Well I have to disagree. The overwhelming majority of Iranians are Muslims. The overwhelming majority in Poland was NOT Communists. That (and the other factors I mentioned) makes the Poland situation then very differently than Irans now and that was my original argument...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you know what? They speak different languages! And you'll find a lot more people with blond hair and blue eyes in Cracow that you will in Tabriz. And try to find pierogis in Tehran...
As for similarities: The Poles were oppressed by someone who didn't like us. The Iranians are oppressed by someone who doesn't like us. That's a fairly fundamental fact and it gives us an opportunity.
[quote]<strong>Khatamis Presidency and cabinet is a PART of the state, not the same as it... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No sh!t, Sherlock. Pull your head out. What on God's green earth led you to believe that I didn't know that? You're the one who didn't know how to spell "coup" and you think you need to explain this to me?
[quote]<strong>So the state of Iran isn´t only those few opressing the people (meaning the priests) but also an elected president (and his cabinet)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess that means you agreed with me when I wrote in a previous post that the mullahs keep him on a short leash.
[quote]<strong>Why only tell half of the story and not aid those who is the only key to change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about? You're the one who is glossing over half the story. Does or does not Iran support Hezbollah?
[quote]Some are. A lot probably aren't.
<strong>Perhaps not on the american people but on the state? Bet on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Half the population wasn't even alive when the Shah was in power. We're clearly not on the side of the mullahs. I'm comfortable with what I wrote.
[quote]<strong>We have brought up the possibility of an international war tribunal under UN many times over the past five to ten years for things like this so we are prepared for a solution. But US is against it for some reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we're just suspicious of the reflexive anti-Americanism that's so common throughout Europe and in the U.N. No, that can't be it.
[quote]<strong>Was it an radical Islamic state before Musharef? No. But I can understand if US foreing policy is guided by what serves US best no matter if that means that some countries can´t have democracy because US don´t want that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pakistan lost their democracy on their own. We had nothing to do with it and right now the matter is low on our list of priorities.
[quote]WASHINGTON - When a dramatist places a gun on the table in the first act, the astute playgoer knows that the weapon will be used before the drama ends.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush warned three nations sponsoring terror - North Korea, Iran and Iraq - that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
That means he has decided to destroy the destructive potential of the most dangerous states before any of them can credibly threaten to wipe out a U.S. city or infect our nation with an epidemic. Bush's refusal "to leave terror states unchecked" leaves only secondary decisions: when and how to attack "the axis of evil" (an apt allusion to the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis of World War II).
In ascending order of pre-emptive priority:
North Korea is "a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction"; we have been paralyzed by South Korea's fear of renewed invasion despite our intelligence indicating the North's secret nuclear buildup.
The South's capital, near the border, is vulnerable to long-range artillery. This could be countered by shipment to the South of advanced counter-artillery capable of tracking the trajectory of "incoming," thereby nullifying an artillery-backed assault on Seoul. Our B-52's could then take out Kim Jong Il's key nuclear bomb-making sites, which he now adamantly refuses to permit International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to see....<hr></blockquote>
You are trying to impress thoughtful people by quoting George Will????!?!?
Give me a break. Just because Will proclaims the "axis of Evil" statement an apt illusion in no way justifies it.
One propagandizer of a slightly less rhetorical bombast can not justify another's greater manipulative bombast and thereby have it be rational or sensible. It just goes to support this absurd atmosphere of scapegoatism.
Isn't it plainly obviouse tht even though there is a definite bad situation reffered to here, in all three cases, that the rhetoric is stupid and dangerous.
It seems so obviouse we are doing the same thing that they did to us, calling them the "Great Satan". .
. . but for some strange reason its only wrong when they say such stupid things?!?!
And another thing that bothers me: its so obviously cynical because its a rhetoric used to mobilize people and support, not a real metaphysical/theological description of phenomena . . . .and yet that is the realm of such a language, such a term as "Evil" . . .a realm that Bush could obviously care little about, only to the extent that it's language can be used to manipulate opinion.
The thing is is that he doesn't need to use such hyperbole because we understand that the situation is bad . . . . unless it portends that he is planning to do things that would require an amazing amount of national support: stupid things like start a war with one of these countries.
Thank "Goodness" the rhetoric he is using is backfiring and people are questioning its overstatement unstead of baying like sheep, or wolves after a scapegoat.
