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

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Seneca
It's difficult to imagine only a few months ago, almost every nation was united in sympathy for America, and willing to offer every assistance - has any other world leader squandered so much goodwill so quickly?

Rather it's a matter of other nations not willing to do the right thing to do away with dangerous regimes and terrorists. The US was right there before Sept. 11th. Now, finally a change can occur to the make the world a better and safer place.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Kyle




Rather it's a matter of other nations not willing to do the right thing to do away with dangerous regimes and terrorists. The US was right there before Sept. 11th. Now, finally a change can occur to the make the world a better and safer place.

That is the problem, you cannot change the people by killing their neighbours and taking down the governments they have elected. To take them down you need an internal opposition which has a popular support and ability to run the government after the regime is down. Plus if you take on Iraq Iran North Korea at the same time as Bush indicated you are very very likely to get China against you directly an wwwIII could be arounf the corner. Whom to blame - Bush. This is not the way to bring them down, North Korea would have collapsed in a matter of years from now, it was even so despearate to open talks with South Korea. Iran has to change from within and all those people who were happy with Shah might have turned the tide soon as well. Case the groups not the governments? What is he asking for? If there will be terrirists from there in next 20 yers If you devastate those countries by war now there will be terrorsits from there in next 60 years. You cannot defeta them by being the same as they are, you have to be better and they will change themselves when their people see that what their leaders tell them makes no sense.

If you bombarded Iran with Mars bars would have been better (especially North Korea ) than having this war threatening speach which just makes moderates and opposition in those countrieas to stick behind their leaders that they don't actually support.

[faded glory]

At first I was reserved.But now I agree.......


Iraq, Iran and N. Korea must be stopped. And was rather suprised to see that 79% of americans agree. Maybe cause we are living under the gun?

[Kyle]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


That is the problem, you cannot change the people by killing their neighbours and taking down the governments they have elected. To take them down you need an internal opposition which has a popular support and ability to run the government after the regime is down. Plus if you take on Iraq Iran North Korea at the same time as Bush indicated you are very very likely to get China against you directly an wwwIII could be arounf the corner. Whom to blame - Bush. This is not the way to bring them down, North Korea would have collapsed in a matter of years from now, it was even so despearate to open talks with South Korea. Iran has to change from within and all those people who were happy with Shah might have turned the tide soon as well.

That's the thing though, none of those people were elected (Khatami, notwithstandin, but he's not in charge there). Bush was simply putting these people on notice. With the exception of Iraq, military action against them is unlikely anytime soon. And again, people are overestimating China's will to do things. They'll huff and complain, but they simply can't do anything.


Iraq: Saddam will have to be removed. He's in too strong a position to be overthrown. It'll require US assistance.

Iran: I agree that internal social change will have to take care of this one. But the US can and will continue to pressure the government and isolate them. The problem now is, Europe doesn't seem to have any problems with Iran's funding of terrorists in Lebanon. And Russia's foreign (or defense, one of them) minister said he had no information that Iran was involved with terrorism. That is either a blatent lie or Russia's intellegence services have really gotten bad.

And North Korea: Again, I agree that they could very well collapse in a matter of years, but the unpredictablility of them will probably result in a major war as the government collapses. It's better that it be handled by the US, South Korea, and Japan.

[GePap]

Well, what will be done?

To all the gun-ho terrorist warriors out there (I wonder how many will join the army?)

What exactly can Dubya do against any of these states? Well, we already don't trade with any of them, so unilateral sacntions would do nothing. Each of these states does business with other states so UN sanctions are not a possibility.

With Iraq, we would not be able to use S.A. as a base, perhaps kuwait or Turkey, though neither is really gun-ho, so from were we could attack Iraq is as of yet, difficult. It is even more difficult with Iran, which is much bigger, and whose neighbors are far less likely to help us invade Iran. Heck, the western parts of Afghanistan are held by pro-iranina faction. Then there is N.K., which has the world's 3rd largest army, Chemical weapons, and perhaps nukes already, with the ability to hit Japan. In about 1/2 hour, they could devaste Seoul, and do a big number on S.K. economy. And of course, China is the other neighbor- so, I doubt higly that Japan, China, or S.K. would allow us at all to use them to stage the sort of massive operation that would be needed.
But of course, everyone here is an armchair general, so you can get craking.

I guess the question is, why are the neighbors of these state, you know, the ones in immidiate danger, like the Saudis' Kuwaitis, Central Asians, South Koreans, or Japanese so NOT EAGER to attack these EVIL regimes at their borders? Because they understand that right does not come from violence- It seems that BUsh has become a maoist just like Sharon- Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

p.s. to all the self-serving moralists: The greatest crime in the last decade was not 9/11, in which at most 3500 people died (if you question the number, look them up again, the figure went way down), but the genocide in Rwanda, in which between 500,000 and 800,000 people died, in a massacre that the world had the chance to try to stop. We let hundreads of thousands die, and now we expect the whole world to weep for 35 hundred? What screwed up morality do we have?
(and this is, of couse, without mentioning all the other bad things, like funding Osama, that we did in the name of 'freedom' from 1945-1989)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kyle
Rather it's a matter of other nations not willing to do the right thing to do away with dangerous regimes and terrorists

That's what exactly bin Laden is trying. What are you complaining?

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's what exactly bin Laden is trying. What are you complaining?

Eh?

[Natan]

Re: Well, what will be done?

Originally posted by GePap
What exactly can Dubya do against any of these states? Well, we already don't trade with any of them, so unilateral sacntions would do nothing. Each of these states does business with other states so UN sanctions are not a possibility.

That's why military action is being considered.

With Iraq, we would not be able to use S.A. as a base, perhaps kuwait or Turkey, though neither is really gun-ho, so from were we could attack Iraq is as of yet, difficult.

We'll use Turkey, a NATO member, and then use air strikes to help the Kurds and Shi'ites to overthrow Saddam. The right incentives can be found for all of these groups.

It is even more difficult with Iran, which is much bigger, and whose neighbors are far less likely to help us invade Iran. Heck, the western parts of Afghanistan are held by pro-iranina faction.

That's why we probably aren't going after Iran right away, if at all.

Then there is N.K., which has the world's 3rd largest army, Chemical weapons, and perhaps nukes already, with the ability to hit Japan. In about 1/2 hour, they could devaste Seoul, and do a big number on S.K. economy. And of course, China is the other neighbor- so, I doubt higly that Japan, China, or S.K. would allow us at all to use them to stage the sort of massive operation that would be needed.

Agreed. Although all these factors which you've mentioned are reasons to attack them, I think in this case the risks outweigh the benefits.

But of course, everyone here is an armchair general, so you can get craking.

You're an armchair general here too, telling us what is and is not possible militarily, no?

I guess the question is, why are the neighbors of these state, you know, the ones in immidiate danger, like the Saudis' Kuwaitis, Central Asians, South Koreans, or Japanese so NOT EAGER to attack these EVIL regimes at their borders?

Maybe because they're afraid? Maybe because these states are more of a danger to us than to their neighbors?

Because they understand that right does not come from violence- It seems that BUsh has become a maoist just like Sharon- Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

So are you saying here that non-violence is the solution to meglomaniacal dictators in the proccess of acquiring nuclear weapons?

[Roland]

Re: Re: Well, what will be done?

Originally posted by Natan

We'll use Turkey, a NATO member, and then use air strikes to help the Kurds and Shi'ites to overthrow Saddam.

ROTFLMAO!