|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2015 1:32:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Apr 8, 2015 3:20:45 GMT
I think Sig (with all due respect) that you must feel very insulated on that big farm of yours. NK is no boogeyman, they break agreements as fast as they sign them, and they are evil and crazy.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 8, 2015 3:42:49 GMT
He might ask around the medical world what cold does for human health! But, of course, he won't. And, after all, that's caused by CO2 also.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Apr 8, 2015 9:28:28 GMT
NK have weapons and missiles but not unlike the WW2 efforts of the Nazi's little chance of actually striking a target.
the NK's are a wedge between the US and China as is SK. its hard to come of a position you have been on for half a century.
I would also suggest the bases in SK are relatively low-cost operation when compared to subs and aircraft carriers. Koreans are nice well organised people in a sophisticated country (the South) and many military people will enjoy their deployment to the region i am sure.
i accept those bombs can go bang but not where they are intended and even the NK's know this.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Apr 8, 2015 15:12:32 GMT
Part of the "disconnect" is that the Europeans will benefit more that the U.S.from re-opening trade with the Iranians. So money, mostly in the form of continued depressed oil prices, is a factor. Secondly, I think the Europeans have fewer reasons to distrust the Iranians, not having experienced the embarrassment of having their diplomats very publicly held hostage for over a year just a generation ago. Moreover, Since WWII, the Europeans have pacified to the point that even a hint of war is unthinkable for them. They'd rather negotiate a bad deal then contemplate any potential for war, regardless of the threat. One point in the article puzzled me, and made me think the the author was either uninformed or lacking in seriousness. There's mention of the Europeans belief that US "saber rattling" failed to prevent North Korea from getting the bomb. it seems to me that the US entered into a nonproliferation agreement with North Korea that bears some substantial resemblance to Mr. Obama's proposed deal with Iran. The Norks simply ignored the deal, and went on with their work on both missiles and nukes. Some of us believe the attitude of the Iranians to be similar. Get the sanctions removed, stonewall on the inspections, and level Tel Aviv before anyone can do anything about it. Which leads me to my last point. The Europeans have little concern for the security, or continued existence of, Israel. Before Mr. Obama, the U.S. did. Antisemitism is strong in Europe, and the shadow is beginning to deepen. Again. I disagree. There was a point that North Korea was actually trying to negotiate with the USA in regards to nukes. China was pushing NK hard to do so. Rather than seize the opportunity, the US put up more sanctions as a "pre-condition". The US didn't want a Nuke Treaty with NK. It would have taken one of the boogy men off the table. It would have also lessened the need for bases in South Korea. In my humble opinion, the deal achieved, or potentially achieved by the P5+1 was one heck of a deal. It lessens a threat. On North Korea: In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this Agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities. This Agreement merely provided cover for NK to continue its program, while benefiting greatly from the aid, much of which consisted of fuel oil shipments used to keep the regime in power. In the US, the Agreement was haled as a diplomatic solution to a seemingly intractable problem. In truth, the problem proved intractable because the North is inherently untrustworthy. I think the P5+1 deal will have a similar outcome. The Iranians get sanctions lifted, in return for which . . . they will do little or nothing to curtail nuclear development because the deal has no credible verification structure. The economic benefit of the sanction lifting will allow the current regime to stay in power. That regime has made clear that one foreign policy goal is the elimination of a Jewish State from the world. Rather than lessening the threat, the current agreement will lead to an increased likelihood that Israel will feel compelled to take military action to, in the minds of the Israelis at least, eliminate an existential threat to their country's existence. In my view, a better plan would have been for the US to withdraw from the talks, and let the Iranians stew in the economic mess caused by the sanctions until they asked for renewed talks. Then, the West could negotiate a deal with real verification teeth, and movement of all fissile material out of Iran. As it is, the current deal seems like what you would expect from a deal "negotiated" under the threat of a self-imposed deadline. I'm somewhat cynical about Mr. Obama, and often wonder if he and his legacy come first in his mind, even before the country he leads.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2015 16:21:37 GMT
phydeaux2363: I am very cynical of President Obama, to put it lightly.
