Not a Joke = Kim Jong Il is Dead

[chrisb01]

I just heard that the leader of the North Korean Republic, Kim Jong Il, has died of a heart attack at the age of 69.

His son Kim Jong Un, is the successor to the leadership. However, it is feared that a power struggle, and therefore nuclear instability might take place.

[LizStreithorst]

Yep, it true. I think of the North Koreans as loose cannons. Let's hope this son/ grandson has a head on his shoulders.

As much as I admire him and love his sprit, Einstein and his theory will do us in one day.

[chrisb01]

Yep, it true. I think of the North Koreans as loose cannons. Let's hope this son/ grandson has a head on his shoulders.

As much as I admire him and love his sprit, Einstein and his theory will do us in one day.

True, he (Einstein), said it himself.

[LizStreithorst]

You're right. He did. I, who have read three of his biographies, had forgotten.

[chrisb01]

Do you like reading Liz?

You know I love to read, and I have one of Einsteins biographies, but have not read it yet. I guess I have to pick it up next.

I have a self imposed policy, I have to finish one book before I start a new one. I have a friend who has a giant library at home, but he's read most of them halfway. Every time he finds a new book, he stops the one he is reading to start the new one. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Yeah, the situation in Korea can get a little messy with those nukes.

[Ronald]

Yep it is a good year so far.
Alwaki, BinLaden, Gadaffi and now Kim Jong Il. All gone.

[YSS]

Kim Jong Un was educated in the west. I hope that means better days ahead for N. Koreans. As a Korean American this is great news although it does bring elements of uncertainty.

[TURQ64]

Lemmeee see..'good riddance to bad rubbish', 'good things come to those who wait', etc....

[Skip]

Still need hugo chavez to die to cover the spread by end of year..

[TURQ64]

Still need hugo chavez to die to cover the spread by end of year..

+1!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ericatdallas]

Yeah, the situation in Korea can get a little messy with those nukes.

It's the nuclear material you should be more concerned about. Corupt or insane individuals selling or giving material to terrorists.

The country doesn't have any reliable delivery mechanism that would allow them to utilize it against too many countries and the ones they could target would bring on the wraith of the Chinese and Russian government. This is assuming that the weapon they put into operation was actually working... We suspect that China and Russia play by a different set of philosophical rules when they go to war and human rights are not concerns in operational planning.

I think in a power struggle, you're going to inevitable have at least one faction that wants to keep to the way things are and another faction that wants to push to democratic, pro-south koera or pro-western ideas. There may be two or three in each group vying for power. Obviously, the pro-western group will come together in an alliance and lobby the US and EU for resources and help (which we would likely comply) as would most of our asian allies (south korea, japan, pakistan, india, australia) as they have a very real interest in maintaining stability in that area.

It all comes down to how strong of a leader the actual successor is... how much power Kim Jong Il actually had or if he was just a figurehead. What ideas his son has... if they're perfectly aligned with those in positions of power, the country may have no problems. If Kim Jong Il chose the right people in his administration that are loyal to him.

Kim Jong Il son should probably know that as long as the people currently in power keep their power, he is likely to keep his control. He can slowly migrate to his own ideas as those people die or get replaced.

In the end, it's probably going to be much of the same or be a period of instability in the region that would lead to a much better Korea. Missing nuclear material could be a concern but I suspect, without a state sponsor, there are not a lot of terrorist groups that could properly handle or utilize the material.

This is just my personal opinion and I don't have any insight that any one else here doesn't with the exception of a somewhat above average understanding of nuclear material.

[stephcps]

The problem to me is the son is so young...in his early 20's I think. To my knowledge, we don't know for sure much about him, not even where he has been educated. He is a total unknown. There have been rumours he is somewhat of a live cannon. I guess we get to find out the hard way.

[ericatdallas]

The problem to me is the son is so young...in his early 20's I think. To my knowledge, we don't know for sure much about him, not even where he has been educated. He is a total unknown. There have been rumours he is somewhat of a live cannon. I guess we get to find out the hard way.

"He studied at the International School of Berne, in Switzerland, until 1998 under the pseudonym Pak Chol, learning to speak English, German and French, the Swiss weekly news magazine L'Hebdo reported earlier this year.

A classmate recalled him as timid and introverted but an avid skier and basketball player who was a big fan of the NBA star Michael Jordan."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/02/kim-jong-il-names-son-successor

We could always send Jordan over there as a US diplomat :)

[Sean Buehrle]

Iran is next on the chopping block, we will be in some sort of a war with them by summer.

