| Axis of evil! |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Bahman ® 02/15/2002, 19:39:48 Author Profile Mail author |
OK, here is a topic which may fill some time this weekend. What do you think of what President Bush said about Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea? Any aspect of it you want to discuss. I may give my opinion later, but for now an 'aside' will do.
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Axis of evil! Re: Axis of evil! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Eric ®
02/16/2002, 11:55:28
Author Profile Mail author
I think that President Bush should have specified that he meant the government of Iran (an Islam Republic, I believe) being an axis of evil. I've read articles about the people in Iran wanting to come to America. To call the people an axis of evil would be srupid. To call the government (which, in Bush's words, "sponsors terrorism") an axis of evil would be correct.
What I disagree with is how Bush is using the word "evil" at all. He makes it sound like a holy war.
Eric
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Axis of evil! Re: Re: Axis of evil! -- Eric Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/16/2002, 12:51:49
Author Profile Mail author
"I think that President Bush should have specified that he meant the government of Iran (an Islam Republic, I believe) being an axis of evil. I've read articles about the people in Iran wanting to come to America. To call the people an axis of evil would be srupid. To call the government (which, in Bush's words, "sponsors terrorism") an axis of evil would be correct." I am sure some people would have liked to see this distinction made by Bush. But I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that is what he meant.
"What I disagree with is how Bush is using the word "evil" at all. He makes it sound like a holy war."
That is another 'poor choice of words' to some. But what about the real issues involved? What are they planning, or could plan to do?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The wrong countries. Re: Axis of evil! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/17/2002, 23:45:54
Author Profile Mail author
I have no problem with going after terrorists, and the nations that harbor them. Unfortunately, this is not the policy of the U.S. If the U.S. was really interested in going after states that supported terrorism, then the following states should be included in the Axis of Evil:
1) The United States
2) Israel
3) Turkey
4) Columbia
5) El Salvador
6) Guatemala
7) Indonesia
8) Saudi ArabiaYou will notice that #'s 2-8 are all huge beneficiaries of U.S. support. It is worth noting that the U.S. and its beneficiaries form the world's largest bloc of terrorist states, and that the U.S. is, in fact, a leading terrorist state.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Axis of rhetoric Re: Axis of evil! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Brake ®
02/19/2002, 00:13:21
Author Profile Mail author
:What do you think of what President Bush said about Iran,
:Iraq, and N. Korea? Any aspect of it you want to discuss.Several statements made by Bush are incendiary rhetoric, and nothing more for they contain no substance. Not to broad brush Mr. Bush as a complete oaf, just that he's no wiz in the foreign policy arena, nor in the public speaking arena. Guess it's no surprise that Bush's public comments on world affairs are wanting.
On Iraq, Bush has remarked several times that Saddam has "Gassed his own people." Technically true. Is the world a better place for having heard these words? No, the world is a more jittery place.
On North Korea, Bush and Ms. Rice both claim N.K. is a potential source of missles and other military technology for terrorist organizations. Neither will elaborate. For those of us who read newspapers and an occassional newsworthy website, the facts are elusive.
On South Korea, Bush will shortly visit Seoul. S.K.'s leader recently received a Nobel Peace Prize for his advances toward the North. Bush's American tough guy rhetoric is threatening to undermine the progress toward warming relations between North and South.
On China, geographically surrounded by targets in the War on Terrorism, tension is understandable if not justifiable. Afterall, what self respecting country wants to see an expanded US military presence on three sides? I sense China will ultimately play a major role in how these events play out during Bush's remaining years in office.
On continued Middle East tension, rightly or wrongly, America is perceived as militeristic and untrustworthy. Bush seems to cement this perception with his choice of words.