<strong>You are trying to impress thoughtful people by quoting George Will????!?!?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not Will. William Safire. And I don't know about the "impress" part either.
[quote]<strong>Isn't it plainly obviouse tht even though there is a definite bad situation reffered to here, in all three cases, that the rhetoric is stupid and dangerous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
[quote]<strong>Thank "Goodness" the rhetoric he is using is backfiring... </strong><hr></blockquote>
William Saffire is a propagandist with a large set or reference books, and some witting asides.
He bludgeons people with unnecessarily exact grammatical musings into thinking that his ability to cross-check the chicago manual of style with a manual of grammatical form is a replacement for intelligence.
But certainly he is not as bad as George Will . . . . I hastely misread at the top of you post.
I just hope we talk things over with the South Koreans before we go rattling sabers with (and god forbid, making war on) the North. A war on the Korean penninsula would be catastrophic for South Korea, even if it ultimately ended in victory. Bush's speech scared the sh1t out of most South Koreans. They know all too well how many Northern artillery peices (and nukes?) are dug in within range of Seoul, and how many millions of their lives (yup, millions) would be put in grave danger.
But the rhetoric is more telling that what he is mapping out might also be as hyperbolic. I think we need the kind of measured thinking ( and language is a measure of thought) that Powel would use. Not the slinging of words that is indistinguishable from a tyrant demagogue but an insightful circumspect strategist.
I think we need the kind of measured thinking ( and language is a measure of thought) that Powel would use. Not the slinging of words that is indistinguishable from a tyrant demagogue but an insightful circumspect strategist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not long ago Bush was derided for his incompetent speechmaking. Now he's a demagogue...
[quote]Jan. 30 - Iran, like its neighbor Iraq and the Palestinian guerrilla groups which each supports, has rejected President Bush's charge that it is part of an "axis of evil," and has reasserted intentions to continue fighting Israel's occupation of what it says is Palestinian territory.
However, earlier but virtually unnoticed, an important anti-Saddam Hussein Iraqi opposition group, headquartered in Tehran and with official Iranian backing, in effect endorsed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein "within the framework of the [U.S.-led] war against terrorism."
Tehran, like Baghdad, defended the Palestinian militant groups, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, insisting that Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza were "victims of Israeli terrorism."
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and the influential and extremist-inclined former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, scorned Bush's accusations that Tehran sponsors terrorism....<hr></blockquote>
[quote]When a dramatist places a gun on the table in the first act, the astute playgoer knows that the weapon will be used before the drama ends.<hr></blockquote>
Well, at least he had the good sense to have seen Hedda Gabler on Broadway recently.
I could easily add about two dozen more countries to Bush's list if it makes anyone happy. China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia and Palestine can easily be added to the top of the list.
The Iran comment more than the others was odd. I thought we were trying to "make friends" again with Iran. The same could be said to a similar, that is, limited extent with North Korea.
I promised my self that I wouldnt argue on here any more, someting about the special olympics...
any how, I just had to say this:
I love it when Europeans criticise US foriegn policy and the president when they have no idea of how a superpower should act because they don't live in a super power state.
"A great writer is no more a great critic than a good drunk is, per say, a great bar tender" - some wize witty guy (Oscar Wilde?)
[quote]THE al-Qaeda terrorist organisation is trying to transfer its base of operations from Afghanistan to Lebanon, according to intelligence uncovered earlier this month.
A senior operative of Osama bin Laden's network, a Yemeni national who has the alias of Salah Hajir, is believed to have arrived in Lebanon about two weeks ago and has held meetings in Beirut with leaders of the Hezbollah terrorist group.
Hezbollah is known to be funded and sponsored by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Iranian Government is in the spotlight after President Bush's State of the Union address on future threats to the United States which highlighted an "evil axis" of Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
On Wednesday Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said: "We know Iran is actively sending terrorists down through Damascus into the Bekaa Valley where they train terrorists, then engage in acts against countries in the region and elsewhere."
Although British diplomatic sources said that Hezbollah, a Shia Muslim organisation, and al-Qaeda, which is Sunni Muslim, were "unlikely bedfellows", there is substantial evidence of a working alliance between the two groups dating back to the early 1990s...<hr></blockquote>
1. Bush is not stupid. He doesn't always sound intelligent, but I am starting to think he is smarter by the day. There are mulitple intelligences. I can tell you that as a teacher. Bush is strong with interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence (awareness of self) and, it seems, logical/mathmatical intelligence. He is not strong linguistically. Though, he does show occasional wit.
