Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 November 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 9

Sharpeis

What's the best way to remove Sharpie marks?

Also, what's the best or most recommended way to treat a cankersore/mouth ulcer? 64.75.158.198 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you removing the Sharpie marks from? Dismas|^(talk) 05:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sharpie is a disambiguation page. Please tell us which kind of Sharpie you are asking about. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the choices there, the OP is most likely referring to Sharpie (marker). Unless they've been in a remake of an Alfred Hitchcock film recently. Dismas|^(talk) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As for mouth ulcers, we do not give medical advice (i.e. recommend treatments or say which is best). However, our article on them does state ways they are commonly treated. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If the Sharpie marks are on a hard surface, try marking over them with dry erase markers and then erasing them. --Sean 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Acetone (the main active ingredient in fingernail polish remover) is good for removing most marks from standard sharpies, but there are things that need to be considered before using it. 1. Acetone is highly flammable. 2. Acetone will melt (de-polymerize) a wide variety of plastics and is pretty good at stripping paint, so if you are trying to remove marks from something plastic or something painted, you will want to use something else. 3. Acetone will dry your skin out and is probably not the best stuff to be breathing, so only use it in a well ventilated area and try to keep skin contact to a minimum. Googlemeister (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Some nail polish remover is Ethyl acetate, rather than acetone. Ethyl acetate may or may not remove sharpies as well as acetone. Ethyl acetate has a lot of the same hazards as acetone (i.e. highly flammable). Neither is particularly toxic, as far as organic solvents go, but like Googlemeister said, it's probably best to do it in a well ventilated area. It's not the end of the world if either gets on your skin (they are used as nail polish remover, after all). If you're worried about melting plastics, you could always try (rubbing) alcohol (usually Isopropyl alcohol), which is a little safer in that regard. Buddy431 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See Sharpie (marker)#Removal from surfaces. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Because of the title I thought this was going to be about removing Sharpeis...Adam Bishop (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OR here: I once used the dry-erase-marker technique on an old Sharpie mark upon a varnished wood surface and would estimate it removed maybe 80% of the ink. The mark was still very apparent. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't even try to remove a Sharpei. Williamb (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, I just learned something. There's more than one definition for the Sharpie. Sorry for the typo, I didn't mean it to mean the breed of dog, though I'm pretty sure that removing a Shar Pei is just as easy as carrying another doggie. As for the surface the marks are on, it's plastic. Specifically, a Gunpura model. So yeah, acetone is completely useless here. I don't have any dry erase markers, nor do I know where I could get some, so I'll need some other method. Speaking of Gunpura, I've seen many model manuals feature a type of spray that darkens the grooved details so that tey stand out more. What spray would that be? 64.75.158.195 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the 'dry erase marker trick' will work on a sharpie that's been dry for this long, but dry erase markers (aka "White board markers") are easily bought at stationary stores, drug stores, even toy stores. APL (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubbing alcohol should work on a model like that, but there's no guarantee it'll leave the paint on as well. Before trying to remove the sharpie, wet a cotton swab with a little rubbing alcohol and try rubbing it fairly vigorously on an inconspicuous part of the model (bottom of the foot is usually the best place). You can see any discoloration or any effects of removing the sharpie this way. If the results are okay, you can use the same method to remove the sharpie. If it's been dry for a while then it may not come off completely and it may take a long time, but you should be able to make it less obvious. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Error in Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 1

To Whom It May Concern,

I have found errors on the Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 1 web page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%27s_Next_Top_Model,_Cycle_1

I am only 15 years old, though a dedicated Top Model addict I check these pages almost everyday since they are the only reliable source, or so I thought until found the mistakes. I'm sorry to bother you but it is really important to me to have it fixed. I ask anyone to alter it properly. Please let me know if I can help in any way. I'd LOVE to (:

