North Korea - matches in the powder keg

dteowner said:

Came up with a few hints, but nothing solid enough for this argument in the posts available to view today. I hereby withdraw the accusation with requisite apologies.

edit- I'll even change my avatar for a bit out of shame.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted, Captain Needa.



To set the record straight, and for future reference in case this comes up again, here's my stance on Saddam, Kuwait, containment, the US role in these, and the UN weapons inspectors:

(1) Containment worked. Post-1991, Saddam was not in a position to threaten anyone other than his own citizens. The least bad option would have been to wait until he croaks, while quietly preparing to make the best of the succession.

(2) The UN inspections worked. Later events showed that Hans Blix's gang had learned pretty much everything relevant about Saddam's weapons programs, and they had a high level of confidence in what they learned. This does not mean Saddam was cooperative -- he did obstruct them whenever he could get away with it. (Of course, this is not the way it was portrayed in the US -- you had Conan O'Brian putting a Blix lookalike on, desperately searching for a birthday cake that was right in front of him. Not to mention camel-riding Arabs buying his show and making some changes. Whatta laugh.)

(3) Pre-1991, Saddam was a dangerous loose cannon with aspirations to regional dominance. He was a gambler ready to go on a military adventure if he thought, for whatever reason, that he had a better-than-even chance of winning. He had already attacked Iran when it was down, with pretty significant US support.

(4) Saddam, and Saddam alone, bears responsibility for his unprovoked aggression on Kuwait. The US could certainly have done more to deter him from making it, but that's neither here nor there -- it's just not acceptable to start unprovoked invasions, whether there's someone deterring (or encouraging) you or not.

(5) The subsequent global response to Saddam's attack on Kuwait was entirely justified. I have some problems with the way the sanctions and containment were executed -- specifically, I believe they could and should have been better focused to deter Saddam's military ambitions without the awful humanitarian effects they had -- but I believe the military response and the subsequent containment itself were exactly the right policies to pursue. The lousy shape of Saddam's military in 2003 is ample evidence of their effectiveness.

dteowner said:

While Bush Sr would have had more international support for wiping out Saddam due to his agression in Kuwait, it's hard to tell if the Iraqi people would have done better with it than they have under Dubya.

Click to expand...

Just tossing in on the alternative history speculation - while its possible to debate whether or not deposing Sadam would have been easier under Bush Sr than Jr does anyone seriously think early 90's recession 'its the economy stupid' America woudl have been willing to sustain the sort of military commitment required. Hell even if you assumed it would have been half as bad remember voters kicked out Bush Sr after a victorious and practically bloodless short war, imagine what it would have been like with bodybags coming home from an occupation.

For what its worth I think Sadam got less then he deserved but I agree with PJ that the externalities were too high.

and edit to add: its all a bit academic anyway 'getting Sadam' was never more than a fringe benefit of a war with other aims.

GothicGothicness said:

I found many South Koreans acctually care about the north Koreans, S. Korea also sends food, blankets, clothes and other help to N.Korea. After all they were once one people, and could one day be re-united again. Many S.Koreans still want that. It'd be a big hit to the S.Korea economy though, just like when Germany re-united. But after they got their act togheter we could have a major power Korea to account for in Asia, after all North Korea has a lot of people in it.

With Kim jong il II falling from power none knows what would happen, we can only hope someone who wants a change and to open up the country would manage to get in power, it could make for a bright future.

Click to expand...

Once we were one people yes. But on the other hand, our goverment only send supplies to North korea for another purpose i.e to show off to world "look! we care for them! look at me!". I mean, ffs, one of our president recieved a nobel peace award for sending supplies to North korea. And what do we get back from North korea? Bullet in the back. Some of south korean tourist who went to North korea for a holiday got shot dead. Real thanx we get.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like things to work out between South and North korea. After all, I'm 1/2 North korean myself (technically... since my grandparents (my dad's side) are both north korean). But at the moment, time is not right so to say. And I have a feeling it won't be right time for both side to get friendly for a while.

