# Who is the Worst World Leader? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2004, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891 "2004-03-12T14:11:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/101 "2004-03-19T00:46:30Z")
> [@akrako1](#): > > Al-Queda does not like people killing Muslims. Yes, they had an ‘infedel’ as a leader, but the people are still Muslims, and Al-Queda will defend their interests. Bullshit. Al-Qaida is at best indifferent to innocent Muslims killed in their various attacks, and equally indifferent to their “interests”, choosing instead to pursue political goals that would, if fulfilled, put all Muslims and non-Muslims under their total power. Holding up Al-Qaida as a defender of Muslim interests is much like describing the Nazi party as defenders of German interests. You might have been okay if the party decided you were a “good” German, but if were undesirable in any way, it was off to the trains for you. And truth be told, I _don’t_ consider such a comparison to be a Godwin violation. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/102 "2004-03-19T01:56:02Z")
**Shodan** : Also from your weekly standard cite: > [@](#): > > Editor’s Note, 1/27/04: In today’s Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that “Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the ‘best source of information’ an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information.” > > Here’s the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was referring. From the [WaPo article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40116-2004Jan22?language=printer) the editor mentions: > [@](#): > > Also in the Rocky Mountain News interview, Cheney referred those seeking a general relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda to a Weekly Standard article “based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate intelligence committee some weeks ago.” The November article asserted that an Oct. 27 memo from the Pentagon said Osama bin Laden and Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003. > > **When the article was published, the Pentagon said it was “inaccurate” that the Defense Department confirmed new information to the Senate committee about an Iraq-al Qaeda link, and that the memo was “not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.” The Pentagon also said the leak of the document was "deplorable and may be illegal."** Go back to my database cite for a comprehensive list of _Dick Cheney misleading statements_. > [@Engineer Dude](#): > > Not on the SDMB. There seem to be an abundance of Democrats here, so debating Democrats is on its way to becoming a full-time job for posters such as Walloon and me. > > Sorry, my fault. I only read the quotes from politicians, and skipped the part about them being misleading statements. Maybe I should change that to “lazy _readers_”… 😛 Back to the OP - I’ve been thinking about this, and while I agree that Kim Jong Il is horrible for the people of North Korea, how do you make the case that he is the _world’s_ worst leader? As the OP states, there should be “global significance”. He might win on the domestic front, but beyond that, where is your case for him as a contender? I also wouldn’t put George Bush in the same category as Kim, but let’s face it - he’s definitely on the list of contenders for this prize. What makes it difficult to assess objectively is that he is “Leader of the Free World”, so his global significance is pre-eminent by default. I’ve also considered the OP’s choice of Ariel Sharon, and I think he’s a contender too, but I would ask: What is he doing that George Bush isn’t doing _on a global scale_? They share a neoconservative right wing ideology, and both believe that “the ends justify the means”. As far as “national security concerns”: Which country’s security was most threatened by Iraq, the US or Israel? Musharraf must be mentioned, but a lot of the condemnation for him (on the nukes issue) can also be attributed to George Bush - the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) was always a CIA go-between - it’s incredible to assume that the ISI _and_ the CIA (and therefore Musharraf and Bush) were completely unaware of Khan’s activities. In general I’d ask: How much corrollary blame do we assign to the Leader of the Free World for the actions of those leaders under his influence? Can anyone here dispute that if this question was asked worldwide that George Bush wouldn’t come out on top, or at least in the top 3? Out of curiousity, I googled “world’s worst leader”. I’m sure you can guess the majority of the results. Saying that you “don’t give a shit” about the world’s opinion is beyond lazy reading, and certainly not helpful to the interests _of the US_ in the long run. There is a worldwide negative consensus regarding the Bush admin., in addition to about half of US citizens. Are they _all_ crazy tinfoil hatters??? > [@xtisme](#): > > /hijack Well, generally I know how to spell Independent too…my problem is, I can’t type worth a damn. 