Skip to main content
Topic: Regimes that can't take it. (Read 11059 times)

Regimes that can't take it.

I use the word "Regimes" to distinguish between the citizens of a country and those who  imagine they govern.

Regimes can react in defensive ways to criticism of their actions, pretending that such criticism is "anti the people" or "unpatriotic" or in fact any deflection from admitting that they themselves have become the subject of criticism or, even worse, ridicule.

Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #1
I nominate the UAE for not recognising humour and not understanding that heavy-handed actions on relatively harmless activities merely results in publicising the very thing they don't like.
See UAE court convicts eight over 'spoof documentary video'


Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #3
The Emirados Árabes Unidos. ;)


Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #5
In Dutch it's the VAE (Verenigde Arabische Emiraten). :D

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #6
Quote from: string
Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?


Unfortunately and against my expectations I have to keep on pointing the same one.
Death on the US-Mexican border: the killings America chooses to ignore

Quote from: Independent
Since 2005, patrol agents and CBP officers have killed some 42 people along the US-Mexican border without facing any public consequences – or any large-scale media coverage

A matter of attitude.


Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #8
Since 2005, patrol agents and CBP officers have killed some 42 people along the US-Mexican border without facing any public consequences – or any large-scale media coverage

"America" is a broad condemnation. Millions of us don't ignore them. As for the media, how do you think all of us in DnD know about them.

What are "public consequences"? Sadly, we'll have to wait for the next election cycle, 2014, to see political consequences. In 2016 there will be at least two Republican politicians who will be wooing Hispanic voters.

It's disgusting.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #9
North Korea purge of leader's uncle sparks stability fears

Sometimes it's difficult to know if the actions of so-called leaders are based on ideology, anger, delusions, all of the above, or it they were just plain drunk at the time.
Kim Jong-un 'very drunk' when he ordered execution of uncle's two aides

Also
'Hundreds' of Jang's relatives sent to gulags by North Korean regime

It must be the festive season in North Korea.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #10
The family that flays together stays together? Or doesn't.

I don't think that folks outside that asylum can decipher what's going on. The "news" we get from S. Korea and the NK "experts" is clouded with uncertainty and guesswork. Even China has increased its troop presence on NK's northern border.

The US has moved troops closer to NK. It bothers me that we're still the guarantor of S. Korean safety. I didn't think twice about Korean hostilities when I worked there, but I do now.

By contrast the Syrian situation looks mild.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #11
Reverting to North Korea, it has been reported that Release the hounds! Kim Jong Un executed uncle by feeding him to pack of starving dogs. If true Kim Jong Un could well remember the saying "What goes around comes around".

But one should be cautious about any news that comes from that particular asylum

Did North Korea's Kim Jong-un really kill his uncle with 120 starving dogs?






Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #17

Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?

Nouri al-Maliki's regime could definitely use some introspection.
He is going to have to allow Sunni's a presence in the Iraqi Parliament in the even he wants the state of Iraq to continue to exist.

(I view the breakup of Iraq as inevitable.)

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #18
The Rahmulan Empire. Of course, the Obama Regime, which sprang initially from Baby Rich Daley's Empire before The Rahmfather came to power.

Downstate, of course we have the Madigans, who need all the investigation that "we the people" should be giving them, and of course the Quinn regime needs it.

That last one is kinda weird when you get down to it. In his early days, Pat Quinn made a name for himself as a pro-consumer gadfly, taking on the mighty utilities and making them subject to controls so the utilities can't raise rates whenever they want to. Now he's the governor, and he never saw a tax-hike he didn't like as governor.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #19
(I view the breakup of Iraq as inevitable.)

I predicted the breakup of Iraq at the time the USA started the invasion.
Despite of all US lip service at that time and afterward, the breakup was/is intended.
Next candidate for a breakup in the region is Syria.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #20
Indeed. These countries that were of colonial policy construction simply cannot function without a strong madman like SH.
Otherwise they crumble along religious/tribal lines.


Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #22
Iraq should never have been invaded and neither should there be arm supplies into Syria where most of the rebels are foreign.  They and others interfered with have usually ended up in a questionable state of affairs. Why there is this daft need to interfere in other countries on the grounds of the usual declarations when those pursuing against such regimes are hardly innocents themselves. Even in Europe not so long ago wasn;t Austria leaned on (and that is a democracy!) to change the Coalition government via a new election?

Dictatorships are usually accepted outside if they trade and go along with being allied against someone else the instigators don't like. Indeed right through the 20th century a whole list of dictatorships were supported and encouraged no matter what they did inside their borders. So the premise of whether they can "take it" or not is pointless.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #23
Despite of all US lip service at that time and afterward, the breakup was/is intended.


What a cunning plan, Baldrick! Let's make our invasion a miserable failure, get our military caught in the quagmire for a decade, taking part of our economy with it, losing friends and influence everywhere, so that we can divide Iraq into three like Gaul, and nobody would think of pointing the finger of blame to us!

Oh, they are pointing the finger of blame to us anyway. Oh well, we can't win every time, can we?

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #24
Jax, are you implying that plans can't go horribly wrong? The Iraq drama has played out as you describe, but this doesn't mean the plan wasn't there. The plan looked gorgeous on paper ("their oil will pay for the war") but turned out differently. How do I know there was a plan? They implemented it, that's how. They actually went to war against Iraq!

Compare with Russia and Crimea. Putin says he didn't do anything at all. It just happened out of the blue that Crimea fell into Russia's lap. See, it was the Crimean people who wanted it and purely out of their own will transferred themselves to Russia. It's perfectly natural that Putin says this, because any other way he would look bad. If you think this makes sense, feel free to believe him. As for me, knowing some politics and politicians, it makes sense to believe that there was a plan of transfer in Putin's drawer waiting for the right moment to be implemented. When the opportunity came, they implemented the plan and got really lucky that it didn't cause a quagmire like Iraq for Americans.