For the moment, it may only be a war of words.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
...with our support. Re: Axis of rhetoric -- Brake Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/19/2002, 01:53:40
Author Profile Mail author
>>On Iraq, Bush has remarked several times that Saddam has "Gassed his own people." Of course. But he never finishes the sentence. It should read, Saddam gassed his own people, with our support. You see, all during the times Saddam was committing his worst atrocities, he had the full support of the U.S. The thousands of Kurds he killed didn't bother the U.S. at all as long as he was on our side, and he was our great friend and ally. After he invaded Kuwait, misinterpreting orders from Washington, he became the next Hitler who was going to overrun the world. Never mind that he couldn't even defeat Iran with massive support from the U.S.
So now he is a convenient target for a president who loves killing. This president not only loves putting people to death, but he has learned that the more people he kills, the less people concentrate on the absolutely crap-tacular job he is doing as president. So, he will use the excuse whenever he can find it to take the military around the world killing people.
God bless America!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Rhetoric Re: Axis of rhetoric -- Brake Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/19/2002, 12:15:12
Author Profile Mail author
Yes, I agree that it is mostly rhetoric. But we know that rhetoric is often intentionally used for definite purposes. One is 'to test the water.' In this respect, I think, the reaction, especially outside the US, has been negative. Which would give the administration some clues about its future plans and actions. Second, creating fear in the 'evil' governments, which may (or may not) lead to some favorable results. I wonder if the announcement by an Iranian official that they have detained 100+ Taliban/Alqaeda members crossing into Iran, was the result of Bush's rhetoric?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Rhetoric Re: Rhetoric -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/20/2002, 12:16:45
Author Profile Mail author
Bahman, Normally I would agree with you that rhetoric is given out specifically to test the waters of opinion. But look at the track record of this administration when it comes to outside opinions: the Kyoto Treaty, missile testing, closed-door energy policies. This group does not seem to mind going its own way, even if it is in stark contast to outside opinions. Furthermore, when you are in such high public office, I don't think you should carelessly throw out such inflamatory comments, like referring to our 9/11 response as a "crusade". People get really ticked off at that sort of thing and that could definitely have a negative effect on future diplomatic relations. This is why I take his "Axis of Evil" speech so seriously.
Also, The response of Iran may not have been made out of fear, but instead out of a desire to prove to the public that they are not evil. Iranians have protested against America for years, why would they become afraid of us now?
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Bush & Iran Re: Re: Rhetoric -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/20/2002, 12:43:25
Author Profile Mail author
"Normally I would agree with you that rhetoric is given out specifically to test the waters of opinion. But look at the track record of this administration when it comes to outside opinions: the Kyoto Treaty, missile testing, closed-door energy policies. This group does not seem to mind going its own way, even if it is in stark contast to outside opinions." First, I'd like to assure everybody here that I don't want to defend or codone Bush (I didn't 'vote' for him!); only to see the events as realistically as I can. In response to your concern stated above, I'll only refer you to the headline in today's LA Times: US Won't Invade N.Korea, Bush Assures Worried South. In the article and elsewhere, it is said how Bush is trying to backtrack on his previously strong 'axis of evil' pronouncement. And that IS a good sign.
"Furthermore, when you are in such high public office, I don't think you should carelessly throw out such inflamatory comments, like referring to our 9/11 response as a "crusade". People get really ticked off at that sort of thing and that could definitely have a negative effect on future diplomatic relations. This is why I take his "Axis of Evil" speech so seriously."
I don't like his style and tactics either. But let's hope that his strategies are more wise and thoughtful.
"Also, The response of Iran may not have been made out of fear, but instead out of a desire to prove to the public that they are not evil. Iranians have protested against America for years, why would they become afraid of us now?"
