"North Korea, Iraq, and Iran 'an axis of evil' "
Bush worries me a lot... I think he actually believes he is FDR or maybe even God all-mighty. HE has decided that these countries are evil. America needs new enemies, and so his lackeys have finally mustered up a nice and convenient 'shit-list' that will permit the American people to focus all their hate and resentment towards.
While I can somewhat understand Iraq and to a lesser extent N. Korea... Iran makes no real sense seeing that there has been subtle but extensive efforts for both US and Iran to open dialog once again in a normal way.
Heck, while they were at it, why didnt Bush add the evil and 'bad' Fidel Castro?
Bush just scares me a lot. Outside of the US this view is modest. Most see him as a stark raving lunatic who can't think on his own for one second and if wasnt for his advisors, would have us all talking with a nice southern drawl and start the 21st century inquisition.
For the sanity of the American people and the world, I hope 2004 comes by very quickly and that we get a decent replacement, the US is slowly creeping back into some kind of cold war status where its the world vs the US.
While I can somewhat understand Iraq and to a lesser extent N. Korea... Iran makes no real sense seeing that there has been subtle but extensive efforts for both US and Iran to open dialog once again in a normal way.
Heck, while they were at it, why didnt Bush add the evil and 'bad' Fidel Castro?
Bush just scares me a lot. Outside of the US this view is modest. Most see him as a stark raving lunatic who can't think on his own for one second and if wasnt for his advisors, would have us all talking with a nice southern drawl and start the 21st century inquisition.
For the sanity of the American people and the world, I hope 2004 comes by very quickly and that we get a decent replacement, the US is slowly creeping back into some kind of cold war status where its the world vs the US.
Comments
<strong>
Bush just scares me a lot. Outside of the US this view is modest. Most see him as a stark raving lunatic who can't think on his own for one second and if wasnt for his advisors, would have us all talking with a nice southern drawl and start the 21st century inquisition...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lot of people thought the same way about Reagan. They were wrong.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26.html"; target="_blank">Bob Woodward</a> doesn't share your low opinion of Bush's intellect.
I just saw Thirteen Days a couple of days ago. If this film just remotely portray the truth of how american foreign policy is decided I worry very much with the Bush/Rumsfeld combo. I don´t say that Bush is not intelligent but he is not strong enough to go up against when other considerations than the military ones are nessesary.
The country has been back to work and life as normal for months now, and he's saying "I know it's hard, but we have to get back to normal". What the heck was he talking about? In fact, a large part of his speech seemed devoted to making the American public nervous again.
The speech needed to be more focussed on the economy and domestic issues rather than the 'War'. While I agree that it did need some attention, it most certainly did not require 80% of the speech.
Now back on the subject. Iraq is getting to be a problem, so maybe it's time to remind Saddam that he needs to play by the rules of our 1991 agreement, and if he doesn't, there will be action taken against him.
Iran is a little bit hazier. They haven't really done any thing specifically to target us in a hostile way like Bin Laden did. Maybe getting their help in exterminating the Al Qaeda network in their country, but I can't see us doing an all out attack on them like we did in Afghanistan.
North Korea seems foolish to attack. First of all, the people there are all starving except for those in the military. The military of North Korea is dedicated to protecting itself from South Korea, not on attacking the United States. Attacking North Korea would also make another country very upset- a country we are trying to be friendly with at the moment. That country is China. Making them upset might only cause the same problems we saw in the Korean War and in Vietnam. Do we really want to repeat those mistakes?
Maybe it's just me, but I'm tired of the 'war on terrorism', and I'm sure that a lot of other Americans are too. In a few more months, the ongoing 'war' may become more of a police action rather than any thing else; something more like the war on drugs, but to a higher level. We don't need our entire military devoted 24/7 to hunting down a group which is now nothing more than a pack of criminals.
<strong>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. We should have a critical eye on our enemies (N. Korea is still our enemy until they stop sponsering terrorism against our Allies). If you don't think Iraq is evil, then you must think testing chemical weapons on your own people is better than testing them on your enemies. And Iran can't even decide what side they're on. The only hope for them is that their young ones take over and kick the idiot mullahs out for good. I not suprised though. Lately Europe seems the hotbed of terrorist cells looking to plan attacks agains the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh what a joy. Why is it that every time we are discussing international relations here it ends up being a "its just because you are european/american and can´t see straight"-crap throwing feast? I know that in US there is a large a percentage of people who disagree with the Bush goverments long term foreign policy strategy (I am not talking specific about after 11/9) and perhaps even a larger percentage than in Denmark. I am taught IR by one of the most respected professors here in Europe so don´t give me that "you are just an European who don´t understand us"-crap. Perhaps its a difference between idealistic and realistic view on foreign policy, certaintly not between cultures.
