Well, that comes down to how you view the word evil. But you have to admit that it is not an objective word. It's an emotional, subjective word, and highly inflammatory. Yes the USSR was brutal and oppressive. Stalin arguably surpassed Hitler in his brutality. But in a political debate, "evil" is not a helpful word, unless it's simply being used for hype. In this case, especially given the fact that it's been used before, I think we can look to the results of using the word to determine its intended meaning.
With all due respect, BK, I couldn't count all the articles I saw in European papers or reports on the BBC I remember reading or hearing about where they were absolutely laughing at us over the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but not because of that quote or Clinton's infidelity. They were laughing because they couldn't believe were were so Puritanical as to go after the President over an affair. There are countries in Europe where the leaders have long-running affairs with mistresses (or misters) that are considered normal. Leaders of Scandanavian countries have been regular (both men and women) visitors to their respective red light districts. Europe (and Asia and Australia) are far more open with respect to matters of sexuality and scandal than we are. Maybe some of our Australian friends could chime in on how the scandal was reported there. The only thing that was mocked overseas during that scandal was how silly we were for pursing it in the first place.
O, is that right? What about the WW2 German empire? Was that empire not evil? ...Let me tell you friend,..evil exists in this world. Where people (government) does wicked "experiments" on children....that is evil. Where a regime sews infants' backs together to see what happens...that's evil...I could go on and on...Of course, the EVIL of the antichrist's (Hitler) regime is well documented...Maybe, maybe no that it couldn't happen now, but I digress, evil is all-around us in this world...was the architects of 9/11 not evil? ...Guess what? There are some nations (empires) that were happy it happenned, happy that some 3000 innocent people lost their lives. What IF,...what IF it was your momma, your father, your sister, your brother,...your child? Can you imagine the composition of the physical existance of you loved ones being disintegrated in an instant? Can you imagine the purge of soft tissue being shredded to a multitude of pieces? I dare say empires such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea could care less or even jolly this occurred...Is that NOT EVIL?!?!
I find it hilarious that anyone would think Bush came up with and decided to use "Axis of Evil" on his own, on a whim. Don't you watch the West Wing? Do you have any idea what goes into constructing a Presidential speech? How many people do you think went over and analyzed that thing before he said it? Do you think Bush just said "hey, this speech looks good, but I think these three words should go here instead"?
You forgot astute! Seriously, what has any European nation done on the world stage, for the world since WWII? Tell me about their greatness. This should be interesting. Please don't ply me with some performance artist, philosopher or crap like that. I mean something real. BTW, what are you really saying when you say "non-narrow minded?" Jeff is, unwittingly, helping me out here with his post above.... Who cares what the amoral European cultural elite think about our values. At least we have some!
Grizzled: Did you just forget about that little conversation we had the other night about "You guys were #3 on the list of intended recipients in terms of importance"? Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea do have evil governments, and they do constitute an axis, in terms of weapons proliferation and terrorism efforts. The statement was actually true. Why are you guys always trying to smooth everything over and look the other way? Call a dog a dog for once. I suspect you won't see the light until Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower are knocked over. And they are on the bad guys' list, I guarantee it. No, that is not what he's saying. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's never said that. The closest anyone in the administration has come to that is "We would much prefer to act with our allies and work within a multilateral framework, but if we must we are prepared to act unilaterally"... We have *not* told you guys to piss off. You are telling us to piss off - and that will be a huge mistake for you in the long run. If all you read is The Observer, then all you're going to get is "Bush told us all to f* off". Why don't you actually try to get the whole story and actually understand why he said it, instead of just blindly thinking that the US is being run by a whacko cowboy now? I've noticed you repeatedly bring up project management principles. Has it ever occurred to you that business principles may not transfer over to the international arena, especially when dealing with fanatics with WMD? Something to consider: you might have to shift the gears in your head to see the big picture here. PR is an important aspect in every war, but what actually happens on the field is far more important. You want to fight this war in the media and ignore the battlefield. Not gonna happen. No, police, intelligence, and military forces are what's going to hunt down the te4rrorist forces out there right now. Public support and good PR are irrelevant to that. If your nations want to call off the hunt for them in protest of our likely unilateral actions, then... Well, I could not possibly think of a bigger mistake for you guys to make. Not only will you alienate the US (maybe permanently), destroy any semblence of good ties, and very likely cause severe economic disruptions in your own countries, but you will still have a bunch of assholes living in your nations who are primed to start blowing things up. The sooner you realize that you're threatened as well, and that you're much better off siding with us, the better.
