ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on October 21st, 2011 at 4:29 am

What Does Gadhafi’s Death Mean for North Korea?

» by in: North Korea

I am sure everyone has heard about the grotesque way that former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi met his final end.  This guy really was a nutcase if he couldn’t see himself being beat to a pulp by an angry mob if he didn’t flee Libya.  Anyway seeing a wounded Gadhafi’s beat to death and dragged through the streets got me thinking whether or not the North Korean leadership would use this as a teaching moment to the regime elite on what will happen to them if they ever trust the United States and the west in general and the consequences of opening up their country?  It has been widely written about before how Kim Jong-il had all his regime elite watch the execution of former Romanian dictator Nicolae Chauchescu.  I am willing to bet that Kim Jong-il will make sure that all his regime elite get a close look at what has happened to Gadhafi as well.

Tags: , ,
- 2,624 views
56
  • Conway Eastwood
    5:31 am on October 21st, 2011 1

    I’m having flashbacks to Benito Mussolini.

  • Teadrinker
    5:34 am on October 21st, 2011 2

    I love how the Republicans are looking like fools trying to twist this into not being a victory for Obama.

  • Teadrinker
    5:37 am on October 21st, 2011 3

    “I am willing to bet that Kim Jong-il will make sure that all his regime elite get a close look at what has happened to Gadhafi as well.”

    I’m sure this will send him in another paranoid frenzy. I bet new reports of some members of his regime dying in traffic accidents are just a few days away.

  • Chris In Dallas
    11:07 am on October 21st, 2011 4

    2: Give Obama credit for something it didn’t want to do and only executed grudgingly? If anyone should get kudos in the US on this, it would be Sec State.

    Don’t know if this is a typo or not but wouldn’t it have been Kim Il Sung who made his minions watch Ceaușescu’s demise? That happened in 1989 and Pops was still breathing.

  • setnaffa
    1:32 pm on October 21st, 2011 5

    Teadrinker should lay off the meds… or restart them…

    Gaddafi was a creep of the first order; but he was illegally attacked by the US (under the cover of “NATO”), and then murdered by brigands operating outside the rules of war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

    Bush at least went to the UN and to Congress BEFORE he committed our military to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But maybe Democrats don’t care about delivering justice to non-white prisoners without a trial?

    And we’re still in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, and still sending POWs to “rendition” facilities in countries where we know they will be tortured. More than Bush ever did. And he’s deporting nearly twice the illegal aliens, too… As long as they aren’t relatives of his…

    No Republicans I know are trying to avoid giving Obama the “glory” he deserves. We want him to be the one claiming the “victory”…

  • setnaffa
    1:33 pm on October 21st, 2011 6

    “Mission Accomplished” :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

  • Ole Tanker
    2:11 pm on October 21st, 2011 7

    ObamaCare, war on the homefront :grin:

    KhadfiCare, war on terror :cool:

    The ends justify the means. :shock:

  • setnaffa
    2:13 pm on October 21st, 2011 8

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/does-killing-dictator-make-illegal-war-legal

  • Dragonfly
    3:32 pm on October 21st, 2011 9

    And now the UN and a number of “activists” want to investigate the circumstances of his death. It should be simple. Entrance wounds. Exit wounds. Case closed. Next?

  • Ole Tanker
    3:41 pm on October 21st, 2011 10

    The message is clear. If America wants your head on a platter or in a noose, you Mr Dictator are Toast.

    To muslims Hillary is the new jezebel or do I mean delilah..or who was that chick that got john the Baptit’s head on a platter.

    The bible sooo confusing :cool:

  • JoeC
    4:52 pm on October 21st, 2011 11

    The US insisted on getting a UN mandate before agreeing to participate in the Libyan No-Fly operation. We also provided other non-direct-combat support. But, when NATO countries escalated to going after non-no-fly related targets and providing direct air support to ground forces and asked to US to contribute to that, we refused.

    We held to the line of only participating in UN sanctioned combat efforts.

  • Expat
    7:37 pm on October 21st, 2011 12

    France and UK led, Obama followed. Its not difficult to say. Obama has finally figured out that he has an awesome military under his control. All those childhood stories he heard about baby killers fall away once all that power can possibly help HIM, as he uses it to deflect domestic complaints and aid re-election..

