Talk Elections

“There’s one other option here that we haven’t talked about,” Fox Business host Trish Regan said, picking up the reins of the discussion Thursday. “I know you’re not supposed to go in and take out a leader because of international rules, decorum, etc., that we have. But if there is a way to get in and get rid of this ‘crazy fat kid’—as you said Meghan—then wouldn’t that do a lot in terms of saving a lot of lives here?”

“The only legitimate option is an assassination attempt or a coup,” he said. “But that possibility is probably the most difficult. The intelligence agencies of Russia, South Korea, Japan and China and the United States, they need to start collaborating and get some spies in there and get an assassination network or cell in there and to take preemptive action that way. Because I think a decapitation strategy is the best strategy.”

http://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-kim-jong-un-633656

...No.

What a f**jung moron

It wouldn't play out for the best although that option is viable, leaving it there.

Viable? Because he has a ballistic missile now? Is that the criteria? Well US has nukes & ballistic missiles positioned all over the world. And has invaded countries, caused regime changes & millions of people have died. So is it justified if the US President is assassinated by a foreign country? Kim is not the only unstable leader in the world & neither is the only dictator. Most countries have inter-continental ballistic missiles.

The idiot Kim has not even attacked anyone. Not a single person has died, he has no allies & is geographically cut off from the world in a remote location with a terrible economy & an antique military. North Korea is officially in the axis of evil (Check what happened to Iraq) & Gaddafi got overthrown even though he has surrendered his WMD's years back. US & South Korea have huge tanks, aircrafts, nukes, a huge army positioned & they practise a coup & assassination!

What the hell is this mad-man supposed to do? Anyone else would do the same !

Viable as in potentially an option http://www.timesofisrael.com/nsc-said-to-offer-trump-options-for-north-korea-including-killing-kim-jung-un/

Why would we assume that the next leader would be any better?

Uh, assassinating Kim Jong-un may in fact be the easiest way to compel the North Koreans to actually launch a nuke.

Highly unlikely. The resulting confusion in the hierarchy would be interesting, to say the least. Kim Han-sol, Kim Jong-chun, Ri Yong-ho, Kim Ju-ae loyalists, and Choe Ryong-hae would presumably all compete for power. I think whoever Kim Sul-song sides with of the Kims would dominate in a short struggle for leadership.

How would American politicians, media and public react if North Korean TV openly advocated assassinating Trump as the only path to peace? My guess is far worse than the North Korean government will react to this.

lolwatters

Hasn't this been illegal since, like, 1975?

Honestly, the kidnapping and murder of Otto Warmbier is causus belli enough. Whether it would be a good idea is up in the air, but justified? Absolutely.

I thought he was arrested while he was in North Korea for committing minor vandalism?

North Korea's story has been exposed as a lie. They claimed he was a member of a Church group conspiring to convert people, and his supposedly stealing the banner was part of that "mission". That story is unlikely for patently obvious reasons.

Their "evidence" is a filmed video of him supposedly taking down the banner, which was likely staged once they had decided to kidnap him and hold him for ransom. Why they decided to murder him, we'll never know.

Your explanation, while reasonably accurate, fails to explain why a destabilized North Korea with an internal power fight (or immediately afterwards, considering it would likely be resolved in days if not hours) wouldn't strongly increase the risk of a nuclear launch. The one thing that could trigger the Kims into a launch would be a serious threat to their dynastic survival. This would establish them as THE force of the government, and allow a "rally around the flag" dynamic to solidify support.

This scenario would surely end badly for all, particularly the Kims, but it is entirely feasible, or even the most probable outcome, with an assassination of Dear Leader.

Whether he did in fact commit some relatively trivial act of vandalism/theft or not is of little import when considering he was murdered for it.

Fox news..a perfect tool to teach people in other countries to hate America.

So we should send millions to their death, and allow tens of millions of civilians to be killed in their home, because one person died who shouldn't have been there to start with? Brilliant logic, glad you aren't in charge.

