Opinion
The North Korean lesson
Orly Azoulay
Published: 26.05.09, 14:35
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
17 Talkbacks for this article
1. Obamas response
lawrence ,   phila, USA   (05.26.09)
I beliee that Obamas response will be some serious hand wringing and begging N. Korea to play nice. Maybe he will send Jimmy Carter as an envoy?
2. Following the example of détente with Vietnam and China
Ypip ,   Canada   (05.26.09)
Or, consider redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to the United States Armed Forces in South Korea which were ordered to be completely removed in 1991 by Bush.
3. Why does Azoulay say the Mideast will be on fire?
Steve   (05.26.09)
Why all this scare-mongering and defeatism? The point is, we do NOT know that should Israel attack Iran's nuclear sites, the Middle East will be on fire. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. Azoulay and the Iranian mullahs apparently want the public to believe this. "Better to wait for an Iranian first-strike on Israel than set the (entire) Middle East on fire! Better a few hundred thousand incinerated Jews than set the Middle East on fire." The point is, Obama is doing and will do nothing more than some hand-wringing over N. Korea. He will press for worthless United Security Council condemnation of North Korea. Obama will do nothing more than talk to the Iranians as they buy more time to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons on their ICBMs aimed at Israel. Remember Saddam Hussein? Well Saddam warned that American blood would flow in the deserts of Iraq should the U.S. dare attack Iraq's vaunted army; Saddam's Republican Guard. After all Iraq had the world's forth largest army. Remember? Or did Orly Azoulay forget about Iraq's empty boasts. If Netanyahu, Barak, Lieberman, etc. are afraid of the Iranians and their threats to set the Middle East on fire, then this is very sad indeed. "Better to wait until they have nukes! Who knows, they may not use them."
4. North Korean Lesson
Benjamin ,   Greenville USA   (05.26.09)
Obama is a more politically correct version of Jimmy Carter. Obama will nothing serious against North Korea.
5. A few facts about North Korea
Smith ,   TA, Israel   (05.26.09)
To the vast majority of TBers who are not well informed on N. Korea and don't want to be manipulated by journalists using selective information this should help. Yes it is true that N.K. is a state characterized by misery, and is geographically small but is has a conventional military of over 1 million, brain-washed, soldiers who worship the state like a God. In addition to the vast stockpile of conventional weaponry, N.K. is known to have targeted long-range artillery and short-range missiles with sarin and mustard gas at South Korea's major cities. They probably also have the capability of launching a chemical weapon attack on Japan as well. Their capability for murdering millions of people in a few days is terrifying. The fact is this is what deterred Clinton, Bush 2, and probably now Obama. Attacking N.K. would only prove their murderous intention and eliminate two very important democracies from the world. The only tool available to the U.S. is to pressure China to intervene forcefully. China is N.K. only source sustenance in the world. Unfortunately the world is not so simple and comparisons are not easy. Yes Iran is a threat but it is no where the type of threat that N.K. poses to the people of South Korea. And the misery that the writer spoke of is largely caused by all state resources in N.K. going to its military machine ensuring its 1 million plus troops are well fed and brainwashed even at the expense of starving a million civilians to death as happened in the late 90s. This is no trivial matter and N.K. is no Iraqi cakewalk.
6. #5 - A few facts
Ben ,   Chutzlaaretz   (05.26.09)
Correct on all counts but one! N.K. army is not well fed either. (Yes better fed than the citizen/slaves or N.K.) but in terms of quality and quntity, the average soldier is very poorly treated. - If the N.K. attacked the south, it is likely true the the 30K US forces standing in the way would be no more than a speed bump, but the moment these N.K. soldiers cross the border the material wealth and food they will see will melt away their will to continued supporting thier junta. - The damage in the meanwhile though is something we must avoid if at all possible.
7. Look to Past Actions
Robert ,   New Jersey, USA   (05.26.09)
In face of the threat from North Korea, obama reduced funding for deployment of missile defense systems. He also decimated the F 22 Raptor fighter.program. He will do absolutely nothing against the threats of N. Korea and Iran. Theodore Roosevelt said it best: "Speak Softly and carry a big stick." Obama's mantra, "Shout loudly and destroy your sticks."
8. OMG, Kim Jong is ill again
Zohan ,   Tel Aviv   (05.26.09)
This is a man who's army takes up 25% of his country GDP; 1 in 3 ppl are starving. yet he's playing toys that could split this planet apart. Make no mistake, he's testing Obama's balls
9. punched by the unclenched fist
(05.26.09)
10. THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION TO -
ORAO STRANKA. ,   TSARIGRAD U SRBIA.   (05.26.09)
THE KOREAN LESSON !!!. -WAR- !!!. Orao.
11. He don't look ronery to me
Frankie Abulafia ,   Jerusalem   (05.26.09)
12. America is still at war with north korea, there is but an
Bunnie Meyer ,   Los Angeles, CA USA   (05.27.09)
"armistice" preventing gunfire. obumma would simply have to give north korea a 24 ultimatum to start shuttering the nuke plants and open up the entire country to UN inspection or war will once again commence. north korea doesn't have enough food to feed it's people and it can't have much food stored for it's military. One tactical nuke destroying one facility and it would be over. Give iran the same ultimatum and this whole stupid nuclear affair would be over. But, obumma will let north korea and iran have their nukes and their missiles because he is a talker and not a doer, because he is a fantastically smart campaigner and an incompetent president.
13. To #5: The right answer
Frank ,   Canada   (05.26.09)
Americans should bomb NK nuclear infrastructure with mini-nukes to make them understand that they should not even think at retaliating against Japan and SK.
14. #5, slightly wrong
Danny   (05.27.09)
look at the history of confronting NK and we see every time the west blinked over casualties the balance got worse. In 1950s, they argued against taking NK back because it would have cost thousands of dead americans. In the 90s they argued against striking because it would cause tens of thousands. Now it would cause millions. Bush 2 was making progress with financial sanctions hitting these people where it hurt - in their wallet - and then the brain donors in the State department came up with the idea of "negotiating"...
15. We are not concerned about Kim Jong Il
Ypip ,   Canada   (05.27.09)
We're concerned about those he's brutalized for quite some time. He's facing a very unhonourable end of his ways along with anyone connected to him.
16. Peace is overated
usa   (05.27.09)
Go ahead and hold hands and sing kumbaya. There will always be hungry people who will want to bust you up.
17. oBOWma will BOW
Irritant ,   USA   (05.29.09)
Our paper tiger excuse for a president will soon be bowing to, grinning with, and back-slapping the repulsive pot-bellied pig of NK.
Back to article