Axis of Evil? "Tact" and "diplomacy" not found in Bush' vocabulary.

[Victor Galis]

Still Axis of Evil?

[Natan]

Evil is exactly the term to describe Saddam. It fits Kim pretty well too.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm sure there is a reason they mentioned those countries in the State of union address...

They're next?

[Dis]

not likely. more like a ploy. I don't expect any more countries to be attacked. But there could be other drastic measures.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Why do you think some countries suck up to the USA? Cos they like you? No, they just see opportunites.

Why do you think the Whole of Eastern Europe wants to join the EU?


Im sure Turkey would looooove to have a few Industrial plants implanted from Germany to Turkey. And once the Eastern European nations are brought into the fold, wealth and industry will distribute. . But not for the better......

Hey, Cheaper for the plant, but good if you happen to live in turkey

[Kyle]

-You do realize that Iran has a moderate elected president, right?

You realize of course, that the Ayatollah and his little group are the one's that have the real power?


He's moderate why? Because he doesn't call the US the Great Satan? I'd guess he still supports terrorist organizations based in Lebanon.

[Bereta_Eder]

Oh sorry I thought you were talking about Turkey...
(but it's pro-US so I guess it's alright)

[Urban Ranger]

International backlash incoming.

So much for Dubya's coalition.

[Dis]

I'm going to paint a clue for Europeans.

State of the Union has no basis in reality. It doesn't reflect reality and never will. It is designed to please the voters to keep his ratings up for possible reelection in 3 years.

Case in point. The next day Bush contacted many nations and said an attack is not eminent. This was in response due to harsh response from Iran and other nations.

repeat after me. State of Union = make believe

[Roland]

What I really wonder about: Are his speechwriter doing those lines because they don't trust dubya with anything remotely intelligent, or because they think it sells ?

Another cornerstone of his brilliant rhetoric after sept 11th was focussed on "smoking" and "holes" or "caves", which made me realise that he could really be the son of a Neanderthal and the Marlboro man.

rah:

You support Bush ? On... what ?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

reactions on Bushes speech

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1795000/1795295.stm

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman described Mr Bush's State of the Union address as "little short of a declaration of war."

On Thursday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced Mr Bush, describing him as the bloodthirsty president of "the Great Satan".

Iraq's Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Mr Bush's charge that his country was a terrorist state was "stupid and indecent".

Ufortunatley they will all now have reasons to back their claims, more reasons than before that is for sure.

Our correspondent says South Korea's budding ties with the North have fast deteriorated since Mr Bush came to power - something many critics believe is due to a hardening of US policy towards North Korea.

I don't think South Koreans want another war...

In Iraq Ath-Thawra, the newspaper of the ruling Baath party branded Mr Bush as stupid, arrogant and irresponsible.

Many people in the west would totally agree with that.

[Sikander]

North Korea has been in a low grade state of war with South Korea and it's allies (the U.S. and Japan) since 1950. There has not been a single year when there have not been acts of war perpetrated upon one or all of these countries by North Korea. They already have at least one nuclear device, though AFAIK it has not been tested and may not be deliverable with their current missles. They talked a good game on detente, but have broken every single promise they made to the conciliatory governments in Seoul and Washington. Their rhetoric may have run both hot and cold, but their weapons programs and acts of war have continued unabated.

Clinton knew this, but kept up the detente policy for the sake of public opinion in the U.S. and Europe. The policy was strongly opposed by the professionals both in the State Department and the Department of Defense. Bush clearly broke with that foolish appeasement policy in his first foreign policy speech after taking office. His policy on North Korea has been consistant and sensible.

Iraq has been in a state of low grade warfare with the U.S. and it's allies since the Gulf War in 1991. It has both biological and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them with missles to most of it's neighbors, including Turkey and Israel. Bush is continuing the containment policies of Clinton and his father, though he obviously would like to change the static situation for the better. There are two viable strategies. Attack by either overwhelming force (like Dad) or by insurrection and a well targeted bombing campaign (like in Afghanistan). Both carry significant risks, and I think it unlikely that he will attack while significant U.S. assets are tied up in Afghanistan. The groundwork is being laid however, especially diplomatically behind the scenes. The Saudis are reported to be unhappy about this and uncooperative, while some of the other Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt and our Nato friends Britain and Turkey are less so.