🙂 (there is also that attempt to translate my thoughts which are in spanish to english that people can understand…getting better at that IMO) Sorry, couldn’t resist the smartass comeback, although I dislike spelling and grammar nitpicks in general. FWIW, english isn’t my first language either. Your posts are highly understandable to me; agreement on all your views is the variable 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Engineer\_Dude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9fc29f/32.png) [@Engineer\_Dude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Engineer_Dude)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/103 "2004-03-19T02:06:30Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Maybe I should change that to “lazy _readers_” That’s better :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/104 "2004-03-19T03:01:56Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Back to the OP - I’ve been thinking about this, and while I agree that Kim Jong Il is horrible for the people of North Korea, how do you make the case that he is the _world’s_ worst leader? As the OP states, there should be “global significance”. He might win on the domestic front, but beyond that, where is your case for him as a contender? Hmm… global signifigance? Let’s start with the fact that Kim is the leader of the only country to have been opposed by a UN supported multi-national force. I do not claim that if the 38th parallel heated back up to a fighting war tomorrow, the various UN forces from the 50’s would return, but it’s not impossible, either. And the current stand off is only a cease-fire, not a peace. It’s never been reported much in the US, but there are approximately 50 KIA’s a year along that front. Then there’s the whole issue of the Japanese abductees. First, I find the whole concept of using children as hostages to be abhorrent. When doing it as a means of trying to control people stolen from a foreign country and forced to train spies is even worse. Even today, North Korea has only admitted to (IIRC) 12 abductions, and of that number only 5 were reported as being still alive. The Japanese are convinced that there are still more that haven’t been reported. Then there’s the reactor that is at the root of the current diplomatic scuffle. It is, IIRC, of the same design as the reactor that is behind the contamination of large tracts of the Ukraine today. Kim strikes me as being far enough from sanity to be willing to use it as a weapon to poison a large portion of the Korean penninsula, if he so chose. Not only would that further devastate his own country’s agriculture, but also that of South Korea, and possibly poison the fishing in the Yellow Sea as well. This is ignoring the allegations about a North Korean nuclear program, and their missile experiments. I think that while Kim isn’t able to immediately affect anyone but his neighbors, it is unjust to claim that his only claim to the ‘title’ is for what he’s done and is doing to those poor schmucks within his own borders. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/105 "2004-03-19T04:36:07Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > I think that while Kim isn’t able to immediately affect anyone but his neighbors, it is unjust to claim that his only claim to the ‘title’ is for what he’s done and is doing to those poor schmucks within his own borders. Okay, but the bulk of your case is based on speculation of what Kim _might_ do. As you say, the _immediate_ effect isn’t there. As I’ve said before, only time will tell who the “_current_ worst leader” turns out to be in retrospect. But a few points of my own: From the [Asia Times](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EI06Dg05.html) in Sept. 2003 (my bolding): > [@](#): > > It is a testament to the absurdly low expectations attached to the diplomatic abilities of both North Korea **and the United States** that pundits have avoided the obvious conclusion concerning the recently concluded six-party talks in Beijing. > > They were a disaster. > > Here’s the rub, though: **the hardliners in Washington got exactly what they wanted** and may get hoisted by their own hubris as a result. > > **Hardliners such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the State Department’s John Bolton are probably greeting this result with little jigs of exultation. Pyongyang couldn’t have followed their script any better. Its skepticism concerning future talks has made North Korea look militantly ham-fisted. Russia and China are ever more frustrated with their erstwhile ally. And a nuclear test, should North Korea be so technologically equipped or politically stupid to hold one, would be the checkered flag to signal the final lap toward regime change.** > > **The hardliners in Washington** have made no secret of their distaste for negotiations with North Korea and so **contrived to ensure that the six-party talks would fail**. For instance, they made sure that the talks would not involve any negotiations. Negotiations require give and take, and despite rumors floated in the press about potential flexibility on a non-aggression pact or a package of economic incentives, there was no wiggle room in the US position in Beijing. > > The six-party talks were flawed as well because **the particular multilateral format only encouraged North Korea’s infamous “cornered badger” behavior. Outnumbered five to one over the validity of its nuclear program, North Korea couldn’t effectively marshal what remains of comradely feeling in China and Russia. Nor could it exploit the obvious fact that the United States can only count on limited support from one country in the region (Japan) for a more aggressive solution to the standoff.