North Korea is chinas problem.

[YSS]

We could always send Jordan over there as a US diplomat :)

Can't do no harm.

[chrisb01]

Yeah, North Korea is China's and Russia's problem. I don't they will do anything drastic. I heard in the news that his Aunt and Uncle are also Political/Military leaders, so chances are he'll be taking advice from some old school folks. Therefore, no change in sight for the North Koreans.

I would like for us to do something about Iran soon. If we only had someone with cojones in D.C.

[chrisb01]

Yeah, North Korea is China's and Russia's problem. I don't they will do anything drastic. I heard in the news that his Aunt and Uncle are also Political/Military leaders, so chances are he'll be taking advice from some old school folks. Therefore, no change in sight for the North Koreans.

I would like for us to do something about Iran soon. If we only had someone with cojones in D.C.

[scottthomas]

Still need hugo chavez to die to cover the spread by end of year..

+2

Did you see where Chavez calls Obama a clown and a failure as US president in response to Obama criticizing Venezuela’s ties to Iran and record of violating human rights? LOL one of them is right I guess :)

[Sean Buehrle]

Yeah, North Korea is China's and Russia's problem. I don't they will do anything drastic. I heard in the news that his Aunt and Uncle are also Political/Military leaders, so chances are he'll be taking advice from some old school folks. Therefore, no change in sight for the North Koreans.

I would like for us to do something about Iran soon. If we only had someone with cojones in D.C.

Iran's fate is already sealed.

The secretary of defense was on the news the other night and said straight up that the united states will Not under any circumstance allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon or get to the stage of enriching uranium .

He said that they are 6-12 months out on being able to do so.

The interviewer asked him if we would use military force and his answer was, again under no circumstance will Iran be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Unless Iran folds and gives inspectors the go ahead, Iran is the next Iraq.

I don't see them folding.

I have 20 dollars that says united states planes will be dropping bombs in Iran within 8 months.

It's perfect timing, every sitting president in united states history has been reelected during a war.

Pretty soon all the news channels are going to be gearing up and sell this war to the American public.

Why do you think they took all the troops out of iraq and are getting ready to vacate Afghanistan ?

20 bucks , any takers ?

[chrisb01]

Iran's fate is already sealed.

The secretary of defense was on the news the other night and said straight up that the united states will Not under any circumstance allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon or get to the stage of enriching uranium .

He said that they are 6-12 months out on being able to do so.

The interviewer asked him if we would use military force and his answer was, again under no circumstance will Iran be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Unless Iran folds and gives inspectors the go ahead, Iran is the next Iraq.

I don't see them folding.

I have 20 dollars that says united states planes will be dropping bombs in Iran within 8 months.

It's perfect timing, every sitting president in united states history has been reelected during a war.

Pretty soon all the news channels are going to be gearing up and sell this war to the American public.

Why do you think they took all the troops out of iraq and are getting ready to vacate Afghanistan ?

20 bucks , any takers ?

No, I'll keep my $20.00. I agree with you. Bombing Iran will for sure propel Pres. Obama to re-election.

And I am not against sticking it to Iran in anyway, shape or form.

[Sean Buehrle]

No, I'll keep my $20.00. I agree with you. Bombing Iran will for sure propel Pres. Obama to re-election.

And I am not against sticking it to Iran in anyway, shape or form.

One of my earliest memories of television is Watching the mini series called Roots , rich man poor man and staying up late with my mom so we could watch nightline with Ted coppel , Im pretty sure I didnt miss an episode of the Iran hostage crisis.

I remember when Ronald regan said about Iran if he got elected, he said

They'll be releasing our people or else .

I'm pretty sure they were on a plane home the day he got elected :)

I would much rather see the Israelis attack them, after all it is what the iranians are all pissy about.

Let em settle it once and for all.

[chrisb01]

Oh yeah, I'd put my money on BB Netanyahu...

[Darrell Ward]

It's only a matter of time before the people revolt against the North Korean government like they have in other countries this year. I don't think they will continue to starve forever, just so some dictator can stay in power.

[Darrell Ward]

One of my earliest memories of television is Watching the mini series called Roots , rich man poor man and staying up late with my mom so we could watch nightline with Ted coppel , Im pretty sure I didnt miss an episode of the Iran hostage crisis.

I remember when Ronald regan said about Iran if he got elected, he said

They'll be releasing our people or else .