Thanks So Much I really appreciate all the work put in to WIKIPEDIA,

Kristina xxxx

P.S. I hope I sent this to the correct place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.110.239 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As with all other articles, the onus for correcting errors rests on us - or you, in this case. We're all just normal folks like yourself. Please, be bold and correct any errors you find, just be prepared to back up anything contentious with a reliable source. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am going to copy this post over to the "talk page" of the article, which is here: Talk:Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. That's the best place to discuss this issue, Kristina, and I will make further comments there. Thanks for calling this to our attention, though! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Market for Synthetic vs Natural Diamonds

I'm shopping for engagement rings, and I've decided that I'm not willing to purchase diamonds since I'd be supporting the DeBeers cartel. I don't actually have a problem necessarily with them cornering the market, but I do have a problem that by keeping prices at artificially inflated levels, they're fueling trade in blood diamonds. I understand people may or may not agree with that position, but let's take it as a premise: I do not want to contribute to maintaining diamond prices at their current level and so will not buy them. My question is, given that, would it be a problem to purchase synthetic diamonds (or diamond substitutes, like cubic zirconium)? I don't know how linked the market for natural versus synthetic gems are. If demand for synthetics increased, would that push up prices for naturals? I don't know how elastic the supply of synthetic gems is, but if synthetics get more popular and thus more expensive (at least in the short term until production expands) wouldn't that mean that naturals would be able to compete better on price and thus drive up their demand as well? Or do the price ranges for synthetic gems and natural gems overlap so little that even if synthetics started costing a lot more they would still be so far under natural pricing that it wouldn't have much effect? Sorry this is rambling, but hopefully it makes sense. 96.246.58.133 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Gemesis is one of the (if not the leading) producer of synthetic diamonds; their site allows you to search for local retailers that sell their product. As you've said, the (gem) diamond market is essentially a cartel, which means the ordinary laws of supply and demand don't immediately apply. There being another competitor for Debeers doesn't necessarily change that - ALROSA produces about a quarter of the world's (rough) diamonds (I don't know if that correlates to a comparable proportion of gem diamonds), and that hasn't resulted in real price competition. It's not in ALROSA's interests for the diamond price to fall, nor is it Gemesis' interest either. Right now I believe the synthetic diamond people are mostly trading off their ability to control colour rather than produce gem diamonds cheaper than natural ones. If more players enter the market, and the synthetics get cheaper (which surely as time passes they will) the price war hurts the synthetic makers too. So while it's clear that spending a billion dollars to build a semiconductor fab to build a new generation of computer chips is an enticing investment, would it be such a wise idea if Intel had a massive warehouse full of those chips (of the same model your fab would build) ready to dump onto the market just as you try to recoup your investment. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the abbreviated version of that is: in the short term the synthesists don't benefit from trashing the diamond price, and investors aren't motivated to invest in synthetic producers that would do so. In the long term diamonds are probably destined to becoming a cost-plus product. Sometime before then, gem diamond sellers have to worry that their preponderance will kill the perception of exclusivity that DeBeers' advertisers have spend so much effort to generate, and that with people festooned in gem diamonds, like a Damian Hirst Pearly King, will make that diamond ring (real or synthetic) seem very gauche. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also an expectational effect; people have in mind a price they expect to pay for a diamond, that is its price point. If a new company shows up on the market and starts selling diamonds, it is not necessarily in their interest to sell below that price point; they probably make more money, on the balance, selling at existing prices than trying to undercut the competition. That's why no one bothers. The fact that the market is artificially controlled is moot; the market has been artificially controlled for so long that it has a sort of inertia. Even as competition goes up, price is unlikely to drop all that much because the price is already at "what the market will bear". The most likely way to get the price to drop is likely on the demand side; if people simply stopped buying diamonds at the current price, then the sellers would lower prices to attract customers back. But as long as people keep buying diamonds, they'll stay where they are. --Jayron32 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I think I might have phrased my question badly. I'm interested in whether increased prices for synthetic diamonds would increase prices for natural diamonds, not so much what would happen if synthetic diamond prices fell. 96.246.58.133 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't any covert operation assassinate Kim Jong Il?