So, if you were George Bush Sr. and it was 1991, would you have occupied Iraq and deposed Saddam, even if you were reasonably certain that the results would be what happened after Bush Jr.'s invasion?

Click to expand...

hmmmm, that is a hard question. If it would leave to the chaos that is Iraq now probably not. But I think Saddam used the 17 years to dispose of many people negative to him and build his own party and supporters stronger and stronger. I am not so sure the effect would have been the same. Especially if he was sentanced as a war criminal for starting the war. Maybe it could even have been possible to dethrone him without a full-scale invasion. There is nothing to say the replacment would have been better either though.

The way it turned out iraq was first weakened much by sanctions? and made it worse for the people there, Saddam made the life good for his strong supports and let the missery of the sanctions hit the people not so much in favor of him, and finally when Iraq was weak enough US striked and invaded them in favor of getting oil, that is pretty much my picture of what happend.

Unfortunately we will never know what would happen if things were done differently. In the kosovo / serbia conflic , the war criminals was stopped and sentanced in the wake of the wars instead of kept in power. This was done by bombing and killing of many people. The effect was still a lot of fighting? But without all of these people in power it become less intensive and structured until things finally calmed down a bit? However it ended with a lot of controversy and a new nation.

I think in general ( if at all possible without catastrophic effect ) do not keep the same people to start wars and commit horrible crimes against its own people in power. Yes they could be weakened much by sanctions, but nothing stops them from building up in their own country and even prepare guerilla warfare should they be invaded, and keep commiting crimes against their own people that do not support them. The sanctions will strike the hardest by far to the people NOT supporting the gouverment and the little guys, which makes them less strong, and could make it easier for the opressor to keep in power. On top of that it builds hatred to the countries who support the sanctions, since the gouverment will say it is these countries fault that people are poor and don't have a good life.

Once we were one people yes. But on the other hand, our goverment only send supplies to North korea for another purpose i.e to show off to world "look! we care for them! look at me!". I mean, ffs, one of our president recieved a nobel peace award for sending supplies to North korea. And what do we get back from North korea? Bullet in the back. Some of south korean tourist who went to North korea for a holiday got shot dead. Real thanx we get.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like things to work out between South and North korea. After all, I'm 1/2 North korean myself (technically... since my grandparents (my dad's side) are both north korean). But at the moment, time is not right so to say. And I have a feeling it won't be right time for both side to get friendly for a while.

Click to expand...

I can understand why you think in this way purple. But you also have to remmember that the millions of poor people in N.Korea they are opressed, many of which would like to reunite with S.Korea. There are many stories of people who were married or siblings , parents children divided by the border and unable to meet. The people around kim young il II and a lot of other people are effectively brain washed to think in a certain way.

I think a change of attitude and gouverment in N.Korea ( althought I don't see it happening anytime soon either ) could reinforce what many N.Koreans already feel for their S.Korean counterparts.

GothicGothicness said:

hmmmm, that is a hard question. If it would leave to the chaos that is Iraq now probably not. But I think Saddam used the 17 years to dispose of many people negative to him and build his own party and supporters stronger and stronger.

Click to expand...

Um, no. He became de facto head of the government in 1976, and consolidated his power in 1979. He had had eleven years to further establish himself. If anything, the loss of the war in 1991, and especially his loss of control of the Kurdish areas, weakened him.

But that's not the issue, really -- the problem is that overthrowing Saddam led to a disintegration of the country, with Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds, secularists, nationalists, Islamists, and traditionalists engaged in a multi-sided civil war. I can't see any reason why this would not have happened in 1991.

I am not so sure the effect would have been the same. Especially if he was sentanced as a war criminal for starting the war. Maybe it could even have been possible to dethrone him without a full-scale invasion.

Click to expand...

And prevent the country from disintegrating... how? This is pure wishful thinking, GG -- just the kind of thing that led to the quagmire that Iraq is now.

There is nothing to say the replacment would have been better either though.

