Should NATO attack Iran and/or North Korea? Why?

Answer 1

Iran is in a heap of trouble.....

Iran is dealing with two issues. First, Iran has captured 15 British sailors. Second, Iran has refused to cooperate with the U.N. regarding cessation of uranium enrichment.

Military confrontation may be on the horizon.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961
In addition to the British naval vessels at the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean, there is a multi-national force in the Persian Gulf. The British HMS Cornwall aircraft carrier strike group, the American aircraft carrier strike group Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis, the American aircraft carrier strike group USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force are all in close appoximation in the Persian Gulf. The USS Nimitz may also be in the Persian Gulf as it was scheduled for its WESTPAC07 deployment to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-68.htm

More details about military options can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

Iran has elicited "confessions" from the 15 British sailors they captured and may put them on trial for espionage. The penalty for espionage in Iran is death.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece
“If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.” Espionage carries a death sentence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6493391.stm
Iran's detention of 15 Royal Navy personnel is "unjustified and wrong", Prime Minister Tony Blair has said. UK officials are waiting to be granted access to the HMS Cornwall staff, who were seized on Friday, and have not been told where the group are held.

"It simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," Mr Blair said.

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."

On March 23, 2007, U.S. and British officials said a boarding party from the frigate HMS Cornwall was seized about during a routine inspection of a merchant ship inside Iraqi territorial waters near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway.

The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvandrud - Persian for Arvand River. A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as the border.

Iranians send arms to Iraqi extremists, including sophisticated roadside bombs. This week, two commanders of an Iraqi Shiite militia told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites had crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Regarding enrichment of uranium, Iranian President Mahmaoud Ahmadinejad abruptly cancelled his appearance before the U.N. security council and in his stead, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki Iran spoke. He indicated that Iran was willing to continue negotiations but without the precondition that uranium enrichment must be halted.

Mottaki said, "the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation. Choosing the path of confrontation ... will have its own consequences. "
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070325/D8O3E7J00.html

The U.N. security council unanimously voted to expand sanctions on March 24, 2007.

The new resolution 1747 calls on Iran to comply fully with all previous UN resolutions and join negotiations to reach agreement so as to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Full transparency and cooperation with the IAEA are required. Suspension of Iran’s banned nuclear activities will elicit the parallel suspension of sanctions. The package of incentives offered Tehran last year for its cooperation remains on the table.

The full text of the draft of resolution 1747 appears at this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6455853.stm
.
.

Answer 2

No. First off, NATO doesn't have anything to do with North Korea. That would be a UN or maybe SEATO issue.

Secondly, NATO is a consensus organization. There is no consensus in it to attack Iran. Far from it.

Finally, only pasty faced arm chair generals who play to much Risk and Axis and Allies casually spout off advice on who we should attack. Attacking north Korea would be the biggest disaster in modern history, with a minimum of a million people dead within two weeks. i know, I served there. The whole North part of the country is a deathtrap, even with the DPRK starving and out of ammo. Attacking Iran would be only slightly less foolish since a large number of Iraqis "on the fense" would turn against coalition forces. Imagine the insurgerncy growing from 50 thousand fighters to 500,000 fighters overnight. We would lose half our Army, a disaster unlike any the US has ever had.

Answer 3

The question is.......why?

Both Iran and North Korea are playing bluffing games with the only weapons they have.

North Korea especially is a past master at this......they need to find some way to get the financial help they so desperately need......without showing weakness or admitting that the totalitarian dictatorship they have is anything less than perfect.

If they threaten the US or other countries......then agree to back down in exchange for food/fuel subsidies .....then they can sell this as a mighty victory to the North Korean people.

Answer 4

In North Korea we have signed an agreement that they wont enrich any more uranium so they cant make any bombs. And we cant attack Iran even with a multinational force Hezbola the Iranian backed terrorist group will go crazy you think Iraq is bad Iran will be at least twice as bad. If we attack Iran we will just increase our image to the world that we are bullies that attacks anyone who stands in our way the only way to deal with these people is with diplomacy.

Answer 5

NATO...no they are too stupid...WE The great people of America will be going to Iran and Korea. Why...nukes. Korea has nukes that can reach the west coast...1 nuke can really screw up a good picnic Iran and korea are in bed its just a matter of time now

Answer 6

Yes, NATO should attack Iran and North Korea.

Each country willl provide 100 men while the USA will put on the DRAFT so you can join too

The Neocons will move to Israel until after the war

Answer 7

Well, attack Iran maybe but not North Korea. Those middle easterners have been beggin' for it.

Answer 8

no because then russia will proboly join the war and not that we will get our asses whipped but they could nuke us 70-75% of thier nukes will blow up when launched 20% will go into space and never come out and only 1% could proboly reach us

Answer 9

hi there not again with another war please nooooooooo how many men and women and children must die before some good comes out of everything. please tell me this is not hap pending again oh god wake me up from this awful dream. yahoo fans we must all tonight even if you do not believe now is the time to pray or many would be daft to war cause not much men and women left to fight. may god hear our prayers as each day passes by. PLEASE PRAY WE ARE ALL IN THIS EVEN IF YOUR NOT AMERICAN GOD BLESS.

we are living the worst days of our lives . my prayers to all those that lose thier lives. united we stand

Answer 10

Possibly Iran, but not with the idiot Dubya in office.