I hope I can ask this question. After all, I don't live in North Korea. :P AdbMonkey (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See Unit 684, which was a response to North Korea's Blue House Raid. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A covert operation by who? The US? Why would they want to? Would they be able to find him? And think of the consequences. What happens after he's dead? At the moment one of his sons is set to replace him, would that be any better? What would be the reaction of Japan, China, Russia, South Korea? Basically, there's no reason to assassinate him, and it would almost certainly make everything worse. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Also consider the consequences of a failed assassination. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of reasons:

• Kim is particularly paranoid (e.g. he only travels by train) and is surrounded by a security apparatus and a police state - so it'd be very difficult.
• It's an act of war, and in most countries it's a crime no matter who orders it. And politicians who declare open season on their counterparts paint a target on themselves.
• It's very likely that North Korea would reflexively retaliate (thinking the assassination an overture to invasion). Seoul, the vast and prosperous capital of South Korea, is right next to the border, and well in range of some hideous number of North Korean missiles and artillery tubes (you hear crazy numbers like 100,000 tubes) - surely tens of thousands of South Korean civilians would die. It's not clear to what extent North Korea's nuclear weapons are really weaponised, but this is a way to find out. North Korea's ballistic missile program is pretty advanced, so they'd be quite likely to fire on other South Korean cities and on the cities of Japan.
• And to what end? Either:

• Kim will be replaced by someone else from the ruling elite (you're not going to get some nice pro-democracy guy just walking into office); so either a political hard liner or a general. And you risk replacing a playboy dictator with someone more competent.
• The North collapses altogether; the military fires off whatever the can, and half the starving population floods north into China (something the Chinese are terrified about already) with the rest left with no functioning government and hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the world's biggest minefield between them and food.

Maybe none of this will happen, but no-one knows, and if even a fraction of it does, hundreds of thousands of people could follow Kim into the grave. That's a gamble no-one sane is going to take. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's why they wouldn't do it? Ok, well if the identity of the assassin could remain a secret, that shouldn't set off war. And, wouldn't the world come to the aid of N.K. with massive food donations? There are thousands still starving in the country now, they just aren't permited to leave. Some N.K. guards will take money from Chinese smugglers to overlook the underground N.K. defectors. And if you had a question as to what the man has done, please read the Hidden Gulag, which is another word for concentration camp, which is what people only suspected of commiting offenses go to. Those people's families also go to the camp, until the third generation. It's known as the third generation rule to clean the impure and of any non- "juche" ideology. Grandchildren of suspected North Korean offenders go to these camps. Children are born into these camps. Do I really need to say more? Don't even get me started on what happens in these camps. Anyway, I can only think that those suppressed under this cult of personality dictatorship, would stop pretending to support the government (again, which they must do, or go to a hard labor camp) and create a government more reasonable with human rights. Is it really better to let hundreds of thousands of people be subjected to the status quo of the DPRK out of fear of massive immigration to China? (Seriously, they wouldn't air lift in food?) AdbMonkey (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• if the identity of the assassin could remain a secret - because that so often happens?
• wouldn't the world come to the aid of N.K. with massive food donations - because that so often happens?
• Finally, as others have pointed out, what makes you think removing the figurehead would change a thing? More likely than not there would be a few extra purges, and then another dictator takes over. Alternatively, you end up with a civil war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was some American law which forbids the assasination of state leaders. 92.24.191.134 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, our article on Executive Order 12333 explains:

• "Part 2.11 of this executive order reiterates a proscription on US intelligence agencies sponsoring or carrying out an assassination. It reads[1]:

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

"Previously, EO 11905 (Gerald Ford) had banned political assassinations and EO 12036 (Jimmy Carter) had further banned indirect U.S. involvement in assassinations. As early as 1998, this proscription against assassination was reinterpreted, and relaxed, for targets who are classified by the United States as connected to terrorism."