  • Odds and Ends, Oct 22, 2011: the Post-Gadaffi Edition
    8:19 pm on October 21st, 2011 13

    [...] GI Korea thinks KJI will make sure his buddies get a good look at what happened to Gaddafi. We already know which lessons North Korea drew from the NATO campaign, so Pyongyang is likely to [...]

  • Teadrinker
    8:50 pm on October 21st, 2011 14

    #11, 12,

    Are we playing “Guess if I watch Fox News”?

  • Conway Eastwood
    9:02 pm on October 21st, 2011 15

    Why didn’t Gaddafi duck? He’d still be alive then.

  • Teadrinker
    9:19 pm on October 21st, 2011 16

    Some of you guys simply don’t want to admit that restraint was the correct strategy to take. By appearing to be holding back a bit, the ensuing criticism was given much less power. It’s harder for the governments of Syria and Iran to whip people up in a frenzy that way, don’t you think?

    Just look at what Ahmedinjad had to say about this.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iran-ahmadinejad-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

    Not very compelling, isn’t it?

  • Expat
    10:39 pm on October 21st, 2011 17

    #14
    There has to be some broader meaning to the Left’s fear of what they call “Fox News”, even if their targets don’t even have cable TV. Fox News seems to be a bogeyman for anything non-center left, be it actually Fox News or just alternative internet news. Is it that the Left believes Fox is a threat to Left biased news hegemony? Heck, even the sitting Chairman of the BBC admits that BBC been consistently Left biased. At least he had the temerity to state the obvious. We all allow ourselves the luxury of the media and biases we choose, whether it’s the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, BBC or Fox News, so let’s stop pretending only our own news choice is unbiased and try to gather and present facts as best we can. Maybe then I’ll admit Barry got Gadhafi.

  • Teadrinker
    11:46 pm on October 21st, 2011 18

    #17,

    It’s not fear, it’s exasperation at the anti-intellectual spin, the bias, and the way it manipulates its viewers in order to better profit Rupert Murdoch.

    And, yes, the Republicans are trying their darnedest not to give any credit to Obama…He didn’t get Bin Laden, the Navy Seals did, he didn’t get al-Alwaki, the CIA did, he didn’t get Gaddaffi, the French did… Remember, these are the people who thought it was a good idea to send Bush on an airplane carrier to claim “mission accomplished” months into a war that you’ve been fighting for 10 years. The Republicans are good at claiming credit when it isn’t due and do a piss poor job of giving it when it is.

  • Teadrinker
    11:53 pm on October 21st, 2011 19

    …About Fox News and how it shapes it’s bias to appeal to as certain segment of the population in order to maximize advertising profits, well…

    Fox News appeals to evangelical Christians and Fox TV(another Murdoch owned TV station)…

    http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/09/28/gladd-report-fox-hbo-gay-friendly/

  • Expat
    12:24 am on October 22nd, 2011 20

    Who do BBC and CNN target? I don’t think anyone is aiming at a ban on media advertising are they? Yes, CNN would like to have FNC’s numbers and someday they might, with the right marketing and programing. Obama won the election in 2008. FNC is not omnipotent. Outside the hegemony, yes, but not omnipotent. I suggest anyone interested look up the words of the curent BBC Chairman regarding today’s news services and biases. He is an expert and pretty open minded, even when its tough on BBC.

  • Pops
    3:32 am on October 22nd, 2011 21

    How can a continuously and deliberately destabilized Middle East be a victory for anyone inside or outside the prospective neo-caliphate?

    On the one hand, a dictator deposed is a victory. But on the other, for example, the prospect of modern arms (e.g. MANPADs, etc.) being distributed or made available to terrorists worldwide at bargain basement prices by tribal thugs and brigands is hardly a positive result from this aided and abetted chaos.

    Who can reveal the true motives of this adventurism? Or predict what primal forces unleashed across the region will create (or destroy)as they shed constraint? What consequences, intended and unintended, are already unfolding? What good or evil do they portend?

    By the way, the chick that got John the Baptist’s head on a platter was Salome, daughter of Herodias. And the Bible isn’t so confusing if one spend a little quality time with it.

