Calbear94 wrote:conversationpc wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:The silence on this forum over Bush's gradual slide into diplomatic overtures aka "appeasement " is deafening (and most revealing).
I've said on here on more than one occasion that anyone who thinks Iran or North Korea are going to abide by any deal are fooling themselves. So much for the deafening silence.
North Korea stands to gain $59 billion dollars in aid for complying with U.N. nuclear mandates. The only thing Kim is interested in is remaining in power. This will take care of the second of two possible threats to his rule: the abject poverty of the North Korean people. The deal will enable Kim to provide just enough of the electricity, food, and medicine that his people need to avoid possible unrest in the forseeable future. If Kim doesn't provide ongoing compliance, you can bet the aid will be cut-off.
The first possible threat to Kim was from an embrazened U.S. that decided almost unilaterally to invade a sovereign, yet belligerent, nation, Iraq. The course of the war there, however, has politically and militarily prevented the Bush administration from considering military action against North Korea.
Before one cries 'stick up,' one should consider that this is the price a country pays when it assumes the role of a global police power...the consequences of not paying the ransom are too terrible to consider for the nation that assumes this responsibility. As it is, this should be considered a "win" (however meager) by the U.S. The cost in terms of dollars, American lives, and the political and economic consequences of military action could have far exceeded the $39 billion.
The situation with Iran is more difficult to assess. Iranian leaders want a guarantee of security from the U.S. and Israel, and due to deep-rooted mutual distrust, the only way Iran feels secure is by having nuclear capability. Since other nations such as Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't see any reason why it shouldn't be able to enrich uranium. Iran won't need nuclear power production for another 50 years or so (they have plenty of fossil fuel that can be used for that purpose). This is in stark contrast to North Korea, where major sections of the capital, Pyungang, are regularly without power. Also, unlike with the North Korean situation, the countries of Europe have significant economic and political interests in Iran. The U.S. would be wise to let those countries take the lead in compromising with Iran. Close U.S. involvement, even if only symbolic, is going to provoke stronger negative reactions from Iranian leadership (which must maintain a hostile political posture towards the U.S. to retain the respect of the Iranian people). Again, there is no basis of trust between the U.S. and Iran, so Iran isn't likely to take seriously any threats or promises made by the U.S. anyhow.
If the nations of the world, particularly the U.S., would focus on achieving a greater degree of peace and stability through diplomacy, nuclear weapons (and the incumbent wasting of resources by individual nuclear nations) would become less attractive.
Absolutely untrue, a majority of the population Iran wants nothing more than to live their lives and the younger generation of Iran wants the Ayattolah and his buddies gone. They are not hostile to America but the religious and political leadership is.
Where do you get your facts?