The way it turned out iraq was first weakened much by sanctions? and made it worse for the people there, Saddam made the life good for his strong supports and let the missery of the sanctions hit the people not so much in favor of him, and finally when Iraq was weak enough US striked and invaded them in favor of getting oil, that is pretty much my picture of what happend.

Click to expand...

It's wrong on several important counts:

(1) Life for Saddam and his clique was certainly good -- well, materially anyway. He personally wasn't hurt by the sanctions.

(2) However, the misery of the sanctions didn't discriminate -- it hit the formerly reasonably prosperous and educated middle classes particularly badly; the very people who could have served as a basis for future democratic evolution.

(3) Iraq's weakness wasn't an issue. Militarily, the US could easily have marched to Baghdad in 1991, or mounted a 2003-style invasion any time since. Saddam tried to rebuild his army after the 1991 disaster, but the sanctions made this rather difficult. He may have been weaker in 2003 than he was in 1992, or he may have been stronger; either way, he was much, much too weak to seriously resist the invasion.

(4) The oil issue is more complex than that, but it's too big a tangent to go on now.

Unfortunately we will never know what would happen if things were done differently. In the kosovo / serbia conflic , the war criminals was stopped and sentanced in the wake of the wars instead of kept in power. This was done by bombing and killing of many people. The effect was still a lot of fighting? But without all of these people in power it become less intensive and structured until things finally calmed down a bit? However it ended with a lot of controversy and a new nation.

Click to expand...

Milosevic wasn't Saddam. If anything, Saddam was like Tito -- the glue that kept an otherwise fractious country together (although Tito was clearly much more benign in most ways). And Serbia didn't fragment because Milosevic was deposed.

I think in general ( if at all possible without catastrophic effect ) do not keep the same people to start wars and commit horrible crimes against its own people in power. Yes they could be weakened much by sanctions, but nothing stops them from building up in their own country and even prepare guerilla warfare should they be invaded, and keep commiting crimes against their own people that do not support them. The sanctions will strike the hardest by far to the people NOT supporting the gouverment and the little guys, which makes them less strong, and could make it easier for the opressor to keep in power. On top of that it builds hatred to the countries who support the sanctions, since the gouverment will say it is these countries fault that people are poor and don't have a good life.

Click to expand...

I would agree with this paragraph, if you changed one thing about it: removed the "at all" from the phrase in parentheses. "If possible without catastrophic effect" I agree with. The "at all" means that you would do it anyway, and simply consider the catastrophic effect -- the thousands, even millions dead, maimed, dispossessed, or exiled -- as regrettable but necessary losses. That's a terribly cold and inhumane attitude, and one that I cannot share.

I would agree with this paragraph, if you changed one thing about it: removed the "at all" from the phrase in parentheses. "If possible without catastrophic effect" I agree with. The "at all" means that you would do it anyway, and simply consider the catastrophic effect -- the thousands, even millions dead, maimed, dispossessed, or exiled -- as regrettable but necessary losses. That's a terribly cold and inhumane attitude, and one that I cannot share.

Click to expand...

You simply got the meaning of my sentance wrong in that case. "If at all possible, without catastrophic effect" It might be I got the grammar wrong but it means, remove this kind of leaders in anyway possible as long as it does not have a catastrophic effect.

I would agree with this paragraph, if you changed one thing about it: removed the "at all" from the phrase in parentheses. "If possible without catastrophic effect" I agree with. The "at all" means that you would do it anyway, and simply consider the catastrophic effect -- the thousands, even millions dead, maimed, dispossessed, or exiled -- as regrettable but necessary losses. That's a terribly cold and inhumane attitude, and one that I cannot share.

Click to expand...

1. Yes that's what I said.

2. Certainly it also affected them, however you should know that the people who strongly supported Saddam got certain benefits, especially around Saddam's home area where his support was very strong and there was enough food and the houses reminded quite fine, while others got to suffer much more. I do not think this is misinformation as I did not only read it in several papers, but I also heard the story told from many Iraqi.