I am not as cynical of Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany.
They all have meat on the fire, and I don't see any indication they want it burned.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Apr 9, 2015 3:50:43 GMT
I have mixed feelings about the best course of action when it comes to Iran developing nuclear weapons. Obviously, the world would be better off without another nuclear power. But there are now nine countries with nuclear weapons and we have not went to war to stop any of them from developing the bomb.
Sanctions did not exactly stop North Korea from getting one and the last thing we need is another economically crippled and desperate nuclear power saber rattling in the most volatile geographic region in the world.
I tend to agree with Sigurdur and the P5+1 was probably the best deal.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Apr 9, 2015 4:03:33 GMT
Time will tell, Mr. Glenn. I hope, nay pray, you and Mr. Sig are right; I fear though we might wake one day to the news that the Israelis have bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, and the world will be shrouded in the fog of war.. More patience in the negotiations might prevent this unpalatable outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 9, 2015 12:21:59 GMT
Not taking sides, but ............ Iran - and others - are dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
When one country openly promotes the destruction of another (Iran -> Israel), I don't think anyone should be surprised if the promoter should suffer a pre-emptive attack.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 9, 2015 12:35:15 GMT
Not taking sides, but ............ Iran - and others - are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. When one country openly promotes the destruction of another (Iran -> Israel), I don't think anyone should be surprised if the promoter should suffer a pre-emptive attack. Ratty: The problem with that line of thinking is the USA has openly stated that they want "regime" change in Iran, and have maintained an open threat of war for 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 9, 2015 12:35:58 GMT
www.yahoo.com/politics/two-friends-two-principles-one-answer-on-iran-115884913116.html(Yahoo News photo illustration/AP Photos/Graphics Bank) If Barack Obama has a close friend in Congress, it’s Tim Kaine. Much like Obama, Kaine is a Harvard-trained lawyer who practiced and taught civil rights law before getting into Virginia politics in the mid-’90s. He was an early Obama supporter back in 2007, before it was in vogue, and he served as the new president’s handpicked party chairman before following Obama’s path to the Senate in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Apr 9, 2015 14:38:39 GMT
Time will tell, Mr. Glenn. I hope, nay pray, you and Mr. Sig are right; I fear though we might wake one day to the news that the Israelis have bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, and the world will be shrouded in the fog of war.. More patience in the negotiations might prevent this unpalatable outcome. I dare say that is a distinct posibility with or without sanctions. Tough questions and even tougher decisions. I do not think it is wise to let the possibility of an Israeli strike weigh too heavily on our decision making process. If Iran obtains a nuke would they use it against Israel? Are they crazy (stupid) enough to do it? Is Mutual Assured Destruction still a deterrent? In addition Isreal has not been free from guilt in the region. The international community considers their settlements in occupied territory to be illegal. Some consider their treatment of the Palestinian people as genocide. How does our continued support of Israel look to people who have had their homes bulldozed and replaced by Jewish homes? Will Iran use a nuclear weapon against Israel in an unprovoked attack? Lots of questions and tough choices.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 9, 2015 22:39:32 GMT
The difference in the physical distance between the prospective protagonists AND the genuine hatred of the Jews makes Iran's threat to Israel a real one.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Apr 10, 2015 4:50:12 GMT
Ratty,
Missiles fly both ways. While we may paint Iran as a bunch of crazies more than willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces in a nuclear exchange with Israel I seriously doubt this is the case.
Nobody wins that exchange and that should be a deterrent for both sides. What is the probability of Iran actually using a nuke against Israel should they get one?
If we attacked North Korea every time they threatened to wipe us out we would need more bombs.
As I said before tough decisions will have to be made but I don't think a nuclear Iran necessarily equates to a nuclear war with Israel.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 11, 2015 14:50:34 GMT
|
|