Violent forced regime change by the US?

F R E E D O M

precludes forced regime changes. You can't have both and expect either to work.

Besides, there are better ways. Cut them off economically, refuse to do any business with them at all, blockade their countries to the point of starvation, and the people there will do your business for you.

Think about it. No business, no products, no luxeries, no wealth, no profits, no interaction with the world....what dictator would want that?

Then say, sure, we'll do business with you, so long as you uphold human rights. If you want to join the club, you have to act like a human being, otherwise, starve to death for all we care.

Just as vicious. Just as effective. And a lot less dangerous to all the rest of us.

Look at it this way. You have a problem child. He refuses to behave. Do you beat the living crap out of him and maim him for life, or do you isolate him in his room until he learns to behave himself? Using barbarism to solve barbarism hasn't worked out too well for the past 6,000 years or so, so what makes you think it will be effective in the modern world?

They've been squeezing North Korea for some time now, and it is getting them to the table, isn't it...if we were to invade to force regime change, don't you think there might be some serious consequences?

As for regime change in this country, well, the Declaration of Independence tells us it is perfectly within our rights...even necessary if a tyrant comes around.

Granted, most changes involve bloodletting on a big scale. We haven't evolved beyond the might is right idea, but look at Iraq. Can you really say it's working out just fine? That bigger problems might not have been created here that will come to fruition later? War begets war. Violence begets violence. Force creates resistance. You can't get there from here, but that won't stop us for a second...

There has to be a better way.

Regime change
Yes, Billy, I don't place gw bush in the same catagory as Kimil.
I don't feel that violent regime change is the way to go unless it's a direct threat to the USA, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Cambodia and the killing fields would have been an exception in my view. I would have been supportive of Mulit-lateral UN action there and also Rawanda.

Re: Regime change

Okay. So there are exceptions where you find action justified. But if the UN sits on it's hands, you would prefer we do too... and allow mass murders to take place? And, what makes the millions of victims in NK any different?

I was just listening to a fascinating interview with an academic whose studies are particularly focussed on Al Quaeda. He said that they are particularly hoping Bush will be re-elected, as he will continue to put Americans 'out there'. He said that Bush's infamous 'bring it on' has been their approach for years, and they appreciate him meeting them in this way. Makes things easier.

Oh, why did I post this here? because regime change was a question in the interview and he pointed out that Al Quaeda is not terribly attached to any one regime, so 'the war on terrorism' cannot be won by regime change.

He suggested regime change effected by another country was related to 'something' the other country wanted from the country. Apparently, North Korea doesn't have anything in particular that the U.S. wants.

Thats a rather unfortunate choice of words, since the one flaw of boycotts as a means to exercise pressure on a dictatorial regime is that, if the dictator is evil enough, it usually ends up doing exactly that, before the dictator in question even considers giving in.

I.e., any really bad dictator worth his salt will, when faced with economic boycotts, rather bring his population to the point of starvation than go without much himself or give in much in any way. Look at North Korea - foreign countries are actually giving food aid now, because the population is literally starving - but the NK dictators are not of the kind that that would make them think twice about holding on tightly to their grip and course.

So there's the rub. Smart sanctions can work to exert extra pressure on a government if the government still is reasonably pressurizable. But in exactly the worst cases of totalitarian abuse, it will achieve little but effect misery onto the population.

Umbagog: When I first read your post I laughed out loud and thought; I'll bet her teammates aren't that glad to have her chipping in to help them. Then I thought about it a little more and concluded that you are actually closer to understanding this than most. If you recognize that the ramifications of economic sanctions can be "Just as vicious" as a military regime change; how can you condone the mass graves of innocents over the graves of the guilty? Seven figures of dead innocents in NK so far and counting…
This is what we've been doing for the most part in NK. Result: Millions (not thousands) of innocent people dead.
Kim lives quite comfortably despite the economic sanctions. There is sufficient wealth and luxury in every country for a ruthless ruler. Only the masses suffer and starve to death.
This statement I agree with almost completely accept for the faulty thinking that the leaders will starve to death. Said death concerns will have to be brought about another way.
I submit: Starving innocents to death is far more vicious and less effective than attacking the GUILTY with military force. Sure it's dangerous. So is all manner of police work. But it's work that needs to be done.
I can scarcely think of anything more barbaric than turning a blind eye while Kim systematically rapes, mutilates, tortures and starves NK's masses to death. Using barbarism to solve barbarism (with few exceptions) is about the only thing that's worked in 6,000 years. In the "modern world"; it is not possible for starving farmers to defeat their oppressors themselves. There is simply too much modern weaponry in the hands of the oppressors.
Of course there will be serious consequences. But are they really more serious than watching Kim kill people by the millions?
Indeed. And I'll keep that in mind if it ever comes up.
It is still too soon to judge how Iraq will turn out. I remain convinced that Iraqi's will be better off… and so will the rest of the world without Saddam. We'll just have to wait and see.
Also; add fight fire with fire to your list of catchy phrases. There was no other solution in plenty of wars that I'm sure you can list for yourself. :wink:



I do not much care whether there is any attachment to terrorism and a brutal regime. The death toll brought about by brutal dictators dwarves that of terrorists. Kim Jong Il's regime, for instance, has murdered more innocent people than every terrorist act in history combined. Are North Korean's not people? Al Qaeda is a mere nuisance compared to Kim if you stop categorizing human beings by nationality. Think about it.

That may be the sad truth… but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it isn't. On the other hand; with our recent display of blatant disregard for world opinion, any threat we make is liable to be taken seriously once again. Maybe now that we've stopped just "crying wolf" and started delivering on our threats; more azzholes might follow Khadafi's lead. I hope so.

Like Nimh has said; Regimes like Kim's do not care if the masses starve. As a matter of fact; Kim even diverts the food aid to the black market in order to use the proceeds for weaponry. How many millions of innocent North Korean's need to be beaten, tortured and starved to death before we can admit "economic sanctions" are NOT the more humane solution in every case?

I'd love for every nation in the world to have a democracy... but I don't think war is always necessary to accomplish that. In the long run, though, its for the better.

Democracy?
I have typed this many times. I eel the need to do so again. The USA is not a Democracy. It is an Oligarchy.

Violently overthrowing other countries regimes has been practiced by the USA directly and indirectly for many years. It did not matter if these regimes were dictatorships or elected "democracies". The regimes were not friendly to USA business interests. Humanitarian interests in this regard seems to me to have been a non-issue.

To overthrow N. Korea's regime and take the risk of China taking the side of N. Korea is not even something that Bush Inc. will risk. The only concern with N. Korea in my view that the present USA regime has concern the nuke matter, not ony that n. Korea posses nukes but that they may sell them to countries not friendly to the USA.

If N. Korea was an ally there wouldn't be much said about the treatment of it's people.

China is not much better in the human rights area but the Bush Inc. and a slew of Multi-Corps are flocking to do business with China. In fact, it seems that Multi-Corps would rather do business with dictatorships than any other form of govts.

Regime change of other nations by the USA is only based on economics.

Pistoff: it may appear oligarchic but you forget that we still get to vote. Perhaps you believe the last election was stolen... But consider that if it was a larger majority against a candidate, it couldn't be covered up. If Americans choose to vote for the same privileged few, that doesn't make it an Oligarchy. Okay?
China isn't too kind to its citizens but it's a damn sight better than Kim and you know it. Also; who romanced the Chinese more than your buddy Clinton?
And finally, China would never be foolish enough to stand by North Korea if the S**t hits the fan. They would care if we hit them with economic sanctions AND they know they're no match militarily anyway.

Hmmm
Bill Clinton is not one of my fave politicians. Sure, he is folksy and personable, a great PR and sales person but I did not like his policies such as NAFTA, GAT and his Welfare Reform which I don't feel is the correct approach.

The US won't invade N. Korea. The price would be too high even for a big spender like shrub. The lives part Bushco couldn't care any less about but the money? Oh...wait it isn't his money or his wealthy budies' loot but the Middle Class taxpayers' hard earned money. Even so, N. Korea would have to do something more crazy in oreder for the American people to be conned to go down the road of pre-emptive invasion again. Seems that the Iraq example may have put the brakes on pre-emptive strikes.

Most likely in a few years China will convince N. Korea to be more like China, harsh dictatorship with a mixed market economy and the Multi-Natls. will flock there, as well..

btw please study up on what an Oligarchy is.

To be fair, the US is more of a democratic republic.