As I mentioned before, the problem with Iran is that there are literally TWO governments there. The hardliners have power and are in perpetual hostility with the US. Whereas the reformers which have most of the people behind them but with little real power, promote 'dialogue of civilizations' and want to open up to the US. So, I don't blame anyone, including the US government, to get confused and bewildered! And what happened in the case of announcing the arrest of 150 Taliban members in Iran by an official in the camp of the reformists was not surprising, whether we call it reporting facts, appeasement of the US, out of fear, or whatever.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Axis of evil! Re: Axis of evil! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/19/2002, 08:53:30
Author Profile Mail author
I think Bush depends too heavily on advisors (like Ms. Rice) who tell him to take the hard stance. They seem to believe that they live in Tom Clancy's world, where our people just happen to know exactly what's really going on inside other governments, and it's all the worst you can imagine. Obviously, N. Korea has made some strides in cooling down their relations with their southern neighbors. Yes, we should be wary, but we should not publicly condemn them after they have extended a little olive branch to former arch-enemies.
There have been years of noticeable changes in the government of Iran. Are they our allies? Not really. Would they like to see us dead? I don't think they would mind. Are they a member of some formal "Axis" that is arrayed against the West? Not really, no. In fact, they don't get along so well with some of their own neighbors (Turkey, Iraq). Other neighbors have competing economic interests with Iran (Pakistan and the former Soviet Republics) and the other neighbor (Afghanistan) is unstable. They really are different out there, but we need to show them a little respect as a sovereign nation and not treat them like the single-minded Borg on Star Trek who have nothing better to do than annihilate us.
As far as Iraq is concerned, well Bush should just smack his old man. (just kidding; I think elderly abuse is horrible) Otherwise, we should work with the UN to get the most out of any diplomatic contact with Iraq before Saddam eventually dies/is overthrown. We can call him names all day and wiggle our finger and say "shame on you". But, without formal contact, our government's knowledge is limited and they have to go off of questionable intelligence that is naturally leaning to put the worst spin on things. I mean, have any of you visited Iraq? Do you know what life is really like in there? Neither do I. And I seriously question the information that the Bush administration relies on. Of the three, I think Iraq is least affected by this statement, and it was kind of pointless to restate something that we have been droning on about for twelve years. As my father used to say, either s*** or get off the pot.
So, the bottom line for me is: The Bush administration likes to mouth off and they will either not follow through, which drops our international-reliability level another fifty points, or we do follow through and all sorts of hell will break loose. Happy little optimist, aren't I?
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Optimist/Realist... Re: Re: Axis of evil! -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/19/2002, 12:57:42
Author Profile Mail author
...are you & I! I am in general agreement with you, except maybe in details. About Iran you say:
"They really are different out there, but we need to show them a little respect as a sovereign nation and not treat them like the single-minded Borg on Star Trek who have nothing better to do than annihilate us."
What respect and how? Note that there have been 'olive branch' offerings from both sides in the last few years but nothing has worked so far. The reason, IMO, is the power struggle inside Iran. BTW, if I had ever watched Star Trek, maybe I would've understood your point better!
"So, the bottom line for me is: The Bush administration likes to mouth off and they will either not follow through, which drops our international-reliability level another fifty points, or we do follow through and all sorts of hell will break loose. Happy little optimist, aren't I?"
As I said elsewhere, they are testing the waters. Note that no official has said we are going to do such and such. Only possibilities. So your phrase 'follow through' seems to be moot for now. The bottom line for me is this: the most they can do after diplomacy, UN, etc. fail, they may get though with Iraq. Something some have suggested Bush the father should have done. But even that, IMO, is very hard to do.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I only hope... Re: Optimist/Realist... -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/19/2002, 19:16:01
Author Profile Mail author
...Bush has read Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant"! (As an authority figure in India, a young Orwell was faced with the decision to shoot, or not to shoot, a runaway elephant. With a hundred villagers looking on, it became a matter of pride for Orwell, and he shot the elephant. Yes, all hell broke loose.)
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
And maybe he has... Re: I only hope... -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/19/2002, 21:27:42
Author Profile Mail author
...read it! But in any case, I thought (almost) everybody agreed that he has surrounded himself with a lot of competent seasoned people. If so, I believe he won't be let shoot the elephant!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page