I'm pretty sure they were on a plane home the day he got elected :)

I would much rather see the Israelis attack them, after all it is what the iranians are all pissy about.

Let em settle it once and for all.

Some people still give Regan way too much credit. History now shows us that the White House had already known the hostages were going to be be released ahead of time. Regan loved to grandstand. He did the same thing with the Berlin Wall, after it was already known by officials the USSR was flat broke, and could no longer afford to pay for the very expensive security of the wall. He was an interesting guy.

[ericatdallas]

the problem with Israel attacking is that other Islamic countries may join in on it. This would inevitably pull us into a larger conflict against countries we have diplomatic relations with. Even worse, it might pull us away from countries we have formal alliances with. While the elected officials, monarchy, dictatorships, or whatever ruling form of government may officially want to side with the US and may even secretly wish Iran had different leaders, they have to take popular support and the support of the clergy into consideration.

So while yes, it would at surface be easier if Israel 'took care of it', it would almost certainly draw us into a larger conflict whether Israel was successful or not. it actually makes more sense to have a secular country attack and even more so for an official intervention by an alliance of countries (i.e. the Arab League and the NATO).

Actually, in every possible situation, it would actually make the least amount of sense to let Israel get drawn into a military conflict with any country over there. In fact, the only two countries that could attack Iran unilaterally and have it be good for us all around might be China or Russia. It would strengthen the argument that we have to worry for their military buildup, not cost us a dime in providing military support, allow us to see their new military capability, and they're not perceived as pro-Israel. The downside to that is they may not build a replacement government any better than the last one.

finally, I don't think another conflict will help Obama. Really, there are people who are just going to be against Obama or for him no matter what he does. For instance, if Iran attacked Israel, some hardcore anti-Obama people are going to say, "he just dragged us into another war" but those same people would say, if Obama didn't intervene would say, "I can't believe Obama is just going to let Iran attack Israel unprovoked, he's such a weak president, etc etc."

So it comes to the swing voters. The swing voters are the people who usually sit on the fence. They're not going to be happy with another war UNLESS something that provides a real threat to our national security (i.e. Pearl Harbor, September 11, etc). If Iran attacks Israel with out of the blue, or N. Korea attacks S. Korea, then the swing voters would support the action BUT Obama will have to go in front of the American people and provide a very compelling argument as why this is not only the right thing to do, but a necessary thing to do.

[chrisb01]

the problem with Israel attacking is that other Islamic countries may join in on it. This would inevitably pull us into a larger conflict against countries we have diplomatic relations with. Even worse, it might pull us away from countries we have formal alliances with. While the elected officials, monarchy, dictatorships, or whatever ruling form of government may officially want to side with the US and may even secretly wish Iran had different leaders, they have to take popular support and the support of the clergy into consideration.

Eric, a lot of the Muslim countries are afraid of the Little Nut leading Iran. They are not of the same sect of Islam that Ahmadinejad is. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a twelfver, which means he is waiting for the Twelfth Imam. He wants to hasten the coming of the Twelfth Imam. Has said so every time he has come to the U.N. To do that he believes he must start a big war. Other Muslim countries don't subscribe to that train of thought, only that one sect in Iran, to which Ahmadinejad belongs to. That's why even Sadam Hussein hated him.

If the USA or Israel bombed Iran's nuclear sites, there might be protest in other countries, but I really doubt there would be any retribution from any other Muslim country. Don't forget that Israel already bombed the nuclear reactor in Syria as recently as 2007.


So while yes, it would at surface be easier if Israel 'took care of it', it would almost certainly draw us into a larger conflict whether Israel was successful or not.

You're right, Israel would not be the right country to do it. But the Little Nut keeps threatening Israel in hopes that Israel will hit them first, and start a big war where we will also have to get in.

The Arab League will not attack Iran, because one Muslim country will not attack another in defense of Israel. Iran would have to hit another Muslim country, but Ahmadinejad knows too well that that would be suicidal and not accomplish what he wants. Remember, Iran and Iraq were at war against each other from 1980 to 1988.

NATO won't do anything. The only member of NATO that gives a dang about Israel is the USA. The rest couldn't care less.


In fact, the only two countries that could attack Iran unilaterally and have it be good for us all around might be China or Russia.

Correct, but China will not get involved, they have nothing to gain. Russia is already helping Iran with their nuclear efforts. Russian scientist and engineers have been working in Iran even before the Gulf war.