** The informal discussions, particularly between the US and North Korea, were scant. The formality of the presentations precluded much in the way of creative thinking (for example, a joint economic deal from Russia and South Korea) or creative pressure (on either North Korea or the United States to be more flexible). > > North Korea’s reputation in the world these days is not exactly sterling. **The administration of US President George W Bush wanted, through the six-party talks, to isolate the country further by demonstrating that it can’t play well with five others. To do so, however, the US delegation had to act just as uncompromisingly.** This lack of diplomacy prompted China to declare after the talks that **US policy was a “main problem”** , a sign that the hardliners in Washington may well have overreached themselves. So again I ask, what corollary blame do we assign to the Bush admin. as to excaberating the North Korea/Kim Jong _global_ problem? > [@](#): > > Then there’s the reactor that is at the root of the current diplomatic scuffle. It is, IIRC, of the same design as the reactor that is behind the contamination of large tracts of the Ukraine today. Kim strikes me as being far enough from sanity to be willing to use it as a weapon to poison a large portion of the Korean penninsula, if he so chose. Well, the “Kim Jong is insane” meme is another thing I question. What are we basing it on? This from [Wikpedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Il): > [@](#): > > Before his accession to power Kim Jong-il was frequently accused of corruption, drunkenness, sexual excess of various kinds and even insanity, particularly in the South Korean press. While this is not an uncommon pattern of behavior in the sons of dictators (see Vassili Stalin, Niko Ceausescu, Tommy Suharto and Uday and Qusay Hussein), at least some of these accusations seem to have been fabricated by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA), which saw it as its duty to blacken DPRK leaders’ images as much as possible. > > Some of these stories, however, come from defectors from the DPRK whose accounts have some credibility. Kim’s former Japanese chef has said in newspaper interviews that the leader of the impoverished DPRK has a 10,000-bottle wine cellar, likes blonde western women, collects Mazda RX-7 sports cars, stages all-night banquets at which attendance and heavy drinking is compulsory for high officials (this was also a habit of Stalin’s), and has a troupe of strippers for his personal entertainment. According to this account Kim once sent his wife and children on a secret trip to Tokyo Disneyland. > > An image of a more rational Kim, however, appears from time to time in Western, Japanese, and South Korean media. In an interview with a Japanese newspaper several years ago, South Korea’s outgoing President Kim Dae-jung jettisoned decades of South Korean tradition by describing Kim Jong-il as “a pragmatic leader with good judgment and knowledge,” a sentiment that has been echoed by other foreign officials including Madeleine Albright. According to the Los Angeles Times, a senior South Korean official says Kim is believed to have a genius-level IQ of 150 or 160. An intelligence source describes him as a “computer wizard” who surfs the Internet, is fascinated with new technologies and is determined to develop North Korea’s fledgling software industry. > > Some of Kim’s eccentricities are well-documented. He has a profound fear of flying, and has always travelled by private train when going on state visits to Russia and China. He also wears platform shoes, apparently to disguise his shortness. I’m not defending Kim as an angel by any means, but what of those more credible charges qualifies as insanity? As with the"Axis of Evil" diatribe, these soundbites are meant for western consumption. Easy to swallow, combined with Kim’s eccentric appearance and foibles - he’s a casting director’s dream of a dictator - but eccentric doesn’t equal insanity to the degree you and others use as a basis for speculation. > [@](#): > > Even today, North Korea has only admitted to (IIRC) 12 abductions, and of that number only 5 were reported as being still alive. The Japanese are convinced that there are still more that haven’t been reported. I think you’re correct about the numbers. AFAIK, many Japanese were optimistic about the fact that Kim finally admitted and publicly apologised for the situation. Again, let me stress that I’m not proposing this guy for the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m trying to figure out which , of all these proposed “worst” leaders, bears the most responsibility for more negative global consequences. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/106 "2004-03-19T05:34:47Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > So again I ask, what corollary blame do we assign to the Bush admin. as to excaberating the North Korea/Kim Jong global problem? The problem is that North Korea in 1994 recieved a pretty damned hefty bribe in order to keep their reactor (and nuclear program) shut down. The idea of negotiating in good faith again with Kim strikes me as a very poor choice. To criticize the Washington negotiators for being ‘hardliners’ without acknowledging that from the prospective of those same persons, Kim has already reneged on a very beneficial deal seems again one-sided. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > AFAIK, many Japanese were optimistic about the fact that Kim finally admitted and publicly apologised for the situation. True. However, what little I’ve seen in the US press and online has shown growing frustration in Japan over the continuing treatment of the abductee’s families. It’s not a ‘completed’ situation. [A recent story](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3553190&thesection=news&thesubsection=world) [Another recent story](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040313b5.htm) > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Again, let me stress that I’m not proposing this guy for the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m trying to figure out which , of all these proposed “worst” leaders, bears the most responsibility for more negative global consequences. Don’t worry, I’m not accusing you of doing that. Nor am I all that much of a Bush booster. I think he’s made a great number of mistakes. I don’t think that going into Afghanistan was one. Nor am I all that upset about the war in Iraq. I’m furious that he and his administration were so eager to fabricate _casus belli_ that they were willing to lie, or simply accept unsubstantiated claims of WMD. Especially since it was all so unnecessary: With the games that Hussein was playing to keep Hans Blix from being able to certify that Iraq had no WMD, Hussein was in clear violation of the terms of the cease fire for the original Gulf War. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/107 "2004-03-19T07:20:26Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > The problem is that North Korea in 1994 recieved a pretty damned hefty bribe in order to keep their reactor (and nuclear program) shut down. The idea of negotiating in good faith again with Kim strikes me as a very poor choice. To criticize the Washington negotiators for being ‘hardliners’ without acknowledging that from the prospective of those same persons, Kim has already reneged on a very beneficial deal seems again one-sided. But the US has reneged as well: > [@](#): > > [Cite](http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ma03nukenote.html): > For North Korea, another important aspect of the accord was the U.S. pledge to “provide formal assurances to the DPRK against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the United States”, a commitment that it says the United States has not lived up to. While North Korea has failed to fulfill all its obligations, Washington has continued to hold a nuclear sword over it. In March 1997, the chief of U.S. Strategic Command told Congress that just as the United States threatened Iraq with nuclear weapons in 1991, “that same message was passed on to the North Koreans back in 1995”. And documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the air force carried out simulated nuclear strikes against North Korea in 1998 (see Preemptive Posturing, September/October 2002 Bulletin, pp. 54-59). > > [Cite](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FC17Dg04.html): > …bilateral relations under the Bush presidency have been frosty from the start. After September 11, 2001, Bush designated North Korea as a member of the “axis of evil”, joining Iraq and Iran, and shortly afterward US officials leaked a story that North Korea is one of seven countries that the Pentagon sees as possible targets for nuclear strikes under certain conditions. Further, Bush told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that he personally “loathe[s]” Kim Jong-il. I know I’m being somewhat one-sided in my view of this, but IMO, the Bush admin. has zero credibility at this point, and it seems too obvious that they are actively working against any kind of diplomatic solution. Tell me something: If you were Kim Jong, would you believe that they have “no intention of invading or attacking North Korea”? Is he crazy for feeling insecure in this situation? > [@](#): > > True. However, what little I’ve seen in the US press and online has shown growing frustration in Japan over the continuing treatment of the abductee’s families. It’s not a ‘completed’ situation. Thanks for the cites. I think it’s a horrible situation. Unfortunately, I believe it’s being used as “a political football”, as your cite says. Tell me, what do you see as the best approach here? And considering what has come out about Iraq, how can you justify trusting the Bush admin. statements re intelligence and working with the UN inspections process? ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/108 "2004-03-19T08:37:05Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Tell me something: If you were Kim Jong, would you believe that they have “no intention of invading or attacking North Korea”? Is he crazy for feeling insecure in this situation? First, I’d like to remind you that this situation has not played out along a stable and peaceful border. As I stated in my previous post the average is approximately 50 US servicemembers killed each year on the 38th parallel. I don’t know the number of South Koreans killed, but I assume it’s at least equal to that. Stories of North Korean mini-subs trying to get infiltrators to the south that are caught or destroyed by shipping are almost an annual or biennual event. Given this background it would be irresponsible for the US military to NOT have contingency plans drawn up for attacks on the North, or to launch counter-attacks in response to the North. As for the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the Korean penninsula. In my (Not So) humble opinion the blame for that lays with the blame for most of the people killed in the Korean Conflict: right at the feet of Douglas MacArthur. His public requests for permission to use nuclear weapons to destroy ‘strategic’ targets in the North, and in China meant that when the UN forces reached Inch’on, the Chinese were compelled by their fears to push the borders back south. To that end they used human