3. If there was no sanctions after the war, I am sure the Iraqi would have built up strong again, and it would've been much more costly for Bush Jr to commit the attack.

4. I agree I made a short summary, as it is not the issue we are discussing now.

Milosevic wasn't Saddam. If anything, Saddam was like Tito -- the glue that kept an otherwise fractious country together (although Tito was clearly much more benign in most ways). And Serbia didn't fragment because Milosevic was deposed.

Click to expand...

I know he wasn't, I simple took an example, and he was far from the only one who was arrested and sentanced and stripped from power during this time. If all of this strong leaders would have been allowed to keep operating I believe the situation would have been quite different today.

GothicGothicness said:

You simply got the meaning of my sentance wrong in that case. "If at all possible, without catastrophic effect" It might be I got the grammar wrong but it means, remove this kind of leaders in anyway possible as long as it does not have a catastrophic effect.

Click to expand...

Then we're in agreement. Of course, there is a complication: you can never predict anything for certain. Instead, you're dealing with risks; probabilities. I'd say that there is a risk of catastrophic consequences every time you attempt to forcibly remove a strongman, criminal or no (not to mention that it violates national sovereignty, which is the founding principle of international law). How big a risk are you willing to accept? 1%? 5%? 10%? 25%? 50%? More?

2. Certainly it also affected them, however you should know that the people who strongly supported Saddam got certain benefits, especially around Saddam's home area where his support was very strong and there was enough food and the houses reminded quite fine, while others got to suffer much more. I do not think this is misinformation as I did not only read it in several papers, but I also heard the story told from many Iraqi.

Click to expand...

I wasn't disputing the first part of your statement -- that Saddam took care of his own. I'm disputing the second: that the sanctions only or primarily affected his opponents. In fact, they primarily affected people who did their level best to stay out of trouble and just live a decent life.

3. If there was no sanctions after the war, I am sure the Iraqi would have built up strong again, and it would've been much more costly for Bush Jr to commit the attack.

Click to expand...

I very much doubt anything Saddam could have done could have made him strong enough to survive a conventional war with the US. Without sanctions, he might have become strong enough to become a regional player again, though, which would not have been a good outcome.

I know he wasn't, I simple took an example, and he was far from the only one who was arrested and sentanced and stripped from power during this time. If all of this strong leaders would have been allowed to keep operating I believe the situation would have been quite different today.

Click to expand...

Tell me: who do you think should decide which leader is dangerous enough to be forcibly deposed by the international community? The UN? You? George Bush? Vladimir Putin? Hu Jintao? Javier Solana? Someone else?

I wasn't disputing the first part of your statement -- that Saddam took care of his own. I'm disputing the second: that the sanctions only or primarily affected his opponents. In fact, they primarily affected people who did their level best to stay out of trouble and just live a decent life.

Click to expand...

Ok, I do not disagree with you here. His complete opponents was probably not better off before the sanctions as he hanged them or gassed them to death even at that time, or tortured them to learn who to support. Acctually the people who could have most strongly supported a democrazy just like you said were the middle class, they did not want trouble with Saddam thought and they did try to stay out of the way. But I still think the sanctions served to make the gap between the Saddam strong supporters and the rest of the country bigger. Since the middle class was greatly degraded but Saddam's strong supporters were still well off. Which lead to more people wanting to support Saddam to avoid losing their status houses and food sources.

I very much doubt anything Saddam could have done could have made him strong enough to survive a conventional war with the US. Without sanctions, he might have become strong enough to become a regional player again, though, which would not have been a good outcome.

Click to expand...

I do not think so either. That is why I wrote much more costly. With more weapons and soldiers and suicide bombers Iraq would have been an even worse nightmare for Bush Jr.

Then we're in agreement. Of course, there is a complication: you can never predict anything for certain. Instead, you're dealing with risks; probabilities. I'd say that there is a risk of catastrophic consequences every time you attempt to forcibly remove a strongman, criminal or no (not to mention that it violates national sovereignty, which is the founding principle of international law). How big a risk are you willing to accept? 1%? 5%? 10%? 25%? 50%? More?