2. FACT: Iraq and North Korea might as well be evil. You guys are really freaking naive if you think otherwise. As for Iran, I can only assume that closed door negotiations have failed or gone poorly, as to merit a public warning.
3. Again, Bush is not dumb. He uses the word "evil" on purpose to mold public opinion. I think it is funny. The same people calling hin dumb are being outsmarted by him! They are calling his "name calling" things like "ill-advised" and "inflamatory". That is quite amusing, and ironic.
4. If we don't go after these countries who are literally sponsoring terrorism (like "TIDE" sponsors "As The World Turns"....that is about how blatant it is), who will? How long are we going to let these nations do this?
It amazes me that some of you 14 through, say, 20 year olds (sorry, but age does matter here to an extent)) haven't learned anything. I am sorry to sound condescending, but some of your world-views are very naive. What we see on the news is "old stuff". We only get a small part of the story, and it is usually outdated as far as the military is concerned (by as much as six months).
You don't have the information to make some of the statements you are making, such as "the relationship between North Korea and the US was getting better at the end of the Clinton administration". That may not be true. It is what you perceive to be true. The fact is that Clinton didn't actually sign "treaties", he went forth with "strategic frameworks" that did not have to be approved by congress. These were and are non-enforceable. The Clinton administration basically "took their word for it" so to speak, that they (North Korea, China, etc.) would not develop nulclear weapons and/or import/export certain materials for developing them. Yet, proof existed for years that these nations were in fact going against the framework. The information often made it to the white house only to be ignored because US business interests were at stake.
I am sorry, but some of you folks have no idea of how the world works. Yes, North Korea and others are poor and their people are in famine. This is all the more reason to consider removing their corrpupt governements. Bush knows that it is not the entire population of the nation. Quite the opposite, it is the military and government establishments that we must deal with in order to get to the terrorist newtorks.
The world has evil in it. The world has nations that would destroy the US at the first chance they got. We must prevent this and I agree that we should "pay any price" (as the President says) to do it. I critically listen. I don't agree with everything Bush and his people do, but I do agree with most of it.
The fact the whining liberals on these boards, who I won't name but we all know well, have lined up to criticize US policy is amusing in the least.
What would you do about the situation? I would like to know. When one gets into the world a bit, one often sees that there are no perfect solutions, only options. I would challenge you to come up with some truly viable options in preventing terrorism and punishing those responsible for the attacks.
Here's one of history's other stupid statements from a US President. It was dangerous and reckless and we all know how it ended. When will we learn
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Thank "Goodness" the rhetoric he is using is backfiring...</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Bill Schneider said on CNN after the speech... that when Mr. Bush says he's going to do something he actually means to do it....
I quoted Bill Schneider praising Mr. Bush... historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said the president's words were 'galvanizing.' Chris Mathews compared him to Jack Kennedy. The New York Times said Mr. Bush has 'soared to new heights.'" - Peggy Noonan WSJ 1/30/2001
SDW2001: I can pretty much bet that I am older than you are, I have lived in more places in and out of the country than you have, and I too teach, at a better institution than you do with more intelligent and more demanding students than you do . . . don't condescend to me and try to dismiss what I say as childish.
I never said that Bush is dumb ... if I did, I meant rather that his use of blatantly propagandistic tone is stupid. I also said that I agree that these states are terrible and that things must change. But there is a reason that both Japan and South Korea are now nervous.... because they don't want to start a war . . . many many people will die in a direct confrontation with North Korea.
Hopefully the action that will be taken will be less hyperbolic than this speechifying name calling.
I want us to recognize when our leaders start to use the same tactics that are used by people we clearly acknowledge are demagogues. I DON'T mean to say that Bush IS a demagogue. We won't give him the chance.... thank goodness that is part of our Governmental structure... our constitution! But, I think you might want to keep an eye out for signs that demagoguery is on the agenda... and propagandistic rhetoric is often one of those signs.
(Its funny that the anti-gun control party is always the first to let the government form youth groups and ease wire=tapping restrictions when its all under the guise of "patriotism'.)