It would take, at the very least, President Obama's direct decision to authorize an assassination attempt on a foreign head-of-state. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And our Fidel Castro article might be of interest for some background on this sort of thing. It says:

'Fabian Escalante, who was long tasked with protecting the life of Castro, estimated the number of assassination schemes or attempts by the CIA to be 638. ... Castro once said, in regards to the numerous attempts on his life he believes have been made, "If surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal."' (emphasis added)

Presumably, it's things like that that have led the US to make some adjustments in its policy on assassinations since then... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just from a purely operational point of view, keep in mind that the DPRK is an exceptionally controlled and closed society. It is non-trivial to imagine orchestrating a successful assassination that did not involve, say, lobbing a cruise missile in (and even that is harder than a video-game understanding would have you guess). You're talking about sneaking in weapons and probably a Korean assassin into a highly militarized, highly controlled society, having them somehow manage to evade security forces, find the target, and somehow pull off this assassination... all without being caught? It sounds non-trivially difficult, and the potential consequences of failing outweigh (by far) the security benefits of success (which, as pointed out, might not get any security anyway, and could easily have an adverse effect). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the U.S. that would snipe out the man, the "Dear Leader" who is revered as a living god practically. And yes, since most all homes in North Korea are required to house pictures of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung in their home, the assassination might make way for those who secretly disagree with the government to rise to power. One could argue that the very strength of the DPRK lies in the survival of Kim Jung Il. But... no one really cares. So... I guess we'll just wait for that inevitable glitch at the 38th paralell for all this to go down. AdbMonkey (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out again (in reply to Mr.98 and previous responses; this issue has come up before...) that "difficulty" and "fear of failure" is not a reason nations don't do something that they believe it is in their strategic interests to do. Six hundred and thirty eight attempts (or thereabouts – at least "more than once" whoever does the counting) on Castro. A very wide variety of methods used; disregard for "detection" (at least as long as "plausible deniability" requirements are met, and just about anything can be denied) and little fear of reprisal or the possibility of even "worse" consequences arising out of a successful operation. Targeted killing is blithely and unrepentantly carried out regularly even today (mostly by the US and Israel).

The North Koreans are hard to gauge, but do not need assassination or attempted assassination of their Dear Leader to react problematically. Rest assured that the assessment on whether or not to take out Kim Jong Il, and how to do so if necesary, has been carefully considered and determined to be not worth the hassle. And I agree with previous comments as to what likely scenarios would result even from a successful hit. It just wouldn't accomplish any major, strategic objective in the region even if successful, and that is the main reason it hasn't happened. If we had a good replacement, even of just Hamid Karzai quality, something like that... maybe. But the best policy right now with North Korea is "tough-minded" engagement with an eye to its eventual re-integration in some way with the "community of nations". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I agree. The US could waste time trying to kill Castro because there was nothing Castro could do in return. Cuba was militarily weak; Castro had no means of retaliation. North Korea, on the other hand, could easily start a war with South Korea or Japan, and have shown themselves nutty enough to do so. The fact that they are a nuclear power of one form or another (not with the ability to hit the US, but probably the ability to hit S. Korea or Japan) certainly ratchets up the consequences of failure rather sharply. "Likelihood of success" is certainly a factor in any strategic cost/balance equation. If the likelihood of success is low, and the penalty of failure high, then that has to be factored into the overall strategic assessment, obviously. To say that it is not is just plain false. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