Click to expand...

Excellent question. I think you have to make a more complex analysis to consider, How many people would die and suffer if this gouverment stays in power and what are the chances for war? If we overthrow them how many people would die and suffer and what are the chances for war? how would the long term future be affected?

We have Burma now, millions are suffering and none knows how many dying during the cyclones and harsh weather, and they even refuse to accept help! and steal the support money to make the gouverment stronger!

What would happen if the gouverment was overthrown? would the result be worse? more people dead? less food for the people in worse chaos?

Who can reply these questions probably none? But I do think we should have a organization with the brighest people on this subject to try to analys the effects.

Tell me: who do you think should decide which leader is dangerous enough to be forcibly deposed by the international community? The UN? You? George Bush? Vladimir Putin? Hu Jintao? Javier Solana? Someone else?

Click to expand...

Another excellent question PJ, I love how you ask all these good questions in debates! Certainly not ONE country or one person, of the ones you suggested the UN comes the closest. We have like G8 meetings and other things also. I think we have to have a strong majority of all the people in power, maybe they could vote after the analysis of the group I suggested above?

The big problem with all of it is how everyone still looks after their own interest and might try to manipulate this group in different directions.

I think we would also need a kind of no gain policy. So that the resources of a country for example would not benefit anyone, except the country itself if it was invaded.

But these questions are indeed very hard to reply, and even the most bright and best political leaders could not come up with a clear answer!

I may be in a minority, but I believe the people who live in a country should be the ones who decide if their leader should be removed. The problem, however, is how to effect that removal!!

GothicGothicness said:

I do not think so either. That is why I wrote much more costly. With more weapons and soldiers and suicide bombers Iraq would have been an even worse nightmare for Bush Jr.

Click to expand...

That's the aftermath you're talking about -- when Saddam was already gone. The time interval would have made no difference there. Insurgencies aren't about hardware; they're about people, and that's the same, before and after.

We have Burma now, millions are suffering and none knows how many dying during the cyclones and harsh weather, and they even refuse to accept help! and steal the support money to make the gouverment stronger!

What would happen if the gouverment was overthrown? would the result be worse? more people dead? less food for the people in worse chaos?

Who can reply these questions probably none? But I do think we should have a organization with the brighest people on this subject to try to analys the effects.

Click to expand...

Now, that's a good example. Should we try to forcibly overthrow the Burmese junta? If so, who are "we?" What if the Chinese disagree? Should we override them? If Russia feels that their neighbor has a loose cannon who starts wars at the helm, should they be allowed to depose him if the Chinese agree but we don't?

But these questions are indeed very hard to reply, and even the most bright and best political leaders could not come up with a clear answer!

Click to expand...

Which is precisely why we have to make do with lesser-evil solutions -- such as the principles of respecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity, even if we don't like the governments hiding behind these principles. A majority-vote solution would mean that, say, a bloc of China, Russia, and India would be able to overthrow the government of a country they don't like over the objections of the EU and the USA. Don't like that idea? Then I can't see how the system could work.

Corwin said:

I may be in a minority, but I believe the people who live in a country should be the ones who decide if their leader should be removed. The problem, however, is how to effect that removal!!

Click to expand...

Actually, I think you're in the majority -- that's the governing principle of international law. The flaw, of course, is that it gives no recourse for a people with a tyrannical leader. The trouble is that it's very difficult to come up with an alternative principle where the consequences wouldn't be worse.

I may be in a minority, but I believe the people who live in a country should be the ones who decide if their leader should be removed. The problem, however, is how to effect that removal!!
Actually, I think you're in the majority -- that's the governing principle of international law. The flaw, of course, is that it gives no recourse for a people with a tyrannical leader. The trouble is that it's very difficult to come up with an alternative principle where the consequences wouldn't be worse.

Click to expand...