So it comes to the swing voters. The swing voters are the people who usually sit on the fence. They're not going to be happy with another war UNLESS something that provides a real threat to our national security (i.e. Pearl Harbor, September 11, etc). If Iran attacks Israel with out of the blue, or N. Korea attacks S. Korea, then the swing voters would support the action BUT Obama will have to go in front of the American people and provide a very compelling argument as why this is not only the right thing to do, but a necessary thing to do.

I beg to differ. A sitting President would not have to make a more compelling argument than Pres. H. W. Bush did for the first Gulf war in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or G. W. Bush did to go into Afghanistan, if North Korea attacks South Korea.

If Iran attacks Israel, I believe Iran will be buried in rubles before we even knew about it. Remember, Israel is very quick at the trigger when attacked. And, the secret that everyone knows, Israel already has nukes. A big advantage over Iran.

[scottthomas]

Some people still give Regan way too much credit. History now shows us that the White House had already known the hostages were going to be be released ahead of time. Regan loved to grandstand. He did the same thing with the Berlin Wall, after it was already known by officials the USSR was flat broke, and could no longer afford to pay for the very expensive security of the wall. He was an interesting guy.

Wish we had Regan back again now. -You can try to minimize his accomplishments if you like. You have made your feelings about republicans clear many times... yet even Obama cant help but quote Regan nearly every speech.

[YSS]

This is a good time for this thread to be locked before getting out of hand. Fish forum is no place to discus politics or religion.

[Sean Buehrle]

Seems pretty civil to me :)

[ericatdallas]

This is a good time for this thread to be locked before getting out of hand. Fish forum is no place to discus politics or religion.

Really? I don't think a thread should be locked just because there is the potential for it to get out of hand. This is a fish forum in the "General/Everything else thread."


Eric, a lot of the Muslim countries are afraid of the Little Nut leading Iran. They are not of the same sect of Islam that Ahmadinejad is. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a twelfver, which means he is waiting for the Twelfth Imam. He wants to hasten the coming of the Twelfth Imam. Has said so every time he has come to the U.N. To do that he believes he must start a big war. Other Muslim countries don't subscribe to that train of thought, only that one sect in Iran, to which Ahmadinejad belongs to. That's why even Sadam Hussein hated him..

I think based on past 'leaks', we know how other Muslim countries may feel about him and so you are correct, they're worried about him leading Iran. It's also not Ahmadinejad, but more with the actual ruler, Ali Khamenei. Khamenei is the person that actually pulls the strings in that country. I think Ahmadinejad just handles the administrative issues of running a government. He may believe the same things as Khamenei (A prerequisite to having the support of Khamenei). The issues Saddam had to deal with weren't related to Ahmandinejad's policy since he wasn't Iran's President at the time.

So, no, I wasn't implying that other Muslim countries believe the same thing as Iran, I was merely stating it would create instability in the region if Israel attacked. It would also strain regional relationships with the US if we were to attack pre-emptively without a strong support from those other countries (something very difficult to get in public).



If the USA or Israel bombed Iran's nuclear sites, there might be protest in other countries, but I really doubt there would be any retribution from any other Muslim country. Don't forget that Israel already bombed the nuclear reactor in Syria as recently as 2007..

What do we define as retribution? Also, I think we've seen the power of protests. It's brought down several governments already (i.e. Egypt, Libya) with several other governments concerned (i.e. Syria, Yemen, Algeria, among others).



The Arab League will not attack Iran, because one Muslim country will not attack another in defense of Israel.

Agreed. I didn't think they would, but I was saying the few countries that could attack Iran would belong to the Arab League or several members without causing more strain.



NATO won't do anything. The only member of NATO that gives a dang about Israel is the USA. The rest couldn't care less.

Again agreed. See next...




Correct, but China will not get involved, they have nothing to gain. Russia is already helping Iran with their nuclear efforts. Russian scientist and engineers have been working in Iran even before the Gulf war.

again agreed... but it's not about whether they would do anything, but about who -could- do something. We just don't have the political capital to attack another country in the middle east. I'm not saying it would happen, just that it could, but if we were to attack Iran unilaterally, that would strengthen the arguments for a lot of our adversaries that we are trying to "plunder their oil", "stop their religion", <or whatever reason>. It doesn't matter if our reasons are legitimate.