<strong>(Its funny that the anti-gun control party is always the first to let the government form youth groups and ease wire=tapping restrictions when its all under the guise of "patriotism'.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
Well I have to disagree. The overwhelming majority of Iranians are Muslims. The overwhelming majority in Poland was NOT Communists. That (and the other factors I mentioned) makes the Poland situation then very differently than Irans now and that was my original argument...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you know what? They speak different languages! And you'll find a lot more people with blond hair and blue eyes in Cracow that you will in Tabriz. And try to find pierogis in Tehran...
As for similarities: The Poles were oppressed by someone who didn't like us. The Iranians are oppressed by someone who doesn't like us. That's a fairly fundamental fact and it gives us an opportunity.
[quote]<strong>Khatamis Presidency and cabinet is a PART of the state, not the same as it... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No sh!t, Sherlock. Pull your head out. What on God's green earth led you to believe that I didn't know that? You're the one who didn't know how to spell "coup" and you think you need to explain this to me?
[quote]<strong>So the state of Iran isn´t only those few opressing the people (meaning the priests) but also an elected president (and his cabinet)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess that means you agreed with me when I wrote in a previous post that the mullahs keep him on a short leash.
[quote]<strong>Why only tell half of the story and not aid those who is the only key to change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about? You're the one who is glossing over half the story. Does or does not Iran support Hezbollah?
[quote]Some are. A lot probably aren't.
<strong>Perhaps not on the american people but on the state? Bet on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Half the population wasn't even alive when the Shah was in power. We're clearly not on the side of the mullahs. I'm comfortable with what I wrote.
[quote]<strong>We have brought up the possibility of an international war tribunal under UN many times over the past five to ten years for things like this so we are prepared for a solution. But US is against it for some reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we're just suspicious of the reflexive anti-Americanism that's so common throughout Europe and in the U.N. No, that can't be it.
[quote]<strong>Was it an radical Islamic state before Musharef? No. But I can understand if US foreing policy is guided by what serves US best no matter if that means that some countries can´t have democracy because US don´t want that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pakistan lost their democracy on their own. We had nothing to do with it and right now the matter is low on our list of priorities.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/31/opinion/31SAFI.html"; target="_blank">'To Fight Freedom's Fight'</a> (registration required)
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
[quote]WASHINGTON - When a dramatist places a gun on the table in the first act, the astute playgoer knows that the weapon will be used before the drama ends.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush warned three nations sponsoring terror - North Korea, Iran and Iraq - that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
That means he has decided to destroy the destructive potential of the most dangerous states before any of them can credibly threaten to wipe out a U.S. city or infect our nation with an epidemic. Bush's refusal "to leave terror states unchecked" leaves only secondary decisions: when and how to attack "the axis of evil" (an apt allusion to the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis of World War II).
In ascending order of pre-emptive priority:
North Korea is "a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction"; we have been paralyzed by South Korea's fear of renewed invasion despite our intelligence indicating the North's secret nuclear buildup.
The South's capital, near the border, is vulnerable to long-range artillery. This could be countered by shipment to the South of advanced counter-artillery capable of tracking the trajectory of "incoming," thereby nullifying an artillery-backed assault on Seoul. Our B-52's could then take out Kim Jong Il's key nuclear bomb-making sites, which he now adamantly refuses to permit International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to see....<hr></blockquote>
Give me a break. Just because Will proclaims the "axis of Evil" statement an apt illusion in no way justifies it.
One propagandizer of a slightly less rhetorical bombast can not justify another's greater manipulative bombast and thereby have it be rational or sensible. It just goes to support this absurd atmosphere of scapegoatism.
Isn't it plainly obviouse tht even though there is a definite bad situation reffered to here, in all three cases, that the rhetoric is stupid and dangerous.
It seems so obviouse we are doing the same thing that they did to us, calling them the "Great Satan". .
. . but for some strange reason its only wrong when they say such stupid things?!?!
And another thing that bothers me: its so obviously cynical because its a rhetoric used to mobilize people and support, not a real metaphysical/theological description of phenomena . . . .and yet that is the realm of such a language, such a term as "Evil" . . .a realm that Bush could obviously care little about, only to the extent that it's language can be used to manipulate opinion.
The thing is is that he doesn't need to use such hyperbole because we understand that the situation is bad . . . . unless it portends that he is planning to do things that would require an amazing amount of national support: stupid things like start a war with one of these countries.