    He said it truly, “…they know not what they do…”

  • Vince
    4:07 am on October 22nd, 2011 22

    Obama is GOOD.

    Fox News is BAD.

    That’s all there is to it.

  • kangaji
    6:45 am on October 22nd, 2011 23

    ROKDROP is Korean news as a backdrop for discussion of US domestic politics and sometimes foreign policy with a military flavor

  • Avatar of GI KoreaGI Korea
    9:05 am on October 22nd, 2011 24

    @11 – If the US was keeping with the UN mandate of enforcing the no fly zone then how do you explain predator drones striking targets across Libya to include striking the convoy that Gahdafi was trying to escape in:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839964/Col-Gaddafi-killed-convoy-bombed-by-drone-flown-by-pilot-in-Las-Vegas.html

  • Avatar of GI KoreaGI Korea
    9:10 am on October 22nd, 2011 25

    There is no way any fair minded person can call this a win or defeat at this point for the US. If the leadership of Libya is just replaced with another two bit dictator that does not respect human rights, is unfriendly to US interests, and weapons smuggled out of the country end up in the hands of terrorists than getting Gahdafi was of little advantage to US interests.

    On the other hand maybe a representative democracy that respects human rights will develop but considering the track record of this area of the world that seems like a long shot but I guess we will see.

  • Teadrinker
    9:22 am on October 22nd, 2011 26

    #24,

    Exactly. Obama was getting shit done behind the scenes.

    #25,
    “There is no way any fair minded person can call this a win or defeat at this point for the US.”

    Well…

    Getting rid of Hussein: 1 trillion dollars and counting.

    Getting rid of Gaddafi: 1 billion dollars, which the Libyan government has promised it will pay back…so basically, not one cent.

    “If the leadership of Libya is just replaced with another two bit dictator that does not respect human rights, is unfriendly to US interests, and weapons smuggled out of the country end up in the hands of terrorists than getting Gahdafi was of little advantage to US interests.”

    Whether the government it’s friendly to the US or not is irrelevant as long as it is democratically elected and respects human rights.

  • kushibo
    9:45 am on October 22nd, 2011 27

    Ahem. If Egypt or Tunisia’s dictatorships were replaced by unfriendly regimes that engage in terror against Americans, that would be a very bad turn of events.

    If Libya’s dictatorship were replaced by an unfriendly regime that engages in terror against Americans, that would be a wash.

    Reagan would be very happy about all this because RR’d recall all the crap Maddog did. And Teadrinker called it in #2 (and nicely followed up in #26). It’s as if everyone who followed was in on his gag.

  • Dragonfly
    9:52 am on October 22nd, 2011 28

    Hopefully, the next two bit player to come along will remember the images of Gadhafi laid out in the supermarket and institute policies that would keep him from suffering the same fate.

  • kushibo
    1:44 pm on October 22nd, 2011 29

    Dragonfly wrote:

    Hopefully, the next two bit player to come along will remember the images of Gadhafi laid out in the supermarket and institute policies that would keep him from suffering the same fate.

    Benito Mussolini and Nicolae Ceaușescu were a few too many decades in the past. To paraphrase TJ, the tree of memory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants.

  • Glans
    1:50 pm on October 22nd, 2011 30

    Maybe other dictators will think it’s better not to mess with Obama.

  • Expat
    3:56 pm on October 22nd, 2011 31

    Mugabe’s next?

  • JoeC
    4:45 pm on October 22nd, 2011 32

    Libyans have been living under international trade sanctions for most of their lives. Those who follow Gadhafi will likely keep that in mind when considering what paths they should choose moving forward. If they are reasonable they should chose the path of greater international inclusion and cooperation.

  • Teadrinker
    5:23 pm on October 22nd, 2011 33

    #27,

    Here’s a statement to get the Republicans frothing at the mouth:

    Obama is more like Ronald Reagan than any of the Republican candidates.

  • Pops
    5:34 pm on October 22nd, 2011 34

    Hogwash, #27. Don’t waste your digital spittle…

  • Pops
    5:35 pm on October 22nd, 2011 35

    Make that the Tea meister at #35

  • Pops
    5:36 pm on October 22nd, 2011 36

    How about at #33? Now I’m digitally spitting, not even a Republican!