This brings us to Iran, which has been in a state of low grade warfare with the U.S. since 1979. While there is a moderate and popularly elected government in place, the real power is in the hands of the "Death to America" types who have been completely consistant with this line of action since the revolution. Bush has been more careful with Iran, because there is considerable public support for a more conciliatory relationship with the U.S., but he has to still be able to keep the Iranians from undermining our goals in the war on terror in Afghanistan, and if possible neutralize them in the event of any unpleasantness with Iraq. We really want to be friends with Iran, but the hardliners are making a war (either hot or cold) inevitable for the foreseeable future. Bush did mention the fact that the people of Iran were being held hostage by the unelected clergymen who run the country, which is not only true, but a wise angle to play.

[Roland]

Sikander:

"Bush clearly broke with that foolish appeasement policy"

What appeasement ? More like a little thaw. And apart from the little rhetoric, what is he gonna do about it ?

"Iraq has been in a state of low grade warfare with the U.S. and it's allies since the Gulf War in 1991."

Ever fewer allies in the region. Now nothing more welcome than the end of this regime, but what comes next ? Insurrection means instability, overwhelming force means maybe years of occupation. I can't see any "groundwork" being laid, Jordan wouldn't be happy, Turkey would require some solution to the kurdish problem etc.

"We really want to be friends with Iran, but the hardliners are making a war (either hot or cold) inevitable for the foreseeable future."

At the moment Iran is quite occupied with that internal power struggle. And what exactly is it doing to undermine the US in Afghanistan ?

The larger problem is, the Bush doctrine or whatever it is is highly hypocritical and a recipe for global anarchy. Why is Pakistan missing in the axis, if weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism are so important ? Or is Pakistan just supporting freedom fighters, and India is evil? Will China come onto the list for state terrorism in Tibet and Sinkiang and other regions ? Will the US break international law in persuing what looks more like an "I wanna be a war time president and reelected" agenda ?

There are a lot of regimes that need containment in one form or another, but selective crusades and dumb rhetoric are less than helpful. I really hope the realists win out in the administration.

[faded glory]

Iraq will fall. That is guarunteed......


They are proven terrorists. They tried to kill Bush senior.

[rah]

Originally posted by Roland

rah:

You support Bush ? On... what ?

Many things.
I supported his selection of advisors, Chaney as VP, and his cabinet. He put together a good group (with the possible exception of Ashcroft ) He let's them do their job.

I support his policy on Afghanistan. He was patient, and reasonably thorough. He didn't waffle like Clinton or Gore would have.

I supported his decision to not support the Kroyto (sp?) agreement. It was not in the best interest of the US to do it. I know there was general outrage here, but the exceptions for developing countries, the lack of teeth enforcement wise, and the feeling that the US would have been penalized the most, made it an unappealing treaty for the US. There are other ways to achieve the same objectives, and believe it or not, those things are still being discussed.

I support the drilling of oil in the nature reserves in Alaska. Even realizing that it wasn't the end all solution.

I agree with his arms reduction talks (even though the holding in reserve part is disturbing)

While I not 100% behind starwars, there are valuable things to be learned there and I believe research should continue.

I supported the original tax rebate. (any further rebates won't get my support)

And quite a few other things but I think I've listed enough for the normal attention span here.

Having said that there are some things I don't agree with him on. But that is to be expected. (his stand on abortion for one)


Read back to my earlier post. I agree with the war on terrorism but I thought the "EVIL EMPIRE" part was a bit over the top. After being here for years, I was concerned about how the international community would react about it. I realize that this speach was targeted at the US but it was going to get world wide coverage. Now, did Bush think it was worth more to say it to Americans knowing how it would be perceived outside. Or was this not really aimed at Americans but a stern warning to these countries. Or Both . Not knowing all the details, I can't answer this question, but the answer to that would be very enlightening and probably entertaining. His speech was so staged that there had to be intent. Which intent, I don't know for sure.

RAH