Thank "Goodness" the rhetoric he is using is backfiring and people are questioning its overstatement unstead of baying like sheep, or wolves after a scapegoat.
<strong>You are trying to impress thoughtful people by quoting George Will????!?!?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not Will. William Safire. And I don't know about the "impress" part either.
[quote]<strong>Isn't it plainly obviouse tht even though there is a definite bad situation reffered to here, in all three cases, that the rhetoric is stupid and dangerous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
[quote]<strong>Thank "Goodness" the rhetoric he is using is backfiring... </strong><hr></blockquote>
The polls don't show that.
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
and
stupidity can't see beyond stupidity
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
He bludgeons people with unnecessarily exact grammatical musings into thinking that his ability to cross-check the chicago manual of style with a manual of grammatical form is a replacement for intelligence.
But certainly he is not as bad as George Will . . . . I hastely misread at the top of you post.
How's this for a possibility? There's still a serious threat. Bush is mapping out the dimensions of the threat and what he plans to do about it.
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
But the rhetoric is more telling that what he is mapping out might also be as hyperbolic. I think we need the kind of measured thinking ( and language is a measure of thought) that Powel would use. Not the slinging of words that is indistinguishable from a tyrant demagogue but an insightful circumspect strategist.
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>
I think we need the kind of measured thinking ( and language is a measure of thought) that Powel would use. Not the slinging of words that is indistinguishable from a tyrant demagogue but an insightful circumspect strategist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not long ago Bush was derided for his incompetent speechmaking. Now he's a demagogue...
Here's something interesting.
January 31, 2002
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iran020130_cooley.html"; target="_blank">Iran Rejects Threats</a>
'No Objection' to U.S. Movement on Iraq
Analysis
By John K. Cooley
[quote]Jan. 30 - Iran, like its neighbor Iraq and the Palestinian guerrilla groups which each supports, has rejected President Bush's charge that it is part of an "axis of evil," and has reasserted intentions to continue fighting Israel's occupation of what it says is Palestinian territory.
However, earlier but virtually unnoticed, an important anti-Saddam Hussein Iraqi opposition group, headquartered in Tehran and with official Iranian backing, in effect endorsed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein "within the framework of the [U.S.-led] war against terrorism."
Tehran, like Baghdad, defended the Palestinian militant groups, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, insisting that Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza were "victims of Israeli terrorism."
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and the influential and extremist-inclined former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, scorned Bush's accusations that Tehran sponsors terrorism....<hr></blockquote>
[quote]When a dramatist places a gun on the table in the first act, the astute playgoer knows that the weapon will be used before the drama ends.<hr></blockquote>
Well, at least he had the good sense to have seen Hedda Gabler on Broadway recently.
As for the rest of his crystal ball glazing...
Sorry, just wanted to throw some humor into your serious discussion
The Iran comment more than the others was odd. I thought we were trying to "make friends" again with Iran. The same could be said to a similar, that is, limited extent with North Korea.
any how, I just had to say this:
I love it when Europeans criticise US foriegn policy and the president when they have no idea of how a superpower should act because they don't live in a super power state.
"A great writer is no more a great critic than a good drunk is, per say, a great bar tender" - some wize witty guy (Oscar Wilde?)
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 01 2002
<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2002040005-2002053546,00.html"; target="_blank">Al-Qaeda in talks with Lebanon group</a>
BY MICHAEL EVANS, DEFENCE EDITOR
[quote]THE al-Qaeda terrorist organisation is trying to transfer its base of operations from Afghanistan to Lebanon, according to intelligence uncovered earlier this month.
A senior operative of Osama bin Laden's network, a Yemeni national who has the alias of Salah Hajir, is believed to have arrived in Lebanon about two weeks ago and has held meetings in Beirut with leaders of the Hezbollah terrorist group.
Hezbollah is known to be funded and sponsored by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Iranian Government is in the spotlight after President Bush's State of the Union address on future threats to the United States which highlighted an "evil axis" of Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
On Wednesday Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said: "We know Iran is actively sending terrorists down through Damascus into the Bekaa Valley where they train terrorists, then engage in acts against countries in the region and elsewhere."
