or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/International Relations
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| why is it so? |
curious98 |
02/10/05 |
Dear Captain,
A week ago I raised the subject of Bush threats of war against Iran if they did not abandon their nuclear plans.
Yesterday, Ms Condoleezza Rice repeated in Paris the same threats. However, she chose to ignore the fact that also yesterday North Korea, defied the U.S.A, by leaving the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and openly admitting they have already nuclear warheads while continuing missile research and work on chemical and biological weapons. They also claimed they needed all these power to protect themselves against USA continuous hostility.
Later on, on the evening TV news in Europe we could watch a military parade with all kind of missiles, that reminded me very much of the parades Stalin and Khrushchev liked to show the to world, back in the early 50 and 60s.
Ms. Rice, however, took the dramatic announcement very lightly, while saying Washington, since the mid 90s, had already assumed North Korea might have nuclear weapons.
What many of us, here in Europe, don’t quite understand is why the Bush Administration is so adamant to consider Iran (which is some 7000 miles from Washington, as the crow flies) as a potential nuclear power and therefore an enemy “de facto”, while N. K. (distance to L.A. about 2500 miles closer) seems to be less important, despite the fact they ALREADY have nuclear weapons and they are actual enemies of the US.
I can think of 2 reasons.
a) There is no oil production in N.K.
b) Iran cannot reach the US. They could reach Israel and, eventually, Eastern Europe, while N.K. might have the power to reach Hawaii, Alaska, or even Oregon and California.
I can also think of 2 reasons why it would be more advantageous to try to silence present Korean haughtiness rather than Iran’s.
c) The population of N.K. is of some 23 million people while S.K. is close to 50, and is already an US base. Japan is an allied country and certainly not very happy to see N.K. military growth. As for China, I guess that, right now, they are more interested in building up their economy to eventually become the 1st world power, than to engage in any kind of conflict with the US to help N.K. So, in other words. N.K. is practically alone.
d) On the other hand, Iran is close to 70 million already. The closer ally you may have in the area is Israel. But in case of conflict against Iran, and after the Iraq experience, the US would have to face the hate of 1 billion Muslims all over the world, including the US.
So why insist on the most dangerous choice?
Any comments?
Curious98
|
Clarification/Follow-up by curious98 on 02/12/05 10:56 pm:
Yes, you are absolutely right. International goodwill is in short supply, and North Korea not only continues its nuclear grandstanding, but brags about it. You ask 1) what is wrong with the North Koreans who so desparately need the friendship of other nations, yet continues to alienate them? Unfortunately, nothing is wrong, I'm afraid, with poor North Koreans, while ALL is wrong with Kim Jong II. He has the same dangerous illness all dictators have, the kind of illness that will eventualy terminate him. The problem is that getting rid of him may imply some extraordinary measures and even an eventual confrontation.
As for your number 2 question about what is wrong with Bush who continues to rattle his saber at the Muslim world, but tiptoes around the North Korea question, this is exactly what I was also wondering.
Although Mr. Bush is far from sharing most of a dictator's viewpoints he, nontheless, seems to share a tendency to consider he has been appointed by God as the leader of a crusade against Evil, and this may turn out to be a major world confrontation too if he sticks to consider the Muslim world as the Great Evil threatening the USA.
Regards
Curious98
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/15/05 7:22 am:
If it were me as a European leader I would let it be known that any European city that was nuked by Iran would be retaliated with a 10 fold response. Tehran would certainly be glass desert.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