Iraq: Who said anything about Iraq? But I will say we need to find a solution. The combination sanctions and SH is costing many more lifes each month than both 11/9 and his own chemical warfare against his own population combined. This is not because of the sanctions and we are not guilty of the deaths but if the sanctions weren´t there thousands of innocent would survive. We need to find a solution and for me it could be a quick dirty war against the top in Iraq. Not for any price (the big question being who should be in power after SH).
Iran: Its a country with a population that took matters in their own hands and threw out the Shah and were able to better their life that way. They can do it again but not violently this time. Its a matter of political pressure and time. When others (Bush) label them as "evil" what do you honestly think it does for that internal development? Is the transition going to be more easy or difficult?
N.Korea: See above
[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]
[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
<strong>Iran: Its a country with a population that took matters in their own hands and threw out the Shah and were able to better their life that way. They can do it again but not violently this time. Its a matter of political pressure and time. When others (Bush) label them as "evil" what do you honestly think it does for that internal development? Is the transition going to be more easy or difficult?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did Bush call all of Iran "evil"? Please feel free to quote his speech which I know you wont because whenever I ask someone to back something up here they never do and just call me a troll. Instead I think he showed a lot of support for the people there who are yerning to be free. I take his comments for what they were. A message to the population of Iran that is "We know you are not free. We do not support your leaders. We hold the same vaules as you". It was the perfect message to send to the population of Iran.
[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
<strong>
It was the perfect message to send to the population of Iran.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree to that part but at this point they cannot make revolution again. The only way for Iran to change is through the top by backing Khatami
up. That way he can show that his way is better than the religious leaders way.
<strong>I don't know if I agree with that. If I remember .... I read tha that half the population is under 25 years old.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Its a very young population yes. But they haven´t got the means to revolutionize IMO.
About the quote: [quote]Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
....
[about Iran, Iraq and N.Korea] States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. <hr></blockquote>
He clearly say "States". That include Khatami. He is president (and elected. Why don´t Bush aknowledge this fact instead of labelling the whole state as "Evil"?) Of course this will be a step backwards for the "good" forces inside the Iranian top. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/01/30/iran.bush/index.html"; target="_blank">Look here</a> how member of his cabinet has to respond. Bush just distanced himself from those forces inside Iran (I hope) he want to support.
[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
<strong>
... When others (Bush) label them as "evil" what do you honestly think it does for that internal development? Is the transition going to be more easy or difficult?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you think they name things in Eastern Europe after Ronald Reagan? Why do you think Bush's warmest reception when he made his Eurpean trip came when he visited Poland? Read Solzhenitsyn. He knows first hand the importance of naming evil.
<strong>
Why do you think they name things in Eastern Europe after Ronald Reagan? Why do you think Bush's warmest reception when he made his Eurpean trip came when he visited Poland? Read Solzhenitsyn. He knows first hand the importance of naming evil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is Khatami part of the problem or the solution? Is he "evil" or "good"?
Were there in Poland anyone in the top of the goverment prior to 89 that played a role like Khatami? Is Iran and pre 89 Poland even close to being in the same political situation? (A few hints: Did religion play the same role in Poland as it does in Iran or perhaps the direct opposite? Is Irans politics more or less handed by a huge outside force like it was in Poland? Was the political situation in Poland a result of a real internal revolution or a result of an agreement by outside forces?)
You are comparing apples and oranges.
[quote]Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.<hr></blockquote>
And right after:
[quote]Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.<hr></blockquote>
Now anyone remeber how Musharraf came into power, hmm? He might show strong leadership but it surely isn´t legal leadership. He threw down legaly elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif in a military que(damn how do you spell it?)