  • kangaji
    5:39 pm on October 22nd, 2011 37

    #33 ㅋㅋㅋ 그래 오바마태동령은 Zombie Reagan의 악마적인 힘으로써 Reagan태동령의 뜻을 완벽하게 받들렸다!

  • Teadrinker
    1:45 am on October 23rd, 2011 38

    #36,

    I’m not saying that he’s anything like Reagan, but rather that Reagan would never have a place in today’s Republican party. He seems merely quirky when you look at some of the nuts that are vying for the Republican candidacy.

  • Pops
    1:57 am on October 23rd, 2011 39

    Agree with you at #38, Reagan was never the Republican establishment’s darling by most measures even back then, and until now.

    On the other hand, it seems the Democratic establishment is fully behind their present top guy.

    As for nuts, numb-nuts voters and nincompoops selected a doozy of one in 2008. The present crop of presidential candidates are largely less quirky than the hangfire running things right now, IMHO…

  • Teadrinker
    1:57 am on October 23rd, 2011 40

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3u3PwCZfM4

  • Teadrinker
    2:01 am on October 23rd, 2011 41

    #39,

    “The present crop of presidential candidates are largely less quirky than the hangfire running things right now, IMHO…”

    …a very biased opinion, apparently. The Republican candidates are so screwed up, the guy leading the candidacy, Cain, might as well be a Manchurian candidate planted by the Democrats.

  • Expat
    3:54 am on October 23rd, 2011 42

    Didn’t someone say Teadrinker is from Canada?

    Can any US Democrat defend even the selection of Obama over H. Clinton? I personally am happy with the choice because Obama will be easier to beat, but why and how was he selected in the first place? And “Manchurian Candidate” comes up in speaking about Cain?…That is irony.

  • Glans
    4:20 am on October 23rd, 2011 43

    Progressive blogger Kevin Drum said it better than I could:
    “I understand the left’s problem with Obama’s national security policy. But the right? What the hell is their problem? Obama has escalated our presence dramatically in Afghanistan; he created a massive drone air force that’s all but wiped out al-Qaeda in Pakistan; he killed Osama bin Laden; he approved a multilateral military operation in Libya that ended up killing Muammar Qaddafi; he sent a SEAL team out to kill Somali pirates; he assassinates U.S. citizens in foreign countries who are associated with al-Qaeda; and he’s done more to isolate and sanction Iran than George Bush ever did. Crikey. Just how bloodthirsty do they want the guy to be?”
    Read his whole post here.

  • ChickenHead
    5:08 am on October 23rd, 2011 44

    Glans,

    The problem with his (and your) reasoning is that support for these wars is insincerely represented as a right/left issue when it is not.

    Those who are pushing for war are doing so for reasons other than traditional conservative/liberal ideologies…

    …and it shows when the right-wingers speak of strength and go to war when they are in power… and the left-wingers speak of peace and go to war when they are in power.

    The reason there is unhappiness with Obama’s action in Libya is because nobody understands why… much like Clinton’s action in Bosnia.

    At least Bush came up with some convincing lies and half-truths to sell Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • Glans
    5:16 am on October 23rd, 2011 45

    ChickenHead, really. Did you believe Bush’s lies about Iraq? I have half your IQ, and I never fell for that baloney.

  • Expat
    4:07 pm on October 23rd, 2011 46

    It will be interesting to see what happens when US Media wakes up if the next Republican President continues some of the policies initiated by Obama. There is some truth in the quotes in #43 but the unusual complacency of US Media is also an issue. Bush 41 was a “murderer” when he continued the first war in Iraq a little longer than the US Media liked (the “highway of death” was a bad thing then, remember? Now the same type convoy action with Gadhafi is cheered by US Media). There will be some irony in US Media covereage starting in Jan. 2013.

  • JoeC
    4:28 pm on October 23rd, 2011 47

    I don’t get the “leading from behind” criticisms coming from some politicians. Some of the same ones were complaining that we weren’t getting enough combat participation from the “coalition of the willing” countries, particularly NATO, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Now, in Libya, we had a situation where the NATO countries stepped up to take on the butt load of direct combat support oppositions and it’s a problem?

