I just choked on my cheer!

In the post before last I offered a loud 'hurrah' to 'Oprah' for sending in the SEALs and bumping off three Somali pirates.  Well, three, skinny, daring pirates are one thing but North Korea (NK) and Iran are something else again.  The former has just kicked out the international and American observers in its nuclear sites, and the latter has announced a ballistic missile test.  So, Mr. President, before I give you the final two cheers to follow the first, let us see your response.  Apparently, so far as Iran is concerned, you are intending to ignore their underlying message and simply proceed with talks without pre-conditions, and as far as one can tell, you will continue with this useless exercise until they have completed all of their military nuclear ambitions.  I doubt that your policy in regard to NK will be any different.  So you will blow hard, and blow hard, and even harder, even if the house does not fall down!

We should be clear, the decisions are difficult.  An attack on NK will almost certainly cause them to attack South Korea (SK) which America will be duty bound to defend.  This might, history sometimes repeats itself, involve a war with China, although I am not completely convinced that China would risk its prosperity fighting for its retard neighbour provided the USA keeps the war (and the SKs) well away from the Yalu River.  However, in these straightened times, the question must be asked as to whether or not the USA can actually afford another war?  Better perhaps to spend mega-bucks building a state-of-the-art anti-missile system that would render NK's missiles redundent.  In the middle east, surely the answer is to provide 'plucky little Israel' with the where-with-all and let them do the job for us.  It will require humbuggery of the first order for 'Oprah' to tut-tut in a suitably outraged style when it happens, but, hey, if anyone can do that it has to be 'Oprah', right?

Additional:  Two further thoughts occurred as I half-watched the 'footie' (I only ever seem to half-watch, even a corker like the current match between Liverpool and Chelsea!) 

First, whatever your views on the rights and wrongs of the two recent American military interventions in the middle east, if Iran goes operationally nuclear then all future operations will be precluded.  The Persian Gulf, through which most of our oil flows, will become Persian in reality as well as name.

Second, there will almost certainly be some people in Peking who will favour a nuclear NK on the grounds that they might, in certain circumstances, be able to severely damage the USA leaving the 'People's Republic' to shrug and say 'it was nuffink to do wiv me, guv!'  Sure, it's a bit like allowing your retard neighbour to play with Kalashnikovs in his backyard but why would would anyone expect Chink pols to be wiser than our lot?

Comments

[JK]

NK is China's yelping doghound, loosely chained, and no regular records of vaccinations kept to ensure "neighbors" that the dog isn't rabid.

China holds a uh... "well a bunch" of US Treasury bonds (ie "debt" - owed to China itself). Whether China would be willing to truly allow it's doghound full access to the entire yard; and thus have to extend further credit (probably in the form of US Treasury bonds) in order to then ... heck all China would have to do is call in it's loans.

I don't know David. Using NK is (in my humble and sometimes in-astute prognosticating) opinion, not the cheapest means of defeating it's foe. It seems to me that simply ending the line of credit would do that, And no one except bankers and the odd missionary who has his 401-K heavily invested in China stocks would be likely to spill any real blood.

Now as to Iran?

Fruitloops all.

[Hank]

David

Even though the rescue was done by military personnel it was under police rules of engagement, which is how certain portions of the oleft think things should be done. Doing something under Military rules of engegemnt will be the test.

Mr Obama, and Ms. Clinton, to whom forithn policy seens to be outsourced, are "Wilsonians" which despite theire self image is very prone to use military force. Most likley uner dubious circumstances.

[North Northwester]

Well, that's just what I was trying to say in my comments on your post here:

http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2009/04/lets-hear-it-for-the-seals-and-oprah.html

One cheer for the SEALs but 0's still pretty much an America-hater and pacifist in foreign policy.

I told you all this but none of you listened. You all said I was mad.

Mad, d'you hear me?
Mad!

Ha ha ha aha hahaha !

[David Duff]

Eh? What was that? I heard something - a laugh, maybe! My God, does that mean I'm not alone in this lunatic asylum?

[Sister Wolf]

Oh, there's nothing Obama could do to make you happy, except apologize for winning the election and then commit suicide.

Where's your rant about Obama and Hugo Chavez??

[David Duff]

I would never "rant" against a head of state shaking hands with gangsters like Chavez. That's their job. Anyway, in 'Oprah's' case he must have had plenty of practice, what with learning his politics in Chicago!