I agree it is the best way, but in the countries me and PJ discuss, if you say I want to remove the leader your head is chopped off faster than you can finish the sentance, you also learn in school at a young age that the leader is the best and greatest and deserve all praise they could get, and all the people without food and broken buildings and whatever else is not his fault.

That's the aftermath you're talking about -- when Saddam was already gone. The time interval would have made no difference there. Insurgencies aren't about hardware; they're about people, and that's the same, before and after.

Click to expand...

Not only aftermath the invasion in itself would also be tougher and might cost more causilities if there was no sanctions and Iraqi could build strong, I do not doubt that US could still win quite easily though, just with some more losses. Especially if they had advance war technology and people with the know-how to use them, which could be possible without sanctions since the Iraqi would be quite rich. If I am not tricked by media again they managed to down quite a few UK airplanse because US forgot to mention they had sold a radar system to Iraq.

Which is precisely why we have to make do with lesser-evil solutions -- such as the principles of respecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity, even if we don't like the governments hiding behind these principles. A majority-vote solution would mean that, say, a bloc of China, Russia, and India would be able to overthrow the government of a country they don't like over the objections of the EU and the USA. Don't like that idea? Then I can't see how the system could work.

Click to expand...

The problem for Burma is China would not accept the invasion of Burma as we both know? But let us say China got critisized much and found it is not worth the benefit they get from using the Burma highway co-operating with the regime etc is not worth the cost of all the bad press and that we might get a new China friendly gouverment there, that had respect for its people. Ok it is quite unlikely since China itself is not a democratic country. But if they did agree? and russia agreed. US agree EU agree? Could it be a go? possible. That is why I said a strong majority of all the worlds leaders. I think they should have a detailed plan and many scenarios of what to do, and how to treat burma after the regime was done though.

As it is now I think Burma would be a go from most countries except China?

GothicGothicness said:

Not only aftermath the invasion in itself would also be tougher and might cost more causilities if there was no sanctions and Iraqi could build strong, I do not doubt that US could still win quite easily though, just with some more losses. Especially if they had advance war technology and people with the know-how to use them, which could be possible without sanctions since the Iraqi would be quite rich. If I am not tricked by media again they managed to down quite a few UK airplanse because US forgot to mention they had sold a radar system to Iraq.

Click to expand...

The aftermath I'm talking about is the insurgency -- guerrilla war. Certain types of hardware can make that nastier, but mostly it's about people. Specifically, a high birth rate and lots of young men with no prospects for a decent life. Anything on top of that is icing on the cake, and there's nothing Saddam could have provided that would have made the insurgency any more capable than it has been until now. In fact, former Saddam supporters are at best a tiny sliver of the insurgency -- the biggest players are the Shi'ites and the Sunni Islamists, both of whom Saddam did his level best to oppress.

The problem for Burma is China would not accept the invasion of Burma as we both know? But let us say China got critisized much and found it is not worth the benefit they get from using the Burma highway co-operating with the regime etc is not worth the cost of all the bad press and that we might get a new China friendly gouverment there, that had respect for its people. Ok it is quite unlikely since China itself is not a democratic country. But if they did agree? and russia agreed. US agree EU agree? Could it be a go? possible. That is why I said a strong majority of all the worlds leaders. I think they should have a detailed plan and many scenarios of what to do, and how to treat burma after the regime was done though.

Click to expand...

In that kind of situation, it would be very easy to get a UN Security Council resolution in place. That only leaves the small matter of implementing it. Would you be willing to send Swedish soldiers to fight the Burmese military for the Burmese people? If not, who do you think should take on that job, and why?

As it is now I think Burma would be a go from most countries except China?

Click to expand...

In principle, probably. In practice, I believe you'd have a very hard time finding the folks willing to actually pick up a rifle and start shooting.

In principle, probably. In practice, I believe you'd have a very hard time finding the folks willing to actually pick up a rifle and start shooting.

Click to expand...

