the record is very grim.

What constitutes "something bad" is possibly different for most people in the same culture group, nvm in different areas. Trying to tell a Stockholm syndrome victim that they are better off not being held hostage is something requires both time and care. Its not too different with the "something bad" you mentioned and possibly in need of action.

My concern is that a crow bar is hardly a reasonable tool outside of Half Life and that "bullying" your way into the minds of people indoctrinated into hate you will result the exact opposite what I assume we want as a result. Obviously something has to be done, but cornering a populist that thrives on acting tough will have one result ever. To subvert a populists power you need to remove the fuel, you remove hate. If you introduce a way for the populist to save face while being clear there is no real choice you possibly have much greater chances then going a a hands measuring contest.

The problem is doubly troublesome if you have 2 idiot populists that need that ego boost, even if just fake. If you have 2 man-childs that dont have anyone around with the balls (in NK case understandably so) to poke some sense into them this whole situation does just not end well and the more insecure they (both have tiny hands) the worse it gets.

MFG

Ketraar

[Santi]

To start with, there is nothing to solve in North Korea, I understand why this is escalating, Trump strike on Syria was excellent for his ratings and something that kind of united popular opinion, so obviously it is a good policy to follow, and pretty much Bombing the Dictator has become kind of a hobby for the most recent USA presidents.

NK still cannot fit a nuclear warhead into a missile and still does not have a long range missile, right now South Korea, China, Russia and Japan are within range and that is with a missile with a success rate of 2 out of 9 launches. NK missiles is derived of the reverse engineering of the Russian Scud. This is a very basic platform and can be easily intercepted.

Yes the country is impoverished and famine and lack of medical facilities are becoming chronic problems for the regime. But there is no alternative, the current model of western intervention guarantees pretty much Civil War as different factions fight for power.

[greypanther]

I have read that the last missile that fatty tried to launch was heading towards Russia and they destroyed it themselves! Papa Putin was not happy. It was sourced from the Daily Express and I cannot find it anywhere else, so have not linked it.

Meanwhile: Reuters has this report on North Korean media criticising the
Chinese.

A commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) referred to recent commentaries in China's People's Daily and Global Times newspapers, which it said were "widely known as media speaking for the official stand of the Chinese party and government."

"A string of absurd and reckless remarks are now heard from China every day only to render the present bad situation tenser," it said.

"China had better ponder over the grave consequences to be entailed by its reckless act of chopping down the pillar of the DPRK-China relations," the commentary said, referring to North Korea by the acronym for its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[notaterran]

I can't wait for the next threat of a "super-duper mega strike" against their enemies

[philip_hughes]

Sometimes i just want to get all the world leaders, put them in several rooms with actors and let them pretend they are in power while we get on with real life.

[Morkonan]

....the worse it gets.

Isn't this a sociopolitical theory, IIRC? Something along the lines of the so-called "Marxist Revolution" kind of theory, but one that is a bit more clinical/accepted.

IOW - Human societies change through violence, sometimes self-inflicted.

Well, if it isn't a broadly held theory, maybe it should be? Or, maybe it's just mine?

It's too rare that we every do anything to facilitate change unless the thing we're trying to change is in our own "backyard." Sure, an invading army can affect socio-political change, sometimes good, sometimes not-so-good. But, it seems the most enduring changes come to societies when they, themselves, implode with violence...

Change, itself, is not always good. Bad situations can be made worse, of course. In situations where good has come from them, they've generally had very strong leaders and movements emerge during the violence and, IMO, not necessarily those that are leading the movements/revolves. Those leaders, IMO, often tend to be using the opportunity to grab power. But, the emergent leaders, those thrust into the spotlight, may just not have had the notion, first, in their heads that they'll use the opportunity for their own purposes.

IOW - Maybe outside military intervention which is NOT intended to be an occupational/annexation attempt is always going to be doomed to fail in every way when it comes down to human societies. In the longrun, it may be that the only way a human society can change, and change for the better for its own people, is for it to revolt and change itself with leaders who emerge from the ranks of those who have risked their own lives/livelihood for a noble cause rather than opportunists looking for a power-grab.

ie: If you're going to invade, you must annex. If you don't, you will fail and the society will suffer for it. If a society is going to drastically change, it must do so from within and violence appears to be the only effective mechanism. But, "good change" only comes through emergent leaders of the revolt, not the original authors, who may either be corrupt or have other issues with being dedicated to the true Greater Good.

Note: It is rare in human history to find instances of powerful nations intervening, militarily, in the structure of others and that do not, also, seek occupation or annexation of those countries. Colloquially, I don't think this is really "a thing" in human history, so examples are sparse. Successful examples are probably even rarer...

[Usenko]

I'd say you're a bit pessimistic there.

The problem is not that military forces CAN'T accomplish goals other than annexation. It's more that their masters send them into a combat zone WITHOUT objectives.

When the Australian force went into East Timor about 10 years back to settle it down, it was highly successful, and that wasn't an annexation. It was simply that the task force was given totally clear objectives, with proper exit strategies and sunset clauses.

[Morkonan]

...
When the Australian force went into East Timor about 10 years back to settle it down, it was highly successful, and that wasn't an annexation. It was simply that the task force was given totally clear objectives, with proper exit strategies and sunset clauses.

I'll take a look at that.

What was the government of ET like before they.. uh... "went into" it to "settle it down?" Bureaucracy, with stable structure? Dictatorship? Anarchy?

I'll certainly take a look at that.

Several after-action puppet governments and even those that became independent arose after WWI&II. Well... we all know that the world map was basically re-written after WWI and to some extent after WWII, though much of that was probably just some re-adjusting. But, stable governments in Germany and Japan arose and, arguably, were much better than they were before. BUT, that's an adversarial situation and, by that time, there wasn't anyone around who hadn't known someone who had been killed because of those wars... That sort of sobers one up after the first twenty or so...

Thanks for the headsup, will check it out.

But, on "clear goals" and "exit strategies", I think that while they're important, they're not as important as actually knowing who the enemy is... Fighting insurgents, guerillas, several factions at once, loosely aligned tribes, night-shift combatants who serve one tea during the day... This is the stuff that military nightmares are made of. Who's the enemy, who is leading this foe, where is their capital so we can put our boots on it?

There's an old rule of warfare I remember reading a long time ago - Never fight anyone you can't talk to.

Pretty smart rule.

[Usenko]

But, on "clear goals" and "exit strategies", I think that while they're important, they're not as important as actually knowing who the enemy is... Fighting insurgents, guerillas, several factions at once, loosely aligned tribes, night-shift combatants who serve one tea during the day... This is the stuff that military nightmares are made of. Who's the enemy, who is leading this foe, where is their capital so we can put our boots on it?

There's an old rule of warfare I remember reading a long time ago - Never fight anyone you can't talk to.

Pretty smart rule.

Agreed. Actually, those are interrelated requirements.

[mrbadger]

America were forced to do that with Japan in WW2, it didn't end well for Japan, being the ones who were for the most part refusing to talk to the US.

It tends to result in the kind of big 'if you won't talk, here's something you can't ignore' event that happened, and we are still having repercussions from today.