I beg to differ. A sitting President would not have to make a more compelling argument than Pres. H. W. Bush did for the first Gulf war in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or G. W. Bush did to go into Afghanistan, if North Korea attacks South Korea.

That was a different time. Bush Sr. wasn't following two wars that lasted ten years. Same with Bush Jr. But I would like to remind you, that Afghanistan was AFTER September 11th.


They're not going to be happy with another war UNLESS something that provides a real threat to our national security (i.e. Pearl Harbor, September 11, etc).





If Iran attacks Israel, I believe Iran will be buried in rubles before we even knew about it. Remember, Israel is very quick at the trigger when attacked. And, the secret that everyone knows, Israel already has nukes. A big advantage over Iran.

Bush Sr. did justify it to the American people.




In the life of a nation, we're called upon to define who we are and what we believe. Sometimes these choices are not easy. But today as President, I ask for your support in a decision I've made to stand up for what's right and condemn what's wrong, all in the cause of peace.

I probably was too young to really grasp what it meant, but I remember watching this on TV. But this is what I meant earlier. The President would have to tell us why it's the moral thing to do, but also the right thing to do for our nation.




Four simple principles guide our policy. First, we seek the immediate, unconditional, and complete withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Second, Kuwait's legitimate government must be restored to replace the puppet regime. And third, my administration, as has been the case with every President from President Roosevelt to President Reagan, is committed to the security and stability of the Persian Gulf. And fourth, I am determined to protect the lives of American citizens abroad.

Also note how it was 'blessed' by all the necessary people to include the Arab League.



We agree that this is not an American problem or a European problem or a Middle East problem: It is the world's problem. And that's why, soon after the Iraqi invasion, the United Nations Security Council, without dissent, condemned Iraq, calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from Kuwait. The Arab world, through both the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, courageously announced its opposition to Iraqi aggression. Japan, the United Kingdom, and France, and other governments around the world have imposed severe sanctions. The Soviet Union and China ended all arms sales to Iraq.

[Darrell Ward]

Wish we had Regan back again now. -You can try to minimize his accomplishments if you like. You have made your feelings about republicans clear many times... yet even Obama cant help but quote Regan nearly every speech.

No bash here. Just separating facts from myth. Like I said, he was an interesting guy. I think anyone who claims to be a straight line member of any party these days is an idiot. There are some republicans that are great, some independents, and some dems as well. Way too many these days however, and a lot just happen to be republican, should be in prison for shady politics, and worse.

Oh, and they say money is the root of all evil, probably ranks second to religion. More people have been killed over the centuries in the name of religion than anything else. If Muslims and Jews want to kill each other, or sect against sect, we should just stay out of it. It's a loser no matter which side the US is on.

There very well could be drone strikes, or air strikes with bunker busters in Iran in the future. A full scale war however, is unlikely, and not needed at this point. Iran is a big country that should not be taken lightly. We shall see.

[chrisb01]

ericatdallas, without going through your whole post all over again, I think we do agree in a lot of points.

Darrell, I agree, being a politician is being a legal crook, no matter the party affiliated with.

However, I disagree with you about more people killed in the name of religion. While millions have been killed due to religious differences, a lot more have been killed because of atheism; Hitler killed over 13 million, Benito Mussolini in Italy killed more than 20 million, Joseph Stalin in Russia killed over 17 million and Mao Ze-Dong in China killed some 78 million. That's more than 128 million people dead in the name of atheism.

[chrisb01]

This is a good time for this thread to be locked before getting out of hand. Fish forum is no place to discus politics or religion.

No, not really, it won't get out of hand. We are all respectful and responsible adults having an intelligent exchange. Besides, I have learned a lot from this thread, OK, it wasn't Discus related, but educational none the less. Stick with us Bro., tell us what you think.

[DiscusBR]

I am not going into the substance of the debates here, but it sometimes amazes me to see how Americans often adopt attitudes about international affairs that are openly imperialistic and militarist. The easy with how people talk down about other countries, without acknowledging the US' own historical role in conflicts; the open suggestion of military aggressions against other countries to "solve" their problems, even after the terrible mistake of the Iraq war; the arrogant position of the world's sheriff, which often disregards international law and civil norms of conflict resolution. Needless to say, this kind of discourse only contributes to further undermine the US image around the world and feeds the hate speech of America's enemies.

[DiscusBR]

And one nice comment from a comic strip about one of the ironies of the Iraq War:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/12/21

[chrisb01]

I guess is the Marine in me. I think militarily. I believe in peace through strength.