...Not a good idea at all.

Even presuming they kidnapped him, calling his death as the result of disease or poor treatment while in custody 'murder' positively reeks of internalized pro-war Orwellian propaganda. ( And what ransom demands were made? I never heard a whisper of this before this thread.)  It implies his condition was deliberately inflicted as the result of malice.  I don't seem to recall blue posters here being nearly so eager to label people dying directly or indirectly at the hands of law enforcement 'murder' when the law enforcement in question is located in the US.

Also, WTF does this have to do with Faux News publicly calling for the assassination of foreign heads of state?

1) From all I've read, to call Warmbier's death even the best case scenario (to North Korea) of "benign neglect" is false and misleading. He was at best left to die, and more likely suffered from intentional beatings/torture to result in his decades-premature death. I'm not saying it warrants war, but lets not let the bastard government that killed him off the hook to make that point.

2) No relation to the OP's thread really, though it's arguably at least more relative that your comment about supposed comparison to custodial deaths in the US.

Perhaps. But we can't underestimate how fragmentation works. No serious player in the ensuing struggle for leadership would even consider launching a nuclear weapon, as every North Korean top official understands the importance of not doing so. It's highly unlikely that a rogue general or politician could even muster the necessary supplies to launch the nukes. If it's anything like America, one of the people closest to him would gain all the codes. Whoever his personal guard was loyal to would be unlikely to change his policies regarding nuclear warfare. It would take a complicated struggle for a random insane person to manage to successfully launch the nuclear weapons.

I believe you're applying an overly rational thought process to an unquestionably irrational government.

Millions of people aren't going to be sent to die. The goal of assassinating this psychopathic tyrant would be to prevent such a war.

Perhaps. However, if Kim Jong-un was truly irrational, he would have been overthrown. That's the thing about dictatorships: idiots, playing with fire daredevils, and irrational people aren't in charge for long. For that matter, for all we know Kim Jong-un may be a puppet.

I can't believe there are people on this forum who actually defend North Korea. Gross.

Runeghost has repeatedly proven he's a massive HP, literally calling Trump and Kim Jong-in equally bad.

I understand that concepts like truth and reality are an alien idea over in Trumpland, but some of us think wars are generally a bad idea and are reluctant to jump on board the Five Minute Hate just because it targets whatever nation Orange Leader and his string-pullers have decided we need to be at war with today.

If you're so keen on setting straight hereditary dictatorships with aggressive rhetoric where objectively innocent people die in prison, maybe you should start with the one you're responsible for?

There's only 1 person who ran in 2016 that I know of that tried to inherit the presidency from someone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abfLDg_7Hjo

How could I forget Jeb!? There was 2. But Jeb! for the lulz

You instantly assumed I'm talking about Trump and the US, not US-supported (particularly by Republicans) Saudi Arabia with it's awful record and bellicose record or any of similar nation. That tells me that you know damned well the problems we face here at home (and in particular with Trump) are real, and willfully choose to ignore them.

Likewise, many posters here are ignoring the elephant in the ballroom. A major US "news" network - one that functions as a de facto propaganda arm of the right-wing - publicly called for the assassination of a foreign head of state. A move that is stupid, and a violation of international norms, if not international and domestic law. Again, if North Korean media had done something similar and specifically called for the death of President Trump, his supporters would be in dire need of sedatives.

Meanwhile, the North Koreans have yet to respond to Fox News' idiocy. (Probably the best and most appropriate response.) Instead, they're complaining about US saber rattling:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/north-korea-calls-us-practice-bombing-run-provocation-48529103

Besides all the other nonsense in this post, why should North Korea be allowed to test ICBM's and other nuclear devices and US and South Korean allies not be allowed to conduct their war games??

You're sorely mistaken if you don't think that would lead to a war. If nothing else it's highly likely they'd start shelling Seoul in response.

Hammy, I think that would be the likely outcome. This is one of the reasons SK doesn't want this to happen, esp under Moon, but it reserves all options.