Well, we would need a kind of international strike force. We swedes have people in Afghanistan, the danish has soldiers in Iraq. I do think it would be possible to find enough soldiers to send to Burma also, but maybe not until Afghanistan and Iraq wars has ended. It is hard to determine however how strong of a force would be needed to overthrow the gouverment in Burma.

It's not hard to get a ballpark estimate, though.

Off the top of my head, about 200,000 troops in a Western-style modern army would be enough to beat the Burmese military and overthrow the junta. You'd then need about 1,500,000...3,000,000 to stabilize the country afterwards, unless you wanted it to slide into anarchy like Iraq did.

Now, let me ask you again: where would you get these troops?

1,500,000...3,000,000 to stabilize the country afterwards, unless you wanted it to slide into anarchy like Iraq did.

Click to expand...

I am not sure the stabilization is necesarry, the people voted with a great majority for Aung San Suu Kyi party. The response from the junta was to throw her in house arrest and keep the power. The majority was greater than 60%. Why not overthrow the junta and put her party in power? since they already have so strong support from the people. Burma is not Iraq with so many different religious factions that wants to fight each other.

If we do that we have acctually in practice done what Coriwn suggested allow the people to choose who should gouvern the country.

GothicGothicness said:

I am not sure the stabilization is necesarry, the people voted with a great majority for Aung San Suu Kyi party.

Click to expand...

That's what Rummy/Wolfie/Bush thought about Iraq.

The response from the junta was to throw her in house arrest and keep the power. The majority was greater than 60%. Why not overthrow the junta and put her party in power? since they already have so strong support from the people.

Click to expand...

The problem with any dictatorial system is that the administrative apparatus is attached to the head. Chop it off, and the apparatus falls apart too. It doesn't matter how popular or unpopular the dictator is, or how much support their opponents have. The opposition doesn't have access to the levers of power. They won't be able to just smoothly step in and assume control. Without somebody stepping into the power vacuum, there is a huge likelihood that it'll all collapse into anarchy like a house of cards.

Sure, there's a *chance* that it won't happen, but we've seen this sort of thing happen almost invariably when a tyrannical system is overthrown or collapses. That means that if you don't plan for a *really big* stabilization force after your putative overthrow, you're taking an enormous gamble.

I find it shocking that you seem so willing to disregard the possibility. If you did this, and the place did go up in flames, what would you say? "Sorry, I meant well?"

Burma is not Iraq with so many different religious factions that wants to fight each other.

Click to expand...

Not quite -- but Burma *is* one of the biggest producers and traders of heroin in the world. Why do you figure the drug gangs (currently tied to the junta, well armed, well funded, and well entrenched) won't simply seize power by force of arms in areas they control? Look at Columbia -- no ethnic-religious messes there, just a burgeoning cocaine trade and political differences => FARC and the biggest murder rate in the world.

Not quite -- but Burma *is* one of the biggest producers and traders of heroin in the world. Why do you figure the drug gangs (currently tied to the junta, well armed, well funded, and well entrenched) won't simply seize power by force of arms in areas they control? Look at Columbia -- no ethnic-religious messes there, just a burgeoning cocaine trade and political differences => FARC and the biggest murder rate in the world.

Click to expand...

find it shocking that you seem so willing to disregard the possibility. If you did this, and the place did go up in flames, what would you say? "Sorry, I meant well?"

Click to expand...

I am not diregarding the possibility that is why I said I am not sure stabilization is necesarry in the way you wrote at least with that many people. I am sure the new party in power would need much support during their first time in power, I am not sure by the scale you said it is necesarry, since that leader has such a strong majority. Who did bush, rummy, wolfie? think would take over in Iraq which such a strong support by the people? I at least do not know of any such a person/party except Saddam's own one.

As far as the heroin goes, it would be a chance to burn the fields as many as possible! Imagine how many people suffer from Heroin addiction everyday. Yes burning the heroin plantage will make Burma's economy worse and some more people will starve, but I am sure much of the money go to the junta to build them stronger, and I don't think heroin is an acceptable way for people to get a better life, since it ruins the life of so many others.