One potential flaw in your reasoning I see is the proposed rise of the democratically minded citizen. I don't really think there is that many in NK - as you yourself point out, any potentially troublesome individuals are dealt with en masse, families and all, (heck, according to rumor, even the football team of the 1966 FIFA World Cup, national heroes at the time, ended up in a gulag for either losing or being contaminated with the outside world) and the rest of the people are completely cut off from the rest of the world, and have no idea what's going on beyond the borders - other than what their state propaganda machine feeds them. Their propaganda lets them believe the rest of the world is even more fucked up than their country and the (perceived, made up or real) hostility of the world towards them is due to envy. They let their people believe the West is starving and wants NK lands for food. In elementary schools, they have basic math books with assignments like: "This NK hero shot 10 US soldiers. That NK hero shot 12 US soldiers. How many of these despicable enemies of the people have they shot together?" They are being brainwashed to the point where repairing the damage will take more than just the removal of the dear leader (or even, hypothetically, the entire ruling clique - and that's not a small number of people) - it will take years, if not decades. They are even less likely to greet outside forces (which would most probably eventually have to be deployed if Kim were assassinated, for reasons elaborated on above) as liberators than the Iraqi were. Any hypothetical minority of democratic citizens that would want to take control and create a better, fairer government with equal rights for all would (in my opinion) most probably be facing tough opposition from the vast majority of the rest of the citizens who would see them as traitors, contradictory as that may sound. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with most of what TomorrowTime said, I think there is no comparison between Iraq and NK and the very idea that these two are comparable is very indicative of an eurocentric point of view. Saddam had been reviled by large portions of the Iraqi people prior to the U.S. invasion, and yes - Americans were in fact greeted as liberators immediately following it. The fact that Iraq turned to such a clusterfuck is mainly the fault of the incompetence of the Coalition Provisional Authority, namely their post-invasion decrees which banned Iraqi soldiers from participating in the new Iraqi military and which also banned all card-carrying members of Ba'ath Party from government jobs (which basically meant that virtually everyone with a university degree had no chance of finding any decent work). It strikes me as really odd that while you've got so many people in the media talking about which governments could or should be deposed, nobody ever bothers to ask the question what should we replace them with. Does anyone honestly think that average North Koreans who enjoy universal health care, free university education and secure jobs (in exchange for total obedience to their government) will be ecstatic 20 years from now when they find themselves living in a capitalist country blessed with free speech, iPods, twitter and online porn, but without jobs? What can the West offer them? Hedge funds? Dancing with the Stars? Lady Gaga? Sarah Palin and Silvio Berlusconi? American-style debates about universal health care? Hummers that 1 in 20,000 Koreans will be able to afford? The "equality for all" ideal has in some respects already made much more progress than it ever has in the West, the majority of Koreans do not think of their leader as a tyrant (like the Iraqis did) and a large number of them sincerely believe that they already have equal rights and opportunities, as long as they don't rock the communist party boat. On the other hand, the paranoia and hatred which the state media spews on a daily basis is just a mechanism for explaining to the average Korean why such a fine country is not doing great economically. In other words, it's just a show for their own people devised to keep the current power structure in place. This means that in case somebody actually assassinated Kim Jong Il, the NK communist party would never admit it, the state media would tell Koreans that he had a heart attack, the party would elect his successor and the show would go on like nothing happened. So instead of offering a reply to the original poster's question as to why doesn't somebody assassinate Kim Jong-il perhaps we should ask him how does he know that somebody didn't already? Timbouctou 09:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OP, Have you learned nothing from the Iraq fiasco?! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I blame TV. I like Stargate SG1, but if there is any moral to the show, it's that an explosion fixes anything. Alien ships attacking? Just place some C4. Need to disable a shield generator? Toss a hand grenade. Need to disconnect an interstellar wormhole from a black hole? Use a Mark-X Naquata-enhanced warhead. Stop a giant monstrous planet-ripping explosion? Throw in a nuclear warhead, possibly with reverses polarity. A sun is being poisoned by ultra-heavy strange matter and going out? No problem, the Mark-XII comes to the rescue. It tends to promote the thinking that the same simple solution can be applied to multiple complex situations. And few things are more simple than just killing "the bad guy". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The US has a special law to try and stop the state going around killing anybody it doesn't like? I suppose that explains lot. I get this picture of an imperfectly controlled daleks itching to exterminate! EXTERMINATE! Dmcq (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about AMERICANS doing anything. I am not talking about doing what was done in Iraq. In fact, the DPRK uses that to paint Americans as war hungry conquerers. Why wouldn't the South Koreans do it or a joint operation with the U.N.? The North Koreans who enjoy free health care, free university education, and secure jobs are the elite of the DPRK and will likely be the only ones who will miss the Dear Leader. Look, maybe you guys are right and everything is better staying the way it is. But if the reports from all of the North Korean defectors are true, and the gulags are essentially not very different from modern day concentration camps, then would that be enough to warrant an assassination? If there was something going on in the world that was very similar to what the Jews faced in WW2, then would those peoples suffering alone be enough to do anything aboout it? We hear so much about the genocide of the Jews during WW2. But I guess WW2 wasn't fought to liberate the Jews, right? And even in North Korea is just as bad as Sudan, that doesn't matter, because Sudan didn't get much help either, right? If no ones going to do anything except wait for the man to die off, then why should a group of North Korean defectors even take their case to the Hague? The International Courts can't do a thing, except impose sanctions that lead to the "Arduous March" which the DPNK then blame on whoevers imposing. I'm not suggesting war, but it would seemto me that things might change if Kim Jong Il was out of the picture. Afterall his, son and rumored sucessor is thought to have went to a Swiss boarding school. Perhaps ideas of civility rubbed off on him there and he would be less inclined to be the tyrant his father was. And I don't think that exploding someone as a solution, based off of what I've seen on Stargate is why I feel this way. Perhaps Kim Jong Il feels that way, and that's why he sends anyone who disagrees with him or sommits an offense, such as listening to a foreign radio broadcast,trying to leave the country, to the gulag. I'm all for peace talks, but do you really think someone is going to sit down and reason with the man? So, perhaps my question is not about assassination, but rather what do with someone like Kim Jong Il? And most people seem to say nothing, because its too messy of a situation. But thanks Wikidao, for pointing out that people have thought it out and tried. AdbMonkey (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in our Neoconservatism article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than that, I think Realpolitik might be of more interest (although, granted, the two overlap somewhat). I don't think anyone here would argue that just standing by and watching NKoreans die because of their nutcase leadership is the morally acceptable thing to do, but according to Realpolitik, it's the right thing to do, because leaving things as they are just serves our interests better, dying NKoreans or no. It's a grim (and often, as AdbMonkey points out, deeply immoral) outlook, but unfortunately it's how the world is run. By people who have infinitively more power than random folks on the Internet, might I add.

