Iran and North Korea
by MarcJune 19th, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Filed under: Politics
 |
|
I wanted to post this article as a means for discussing our problems with these two countries, Iran and North Korea. Today Iran's supreme leader said that the election results were valid, and the supporters cheered "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Ayatollah endorses official results showing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected (CNN)  North Korea is constantly making threats in one way or another, and like Iran, they are desperate to tote nuclear weapons. Tension high after nuclear test, missile launches, arrest of journalists  Talking about Pakistan, Sante1 previously discussed how stretched our military already is, which leads me to wonder What can we really be prepared to do in either situation, Iran or North Korea? I think it would be productive if we got some ideas out there on what could be done in both situations. As much as we want the situations to just disappear, I think it is fair to say that isn't likely anytime soon and we have a long hard road ahead. 
|
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest First
Going in, guns a blaze, is not a viable or well thought out option for the United States. We would need the support of all the Countries in North Korea's reach, namely China's.
However, a simple mobilization of our troops in the region, WOULD be enough to silence North Korea.
-Todd
"Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Sounds pretty self explanatory to me
I give Obama props
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD992G60G0
"Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Did they mean, wipe out America and Israel in one blow? Or, is it economic death? Can you make this simple for me Marc? Thanks
I'm not trying to divert to another topic. I just think that Obama is being smarter by not jumping in guns firing like McCain would. McCain has already been spouting his mouth off enough. Those tactics do not work in that part of the world. In my opinion, Obama's more measured response is exactly the right avenue to be taking at this time.
Since one can only speculate on what action he would take that point is moot. However what he has done, like everyone else in congress, made a stance on the issue instead of sitting on that fence waiting to see which way he should lean.
I'm not trying to divert to another topic. I just think that Obama is being smarter by not jumping in guns firing like McCain would. McCain has already been spouting his mouth off enough. Those tactics do not work in that part of the world. In my opinion, Obama's more measured response is exactly the right avenue to be taking at this time.
And the regime is supplying fresh evidence of the absurdity of his approach. All that's left for Obama now is to abandon his own ideological rigidity and start over. ----Goldberg
The article made good points until the end. I wish Goldberg would have explained the assertion that Obama's approach was absurd. There was, and still is, definitely logic involved in Obama's approach to such a complicated situation.
Anyhow, it's clear that there is a divide among the Iranian people. We can be sure that half are chanting Death to Israel & America, but what about the others---from what I've read, these are the younger and open-minded citizens that think improving diplomatic relations with the US would be a good thing.
The catch-22 is that if we tell half of the population to over through the regime, then we are essentially guilty of terrorism according to the other half. The last thing we want to do is fuel the fire and rhetoric of the half that hates us already. If it's truly the will of the Iranian people, they will have to exercise their right to fair government in one way or another. But, as we know that could be a huge sacrifice or mere impossibility. In these days, we can't just topple a government and pretend someone else did it.
Here's a good question, what would Bush and Cheney be doing in this situation? Probably the same thing in my opinion. Bush certainly wouldn't launch another crusade since we don't have the resources, and I doubt he'd focus so much on election fraud. Maybe researching new sanctions would be the preferred action.
You know what Retired..I guess you never know until you try. At least he tried the handshake first. If it doesn't work..it doesn't work. It still sounds like the first logical step to me as opposed to ...bomb, bomb, bomb..bomb bomb Iran. Oh wait..who said that? Must have been John McCain..glad he wasn't elected.
This isn't about John McCain, Its about Barack Hussein Obama Jr., so before you try to divert to another topic lets talk about this issue. Up until yesterday good ole B. Hussein Obama refused to even speak out against the violence against the protesters. Instead of idly watching he could have strongly disapproval of the disproportionate actions against the protesters and still expressed an interest in opening talks.
You know what Retired..I guess you never know until you try. At least he tried the handshake first. If it doesn't work..it doesn't work. It still sounds like the first logical step to me as opposed to ...bomb, bomb, bomb..bomb bomb Iran. Oh wait..who said that? Must have been John McCain..glad he wasn't elected.
Now, on to Iran.
Whether or not Ahmadehajajaja is the leader or not, will not affect the United States. He is simply a puppet for the Ayatollah. Whether it was him or 'the other guy,' will not matter. Whether outspoken or not, the Iranian president would be instructed to follow the Ayatollah's orders.
That said, if Iran were to make a move, their first move would be aimed at Israel. Fortunately for the Israel citizens, their leaders do not play games, and would conceivably wipe Iran from the map.
-Todd