wave attacks where their fantastic superiority in numbers sufficed to overcome the qualitative superiority of the US and UN troops. In the light of how effective such human wave attacks were, the military in South Korean came to accept that the only way to stop such if they begin pressing on towards Seoul is the use of nuclear weapons. Whether you or I like it, at this point a nuclear arsenal in South Korea is a political necessity, and will remain one until **both** Koreas agree to set aside their goals of unifying the penninsula under one government. Remember, at the moment, the only agreement with regards to the 38th parallel is an armistice. There is no formal peace treaty. At this point, I don’t see how a recognizable North Korean or South Korean government could work for one. Now, reading your first cite from **The Bulletin** I agree the US could have been better about avoiding playing the ‘Nuclear’ card. However, when the same article you cited says: > [@](#): > > According to a June 2002 CIA report, described by Seymour Hersh in the January 27 New Yorker, in 1997 Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed centrifuges and how-to data on building and testing a uranium-triggered nuclear weapon. This just three years after the 1994 deal. A case can be made that there is more than a little reason to view P’yongyang’s return to working on a nuclear arsenal as predating the Bush administration by three years. Obviously neither you nor I knows exactly when the CIA first heard about this particular deal, but it does make the current administration’s hostility towards North Korea seem reasonable in my mind. I don’t see how North Korea building any kind of nuclear arsenal will make it more secure vis-a-vis a US attack: Their missile technology is, so far, barely able to target Japan. Which is why Japan is supporting the US’s hardline approach, reluctantly, but still supporting it. That leaves only three scenarios for a North Korean nuclear weapons program: First, solely as a deterrent - which only affects South Korea and Japan, not very effective if their concerns are a US attack; Second, a terrorist-style attack by putting a bomb into a container timed to destroy a US port, which guarantees that there would be a nuclear conflagration on the Korean Penninsula; or Third, selling North Korean bombs to the highest bidders. Given the relative impotence of a North Korean deterrance (at this time) I cannot help but feel that those two other possibilities are VERY scary and hardline bargaining isn’t really out of line. The fact that _China_ is not supporting North Korea to the hilt on this leads me to believe that the Chinese leadership is concerned about the stability/sanity of the North Korean leadership. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Cite: > > …bilateral relations under the Bush presidency have been frosty from the start. After September 11, 2001, Bush designated North Korea as a member of the “axis of evil”, joining Iraq and Iran, and shortly afterward US officials leaked a story that North Korea is one of seven countries that the Pentagon sees as possible targets for nuclear strikes under certain conditions. Further, Bush told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that he personally “loathe[s]” Kim Jong-il. Frankly, given what is known (and estimated) about the number of people who have starved in North Korean since the famine there began in the early-mid nineties, I have a hard time accepting any arguments about why I should be outraged by Bush calling North Korea one of the ‘axis of evil’. 20 million people are estimated to have starved under Kim Jong Il. 20 million. That’s almost as many as Josef Stalin is believed to have killed. The massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda combined don’t count even 10% of that total. That’s twice the number of people of all backgrounds who were killed in the Nazi’s final solution. And if Bush wants to ‘loathe’ Kim Jong Il, he has my blessings. I’d also like to point out, the _job_ of the staff in the Pentagon is to plan for all contingencies. Even unlikely ones. Considering that North Korea is the only nation that I can think of where we are still co-belligerents in a war that has never been concluded with a formal peace treaty they’d be guilty of criminal negligence if they had no plans for a nuclear attack on North Korea. To pick an example from history, during the 1920’s the advesary of most of the War Department’s plans had been **England**. Just because one has plans for a contingency doesn’t mean that they will be used. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > I think it’s a horrible situation. Unfortunately, I believe it’s being used as “a political football”, as your cite says. I agree, and worse, it’s not one being used by the US government. The US seems to be completely ignoring the issue of other abductees, and the abductees’ children. The American electorate is too bloody provincial to actually pay attention to human rights abuses either here or abroad until their noses are rubbed in it. After being motivated by mule training methods.\* > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Tell me, what do you see as the best approach here? And considering what has come out about Iraq, how can you justify trusting the Bush admin. statements re intelligence and working with the UN inspections process? I’ll admit that my views are a bit of a ‘but since we’re the 500 lb gorilla, you have to what we say, and _trust_ us.’ What I’d like to propose would be the following: A return to the status quo posited in the 1994 agreement, with the following addendum: All nuclear weapons will be removed from South Korea. To provide the nuclear capability that Seoul requires, a short squadron of SSBN’s would be moved to home port in Yokohama, and one of those boats will be on patrol in the Yellow Sea at all times. I don’t know that it would work, (The Japanese would be sure to have great galloping fits about it.) but it’s the best I can come up with at 3 AM. Given the history in **The Bulletin** ’s article, how can you justify any proposal that does not require North Korea to give up on its nuclear weapon program? \*Mule training: Mules are easily trained once you get their attention by breaking a two by four across their foreheads. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/109 "2004-03-20T00:41:33Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > First, I’d like to remind you that this situation has not played out along a stable and peaceful border. As I stated in my previous post the average is approximately 50 US servicemembers killed each year on the 38th parallel. I don’t know the number of South Koreans killed, but I assume it’s at least equal to that. Stories of North Korean mini-subs trying to get infiltrators to the south that are caught or destroyed by shipping are almost an annual or biennual event. Given this background it would be irresponsible for the US military to NOT have contingency plans drawn up for attacks on the North, or to launch counter-attacks in response to the North. Where are you getting this kia number from? I haven’t found anything to verify that. AFAIK, there have been less than 100 US deaths since 1953 and none in 2003 (S. Korean deaths are higher though). Also, didn’t US pull back from DMZ in 2003? I understand the need for a contingency plan; just not sure how this prevents engagement and negotiations to your mind. > [@](#): > > There is no formal peace treaty. At this point, I don’t see how a recognizable North Korean or South Korean government could work for one. True about the treaty, but AFAIK S. Korea has been more willing to improve inter-Korean relations than US, Russia, China, and Japan. Certainly a unified Korea would not be in China or Japan’s best interest right now. > [@](#): > > Obviously neither you nor I knows exactly when the CIA first heard about this particular deal, but it does make the current administration’s hostility towards North Korea seem reasonable in my mind. True we don’t know. But I’m sceptical of any previous intel info right now. CIA has recently (in light of Iraq) ordered a “review” of N. Korean intelligence. However, I still believe there is no reasonable reason for hostility if you are sincere about a diplomatic solution. Why no hostility towards Pakistan? You or I can “loathe” Kim but coming from G. Bush - who couldn’t even name most world leaders 3 years ago? I can’t see it as anything more than western spin, to ease the way for the desired regime change. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how North Korea building any kind of nuclear arsenal will make it more secure vis-a-vis a US attack: Their missile technology is, so far, barely able to target Japan. Which is why Japan is supporting the US’s hardline approach, reluctantly, but still supporting it. That leaves only three scenarios for a North Korean nuclear weapons program: First, solely as a deterrent - which only affects South Korea and Japan, not very effective if their concerns are a US attack; Second, a terrorist-style attack by putting a bomb into a container timed to destroy a US port, which guarantees that there would be a nuclear conflagration on the Korean Penninsula; or Third, selling North Korean bombs to the highest bidders. Given the relative impotence of a North Korean deterrance (at this time) I cannot help but feel that those two other possibilities are VERY scary and hardline bargaining isn’t really out of line. The fact that China is not supporting North Korea to the hilt on this leads me to believe that the Chinese leadership is concerned about the stability/sanity of the North Korean leadership. There are various views of their missile capability and rationale for the nukes. IMO, it’s more important to try to understand _Kim’s_ rationale rather than put forth your own logic. The other Asian nations have been saying this but US is either ignorant or apathetic or both. I agree that China is probably fed up with Kim, but they are still not at the point where they will support a regime change or any action that leads to a mass exodus of refugees. Again, I don’t believe Kim is insane, although the situation is certainly unstable. There haven’t been any terrorist attacks so I’m discounting that scenario for the moment. What makes it more unstable (and gives incentive to your sell to the highest bidder scenario) is economic sanctions. I think trade and economic _reform_ is more likely to trigger an internal revolution - let the N. Korean people take him out themselves. > [@](#): > > Frankly, given what is known (and estimated) about the number of people who have starved in North Korean since the famine there began in the early-mid nineties, I have a hard time accepting any arguments about why I should be outraged by Bush calling North Korea one of the ‘axis of evil’. 