<strong>
You are comparing apples and oranges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not as much as you think. Catholicism didn't play the same role in Poland that Islam plays in Iran but the psuedo-religion of Communism did. And the Catholic church was very much a player throughout. The ascension of a Polish Pope was huge. As for your doubts about the the existence of a "real" revolution in Poland: do you know how arrogant that sounds? Poland clearly was at the vangard in Eastern Europe in seeking political change. Her destiny may have been shaped by outside forces (given her geography how could it be otherwise?) but it's condescension to believe that that's all there was to it. Communism would still exist if it wasn't for the internal pressure in places like Poland.
Yes, Khatami is elected but how much power does he really have? From time to time he says or does some moderate things but the mullahs have him on a tight leash. Or maybe they don't and it's all some kind of kabuki theatre designed for internal consumption. In that case Khatami could safely be called "evil". I do know that, after years of shunning the Taliban, they are now sheltering remnants of Al Qaeda - the Taliban's former allies. They are clearly worried that a stable pro-western Afghanistan will be established on their frontier.
<strong>The country has been back to work and life as normal for months now, and he's saying "I know it's hard, but we have to get back to normal". What the heck was he talking about? In fact, a large part of his speech seemed devoted to making the American public nervous again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Back to normal? Back to work?
Maybe in your little life Fran but not to 1,000,000 + people in the U.S.! I have been out of work for 6 months and don't see much down the road, unless I apply for dishwasher down the street. Bush needs to get the stimulus package passed. "Creating new jobs" won't come anyway else. Unless these jobs start flying out of Bush's ass.
As far as the stated "Evil" countries...he also mentioned the Phillipines and they could become the next El Salvador IMO. I guess its back to Daddy's "New World Order" all over again. We do need to root out these factions, cells and states that support and harbor terrorists. But at what cost? I am concerned, believe me.
But wake up Fran...the country (and most of the world) is not a safe and better place.
<strong>(damn how do you spell it?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Coup - A sudden stroke; an unexpected device or stratagem. It's a French word. In this case, it's short for coup d'etat. (I know you know most of this Anders. It's for those who don't.)
<strong>
For the sanity of the American people and the world, I hope 2004 comes by very quickly and that we get a decent replacement...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe in your little life Fran but not to 1,000,000 + people in the U.S.! I have been out of work for 6 months and don't see much down the road, unless I apply for dishwasher down the street. Bush needs to get the stimulus package passed. "Creating new jobs" won't come anyway else. Unless these jobs start flying out of Bush's ass.<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2002/01/30/economy/economy/"; target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2002/01/30/economy/economy/</a>;
The economy grew last quarter. Very good news. Good luck finding a job.
[quote]As always the "someone should do something" liberals can't stomach what needs to be done. <hr></blockquote>
Hey, if attacking North Korea means war with China, I want no part of it.
<strong>
Not as much as you think. Catholicism didn't play the same role in Poland that Islam plays in Iran but the psuedo-religion of Communism did. And the Catholic church was very much a player throughout. The ascension of a Polish Pope was huge. As for your doubts about the the existence of a "real" revolution in Poland: do you know how arrogant that sounds? Poland clearly was at the vangard in Eastern Europe in seeking political change. Her destiny may have been shaped by outside forces (given her geography how could it be otherwise?) but it's condescension to believe that that's all there was to it. Communism would still exist if it wasn't for the internal pressure in places like Poland.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I´m glad that I don´t have to write papers in english because I must be doing very bad in explaining myself.
I was comparing pre 89 Poland and Iran after the Islamic revolution as I wrote. Under the Shah (I have avoided to say it so far but I hope everyone know who put him in power) the people were very opressed. The opposition was emerging around Islam, so Islam was and still is part of the liberation of Iran in the mind of people. In Poland one dictatorship was replaced by another after WWII. It was not the choice of the people as it was in Iran. And that was what I meant by the missing revolution in Poland. I hope you agree with me that the communist rule wasn´t the choice of the Polish people. Try assume I am making sense in my arguments.
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>
Yes, Khatami is elected but how much power does he really have? From time to time he says or does some moderate things but the mullahs have him on a tight leash. Or maybe they don't and it's all some kind of kabuki theatre designed for internal consumption. In that case Khatami could safely be called "evil".</strong><hr></blockquote>
<Kevin Costner>Its a set-up</Kevin Costner> or <Kevin Costner>Its a conspiracy</Kevin Costner> depending on the film
<strong>
Hey, if attacking North Korea means war with China, I want no part of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you'd sit back and allow North Korea to nuke South Korea? Some ally you are.