We have to make a calculation, should we do it or not? now we know 1.3 million people are without help after the disaster 1.7 million got limited help.

Now if Burma was invaded? would the suffering be greater? would more than 1.3 million people be dying? would the other 1.7 million be better or worse off? what about the people whose food was eaten by 100.000 of rats, which didn't get any help from the gouverment? and are starving now?

Am I sure Burma should be invaded no. But the numbers of sufferings and problems there are very high right now, I think it would require a huge probability calculations and many experts to make the final decision.

GothicGothicness said:

I am not diregarding the possibility that is why I said I am not sure stabilization is necesarry in the way you wrote at least with that many people. I am sure the new party in power would need much support during their first time in power, I am not sure by the scale you said it is necesarry, since that leader has such a strong majority.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just your phrasing, but you still come across as awfully cavalier about this -- "you're not sure stabilization at this scale is necessary," and by extension you're ready to take the risk and do this without being ready to do the stabilization.

I'm not sure it's necessary either; however, I think there's a very significant chance that it *is* necessary, and therefore that it would be enormously irresponsible to attempt to topple the junta without having a couple of million troops ready to step in to stabilize the place in case it does go up in flames.

Who did bush, rummy, wolfie? think would take over in Iraq which such a strong support by the people? I at least do not know of any such a person/party except Saddam's own one.

Click to expand...

Why, "the people" of course. I'm sure more than 60% of Iraqis would have voted against Saddam in free elections. Some of them were even organized. By Iran, mostly, but still...

As far as the heroin goes, it would be a chance to burn the fields as many as possible! Imagine how many people suffer from Heroin addiction everyday. Yes burning the heroin plantage will make Burma's economy worse and some more people will starve, but I am sure much of the money go to the junta to build them stronger, and I don't think heroin is an acceptable way for people to get a better life, since it ruins the life of so many others.

Click to expand...

That, GG, is entirely beside the point.

The point is that because of the heroin, there are lots of well-armed, rich, and entrenched people in there. If you want to get rid of them (and burn those fields), they will fight a guerrilla campaign to stop you, and make trouble all over the country -- murder, arson, intimidation, bombings, shootings, what have you. No matter how popular the opposition is, they just don't have the guns nor the organization to mount that kind of campaign on their own.

In other words, it means that you need a very big stabilization force. Could be a million, could be three million, but in a country the size of Burma -- that's 55 million people, GG, the same size as France -- a piddling few hundred thousand just won't cut it.

We have to make a calculation, should we do it or not? now we know 1.3 million people are without help after the disaster 1.7 million got limited help.

Now if Burma was invaded? would the suffering be greater? would more than 1.3 million people be dying? would the other 1.7 million be better or worse off? what about the people whose food was eaten by 100.000 of rats, which didn't get any help from the gouverment? and are starving now?

Am I sure Burma should be invaded no. But the numbers of sufferings and problems there are very high right now, I think it would require a huge probability calculations and many experts to make the final decision.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that some back-of-the-envelope arithmetic ought to be enough to ballpark the scale of such an operation. Here's one:

* Population of Burma: 55 million.
* If just 0.1% of Burmese would be ready to turn insurgent (due to their connection to the heroin trade or the junta), the number of insurgents: 55,000.
* Troops in the theater needed to quell an insurgency: 10 regulars per insurgent.
* Troops needed to stabilize Burma in the above scenario: 550,000.
* Ratio of troops in the theater to troops in training or resting: 2:1.
* Total number of force commitment to Burma: 1,650,000.

Plug whatever numbers you like into that equation, you're going to come up with a very big number, for a quite a long time. All your "many experts" could do is come up with more reliable numbers; they won't change the scale of the issue. The bare facts are that (1) Burma is a big country, (2) there is a significant possibility that Burma would collapse into anarchy should the junta be removed by force, and (3) Burma has the ingredients for an insurgency -- guns, money, drugs, entrenched interests.

That means that getting rid of it would be a very risky, very big, and very expensive adventure.