20 million people are estimated to have starved under Kim Jong Il. 20 million. That’s almost as many as Josef Stalin is believed to have killed. The massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda combined don’t count even 10% of that total. That’s twice the number of people of all backgrounds who were killed in the Nazi’s final solution. Again I ask where you are getting your numbers. I’ve seen estimates ranging from half million to 3 million. Certainly bad enough for outrage, but _20_ million? And again, that “axis of evil” comment was meant for you (western citizen you) so I’m not surprised you don’t mind. But how does it help with negotiations? Unless you have no desire to negotiate the “moral indignation” routine is disingenuous. The reality is, if you’re going to sit down at the table you’ve got to be prepared to _deal_. Consider the Japanese abductions problem. S. Korea has had _more_ abductions, but so far they’re not putting it on the table in these multilateral talks. Horrible as it is, the reality is that abductions are small potatoes for the “big 3” when nukes are on the table. > [@](#): > > I’ll admit that my views are a bit of a ‘but since we’re the 500 lb gorilla, you have to what we say, and trust us.’ What I’d like to propose would be the following: A return to the status quo posited in the 1994 agreement, with the following addendum: All nuclear weapons will be removed from South Korea. > > Given the history in The Bulletin’s article, how can you justify any proposal that does not require North Korea to give up on its nuclear weapon program? Well, I think that if you _are_ a 500 lb gorilla, you don’t _need_ to resort to bluster and hardline rhetoric. The implied threat is more valuable. China knows this. As for “trust us” - it would be hard to argue that Kim is paranoid for not trusting the US at this point. Who does? Not sure what to think of your proposal. I’ve read something similar on Asia Times but can’t find it now. Too much going on right now to predict anything: Roh’s impeachment, elections coming up this year, etc. I know Kerry’s said he would agree to bilateral talks but remain pretty much hardline. What Cheney would do if re-elected is too scary to think about, IMO. As for N. Korea not giving up the nukes - well, it wouldn’t be ideal, but if the other Asian countries are willing to negotiate without that proviso, it might be the only realistic way to make any kind of progress (or at least get back to the pre-Bush admin. level). ---
**Author:** ![HomerIU](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HomerIU](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HomerIU)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/110 "2004-03-20T03:50:34Z")
For the person that mentioned the “googled” world’s worst leader and got Bush as the result…do you even realize the number of things wrong with that statement and why this absoulutely cannot be used as proof for anything? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/111 "2004-03-20T04:57:43Z")
> [@HomerIU](#): > > For the person that mentioned the “googled” world’s worst leader and got Bush as the result…do you even realize the number of things wrong with that statement and why this absoulutely cannot be used as proof for anything? Obviously. Opinions aren’t proofs. The OP was asking for opinions. Every post on this thread is an opinion. My google comment pointed to opinions found on the internet (not all of them alluded to Bush, nor did I say that). What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![HomerIU](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HomerIU](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HomerIU)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/112 "2004-03-21T06:07:54Z")
No, Google is a search engine, and a biased search engine based on what websites pay money to it, so Google is hardly an unbaised source of information. That is my point. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/113 "2004-03-21T07:02:33Z")
[Google technology:](http://www.google.com/technology/index.html) > [@](#): > > Google’s complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results extremely difficult. And though we do run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank). ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891/114 "2004-03-21T07:08:42Z")
> [@HomerIU](#): > > No, Google is a search engine, and a biased search engine based on what websites pay money to it, so Google is hardly an unbaised source of information. That is my point. First of all, you seem to have this idea that opinions on other sites are automatically more biased than any of the opinions expressed in this thread, and are therefore invalid as part of this discussion. Perhaps you would like to defend your own opinion as being _less_ biased than any of the others, either posters here or those listed in the google results? Second, [here](http://www.google.com/technology/index.html) is an explanation of how google ranks search results. If you consider that “biased” (because it comes from google), I ask you to defend your premise and explain how this site - [http://www.geocities.com/famousdog/WORST.HTM](http://www.geocities.com/famousdog/WORST.HTM) - managed to _pay_ for the honour of being the first result when you type in “world’s worst leader”. The second result is a personal blog. Of course you’re entitled to your own opinion, but it seems obvious you are simply pissed off that others are ranking someone you intend to vote for as the “world’s worst”. Understandable, but no basis to argue your “no biased opinions allowed” stance. On preview: Thanks **Walloon**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-worst-world-leader/233891.md?page=5)