As for South Korea, as someone above said, there is a huge number of guns pointing at Seoul from just across the border, and the last thing they want is a war - they'd have innumerable casualties in the first couple of hours of war alone. IMO the best option North Korean people have would be a continuation of the now somewhat defunct Germany-inspired Sunshine policy resulting in a merge of the two countries - but I'm not sure South Koreans are quite as willing to go through with it than they may have been in the nineties. They would after all carry the brunt of the bills to be payed, gaining in exchange precious little. Again, Realpolitik.

Incidentally, I have to disagree on the "free healthcare is only for the upper echelons" comment - services such as healthcare are one of the things that keep people in line in (at least nominally) socialistic regimes. Up until recently Turkmenistan was ruled by a (nominally socialist) nutcase calling himself Turkmenbashi, or "Father of all Turkmeni", who renamed the months (naming one for his mother), decreed by law that men must not have beards, outlawed car-stereos, had foreigners who would marry Turkmeni citizens pass an exam on the culture of the country (including primarily the knowledge of the "Bible" of the country, a book of musings by Turkmenbashi himself) and put in law many other completely whacked out ideas. Seriously, the guy made Bond villains look like amateurs. The reason people put up with this was that along with oppressive measures, the state paid everyone's electric bills, heating and more from the money they got from selling natural gas. The proverbial carrot, if you will. Admittedly, I don't know exactly how healthcare looks in NK, but I would venture to say it's one of the things that probably is available to all people. Not that the upper echelons don't have plenty of other privileges the normal person in NK can't even imagine. Like the right to own a car, for instance. Sigh. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The healthcare is pretty bad. Lisa Ling did a documentary where she traveled undercover into the country and with a doctor who had a way to service large numbers of patients who were suffering from cataracts due to poor nutrition. It's a very interesting documentary and it shows how a lot of the healthcare professionals did not know how to use the equipment. Ok, but really, I just feel powerless. And there's nothing that can be done. I'm sure the Turkmeni people need help too, I just know more about the North Korean situation. Even if I protested, who listening in a position of power would be moved enough to do something about it? This is the creeping nihilism I'm talking about. It just sucks. No offense. AdbMonkey (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What documentary is that, Monkey? There was the incident with Lisa's sister Laura Ling, but I did not know that resulted in a documentary. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For a parallel to the North Korea situation, consider the actual assassination of the South Vietnam ruler in the early 60s, and note how well that turned out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kim Jong Il's health is widely believed to be failing. Why go to all the trouble when he'll probably drop dead within the next few years? Exxolon (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Blowback" is a term used to describe unintended negative consequences of assassinations, overthrows, or other intrusions by one nations intelligence service into another nation's government. The assassination of Lincoln by a CSA sympathizer led to repression of the South that Lincoln would have opposed. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand by Serbian nationalists in 1914 led to the deaths of 58% of the Serbian army and the deaths of a quarter of the country's prewar population. The CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran via Operation Ajax in 1952, installing the Shah, and leading ultimately to the 1979 Iran Revolution and the present idiocracy government. The CIA sponsored assassination of Diem in Vietnam in 1963 led to various weak governments and ultimately the North Vietnamese won. The US sponsored the anti Soviet Afghan insurgents and created al-Qaeda. Removing a hereditary "communist" ruler of North Korea might have equally negative unintended consequences. Edison (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" kind of thing. Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what a "blowback" is. That's why I said not Americans. Anyway, the point seems pretty moot. WIKIDAO: Lisa Ling did her documentary with National Geographic, Inside North Korea. In Laura and Lisa's book "Somewhere Inside" Laura talks about her fear that the DPRK would find out about her sister's earlier illegal documentary with National Geographic. AdbMonkey (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thnx. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded at this point of one time back in the mid-90s when a co-attendee at a seminar was listening to several of us talking about Saddam Hussein and all the trouble he was causing for us. He said, "Why do you [the USA] keep messing around with this guy? Why don't you just go in there and shoot him?" I found that to be an interesting idea, especially as it was a Muslim saying that. In essence, that's what we ended up doing. Results of that adventure are still mixed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be suprised, Bugs. Not all Muslims get along with each other. Not everyone of Arabic decent is religious. I've known Kurds who said they liked George W. Bush. I'm known people living in the middle east who I thought would be devout say they were athiest. AdbMonkey (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not a bad time to point out that many Arabs are not Muslims, and that most Muslims are not Arabs, by far. The mechanism is similar to the one by which only a very small minority of Christians are Jewish ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This guy wasn't an Arab, he was a Pakistani, as I recall. It's fair to say that Saddam wasn't known for being especially religious himself, except when it served his needs (it's ironic that the last word out of his mouth before they sprung the trap was "Muhammad"). I just found it interesting that it was a Muslim that brought it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah, they're Indonesian, right? And Turks aren't Arabs. This world is so weird. AdbMonkey (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The best bet in such an action would be to frame up the assassin as some chump opponent within the local factions, like Oswald assassinating Kennedy, rather than an assault by foreigners, like Prencip shooting Franz Ferdinand.. Edison (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)