Although British diplomatic sources said that Hezbollah, a Shia Muslim organisation, and al-Qaeda, which is Sunni Muslim, were "unlikely bedfellows", there is substantial evidence of a working alliance between the two groups dating back to the early 1990s...<hr></blockquote>
1. Bush is not stupid. He doesn't always sound intelligent, but I am starting to think he is smarter by the day. There are mulitple intelligences. I can tell you that as a teacher. Bush is strong with interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence (awareness of self) and, it seems, logical/mathmatical intelligence. He is not strong linguistically. Though, he does show occasional wit.
2. FACT: Iraq and North Korea might as well be evil. You guys are really freaking naive if you think otherwise. As for Iran, I can only assume that closed door negotiations have failed or gone poorly, as to merit a public warning.
3. Again, Bush is not dumb. He uses the word "evil" on purpose to mold public opinion. I think it is funny. The same people calling hin dumb are being outsmarted by him! They are calling his "name calling" things like "ill-advised" and "inflamatory". That is quite amusing, and ironic.
4. If we don't go after these countries who are literally sponsoring terrorism (like "TIDE" sponsors "As The World Turns"....that is about how blatant it is), who will? How long are we going to let these nations do this?
It amazes me that some of you 14 through, say, 20 year olds (sorry, but age does matter here to an extent)) haven't learned anything. I am sorry to sound condescending, but some of your world-views are very naive. What we see on the news is "old stuff". We only get a small part of the story, and it is usually outdated as far as the military is concerned (by as much as six months).
You don't have the information to make some of the statements you are making, such as "the relationship between North Korea and the US was getting better at the end of the Clinton administration". That may not be true. It is what you perceive to be true. The fact is that Clinton didn't actually sign "treaties", he went forth with "strategic frameworks" that did not have to be approved by congress. These were and are non-enforceable. The Clinton administration basically "took their word for it" so to speak, that they (North Korea, China, etc.) would not develop nulclear weapons and/or import/export certain materials for developing them. Yet, proof existed for years that these nations were in fact going against the framework. The information often made it to the white house only to be ignored because US business interests were at stake.
I am sorry, but some of you folks have no idea of how the world works. Yes, North Korea and others are poor and their people are in famine. This is all the more reason to consider removing their corrpupt governements. Bush knows that it is not the entire population of the nation. Quite the opposite, it is the military and government establishments that we must deal with in order to get to the terrorist newtorks.
The world has evil in it. The world has nations that would destroy the US at the first chance they got. We must prevent this and I agree that we should "pay any price" (as the President says) to do it. I critically listen. I don't agree with everything Bush and his people do, but I do agree with most of it.
The fact the whining liberals on these boards, who I won't name but we all know well, have lined up to criticize US policy is amusing in the least.
What would you do about the situation? I would like to know. When one gets into the world a bit, one often sees that there are no perfect solutions, only options. I would challenge you to come up with some truly viable options in preventing terrorism and punishing those responsible for the attacks.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Ronald Reagan
West Berlin, Germany
June 12, 1987
<strong>
Thank "Goodness" the rhetoric he is using is backfiring...</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Bill Schneider said on CNN after the speech... that when Mr. Bush says he's going to do something he actually means to do it....
I quoted Bill Schneider praising Mr. Bush... historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said the president's words were 'galvanizing.' Chris Mathews compared him to Jack Kennedy. The New York Times said Mr. Bush has 'soared to new heights.'" - Peggy Noonan WSJ 1/30/2001
I never said that Bush is dumb ... if I did, I meant rather that his use of blatantly propagandistic tone is stupid. I also said that I agree that these states are terrible and that things must change. But there is a reason that both Japan and South Korea are now nervous.... because they don't want to start a war . . . many many people will die in a direct confrontation with North Korea.
Hopefully the action that will be taken will be less hyperbolic than this speechifying name calling.
I want us to recognize when our leaders start to use the same tactics that are used by people we clearly acknowledge are demagogues. I DON'T mean to say that Bush IS a demagogue. We won't give him the chance.... thank goodness that is part of our Governmental structure... our constitution! But, I think you might want to keep an eye out for signs that demagoguery is on the agenda... and propagandistic rhetoric is often one of those signs.
(Its funny that the anti-gun control party is always the first to let the government form youth groups and ease wire=tapping restrictions when its all under the guise of "patriotism'.)
<strong>(Its funny that the anti-gun control party is always the first to let the government form youth groups and ease wire=tapping restrictions when its all under the guise of "patriotism'.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if that's true at all.