    I would think the families and service members who were not sent on another deployment and all the pilots who didn’t have to drop bombs on ill-defined targets on haphazard battlefields and be accused of hitting “friendly forces” or civilians would be greatful for that.

    Are these politicians so hawkish they can’t appreciate situations where we got the better end of the deal?

  • kushibo
    4:49 pm on October 23rd, 2011 48

    Expat wrote:

    Bush 41 was a “murderer” when he continued the first war in Iraq a little longer than the US Media liked (the “highway of death” was a bad thing then, remember?

    No, I don’t remember the mainstream media or the mainstream opposition calling him a murderer. I do remember Bush41 having very approval ratings after the Gulf War.

    JoeC wrote:

    I don’t get the “leading from behind” criticisms coming from some politicians.

    It’s very simple: The GOP leadership and those who carry water for them must, even if it defies logic, portray Democratic leadership as weak or incompetent when it comes to the military. They simply cannot let him have this true “Mission Accomplished” moment and must shape the narrative to preserve that now obsolete notion.

    Had Iraq turned out to be a raging success with the country quickly secured and no insurgency rising up, I’m sure some Democratic operatives would have done the same with that victory as well.

  • JoeC
    5:34 pm on October 23rd, 2011 49

    Correction @47: “direct combat support oppositions” -> “direct combat support operations”

  • Expat
    6:57 pm on October 23rd, 2011 50

    Here is representative sample of many slaughter type references to Bush 41′s “highway of death”. I failed to find the actual word murderer here, but the distinction is small.
    http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm (excerpt below)

    The below quote provides easy look-up references to main stream US sources like Newsweek magazine, etc.

    American’s are generally patriotic and supportive of US military actions, often no matter what they read. This is the approval bounce Obama hopes to get as well, enhanced by cheerleading US media very unlie the reponse below to Bush 41′s similar actions.

    It is now known that the “death convoy” was largely abandoned before being struck, except for its end units.
    QUOTE: [compare below to today's cheerleading]
    “New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote, “With the Iraqi leader facing military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might accept as tolerable.” In short, rather than accept the offer of Iraq to surrender and leave the field of battle, Bush and the U.S. military strategists decided simply to kill as many Iraqis as they possibly could while the chance lasted. A Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled “A Soldier of Conscience” (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground war the general was only worried about “How long the world would stand by and watch the United States pound the living hell out of Iraq without saying, ‘Wait a minute – enough is enough.’ He [Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground troops to finish the job.” The pretext for massive extermination of Iraqi soldiers was the desire of the U.S. to destroy Iraqi equipment. But in reality the plan was to prevent Iraqi soldiers from retreating at all. Powell remarked even before the start of the war that Iraqi soldiers knew that they had been sent to Kuwait to die. Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post reasoned that “the noose has been tightened” around Iraqi forces so effectively that “escape is impossible” (February 27, 1991). What all of this amounts to is not a war but a massacre.

  • Leon LaPorte
    7:52 pm on October 23rd, 2011 51

    I am willing to bet that Kim Jong-il will make sure that all his regime elite get a close look at what has happened to Gadhafi as well.

    I don’t know about that. It might give them ideas…

  • Teadrinker
    7:25 am on October 24th, 2011 52

    “ChickenHead, really. Did you believe Bush’s lies about Iraq? I have half your IQ, and I never fell for that baloney.”

    That makes you a quarterwit. ;-)

  • ChickenHead
    8:12 am on October 24th, 2011 53

    Teadrinker,

    For that, I have no quick reply…

    …and it was so clever that, in your honor, I will completely concede the point.

  • Glans
    5:47 pm on October 30th, 2011 54

    Hillary Clinton won a great victory. Joby Warrick reports at WashingtonPost.

  • Leon LaPorte
    9:42 pm on October 30th, 2011 55

    53 Teadrinker finally got one. I too applaud and congratulate. +1 intertubewebs for you, sir. :grin:

  • Glans
    5:47 am on December 18th, 2011 56

    US and UN lift sanctions, Panetta visits Libya.

    Maybe some day US officials will visit the northern part of a newly expanded Republic of Korea.

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 59689 access attempts in the last 7 days.