And you know what? That is a big part of the problem. I agree that evil exists, and in the right discussion it's fine to discuss whether Hitler was evil, or controlled by an evil spirit or whatever. But that is a very loaded and subjective discussion. If you believe that evil exists, what do you think of somebody indiscriminately labelling people evil? To bandy that word about in this context is a serious transgression from a Christian standpoint, IMO Your last statements show why the hype generated by this word is so dangerous. To the best of our knowledge, none of those countries had anything to do with 9/11, yet you are condemning them as evil. In any event, the vast majority of people in those nations had nothing to do with it, and here you are, labelling them evil. thefreak: Who are you talking to?
Grizzled: Let me start by saying that Bush has repeatedly said that our arguments are not with the people of those countries - our problem is with the governments. Your news sources probably aren't telling you that he's said that, even though he repeats it nearly every time he's asked about the subject... Indiscriminately labelling people evil? Are you trying to tell me that there's no basis for calling these governments evil? Good Lord, they are the three most repressive governments on the planet, all are terrorism exporters, all are developing WMD, all are hostile towards their neighbors, all have an aggressive track record in general, all are despotic regimes that violently crack down on any and all peaceful/democratic movements in their own countries... What in the F* would it take to convince you that a government actually was evil???
There is far more to having "values" than your sexual escapades. Ken Lay just happens to be one of the more conservative supporters of the Republican Party. I think his "values" are on full display right now.
I'm talking about the phrase "axis of evil" and the message that was supposed to send, and the impact that it was supposed to have. Yes, we talked about it being a strong message, but I'm beginning to think it was more than that. We talked about it inadvertently sending the wrong message to the allies, but I having second thoughts about that. I'm reading about a member of the Korean governing party calling Bush "the incarnation of evil," and yet Bush still is not addressing the public relations disaster this is becoming and I'm thinking, "maybe this is what he wants?" How else do you explain it? There are other phrases he could have used to be tough an not cause this outcry. He knew this would have this effect because it happened before. Or so I'm starting to think. The "soft issues" side of project management theory is really just about human dynamics, group dynamics, human nature, etc. It is used business, non-profits and anywhere you have a group of people trying to do something. It is very much about considering the bigger picture, and not just focusing on the material outcome of the project. PR and related considerations will play a large part in sustaining any military victory. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that PR could replace military involvement. But it needs to be considered as just as important, because it will have just as much impact, or more, on the long term success of the mission. And you don't think there are people out there would help police or hide terrorists depending on how they view you and the cause? re: evil I would not use the word in this context at all. At the very least it is understood by different people around the world very differently and is often very inflammatory. You are placing a specific American definition on it, probably one more specifics a certain group of Americans, but the message is going out to mostly non-Americans. You repeat that it was only meant for the leaders, but is this how it's being understood? No. On some level it doesn't matter what he says it means. What matters is how it's being understood. And if he can't tell the difference he has no business in politics.
Lol. I don't even know what that means. Anyway, you missed the point, which had nothing to do with trying to promote European greatness over US. I just don't understand the benefit of a "screw them, we're better" attitude because we can do things internationally a country the size of one of our medium-sized states cannot (since you are speaking of "real" international action). It just seems pointlessly negative. It is not a contest. Every country and its citizens can learn something from every other country and its citizens (and not just the "cultural elite" - whatever that means - you mentioned). Anyway, just my opinion, nothing more.
Grizzled: So... You're opting for a conspiracy theory instead of taking it at face value? If there's anything you ought to know about bush, it's that he can be taken at face value. He says he's going to do something, and then he does it. He is not as duplicitous as you think. I don't even think he has the cunning/capacity to do that. What should he have said? The term "Axis of Evil" was accurate. Would you prefer he had lied? What about the "hard issues" side? You fail to understand here that the material outcome of the "project" is by far the most important factor. We cannot afford to lose this one. The world cannot afford it. The greater threat here is having WMD used in Western cities, or one of these regimes (Iran/Iraq) taking over the ME and strangling the rest of the world's oil supplies. Not making everyone happy with diplomatic overtures. No, it is not just as important. You must win on the battlefield before you win on TV. Everyone likes to bandy about the example of Vietnam, but they fail to recognize that had we invaded the North, and taken far fewer casualties in the long run, US sentiment and support for the war would not have been nearly as negative as it was. We would have won that one had we invaded and won on the battlefield; instead we refused to invade and effectively gave the field to the enemy, and public support disappeared when they realized that we were utilizing an unwinnable strategy. The Afghanistan example is far more important, especially considering that it was the first battle in this war: We won on the field of battle, and that translated into immense public support for the war effort. Had we not won, public support would not be nearly as high as it is now. You win the field first, then you play the PR game. Ask yourself "where"? Yes, there are people in Yemen and Saudi Arabia who would harbor terrorists, but A) there's nothing we can do about them, and B) the terrorists are irrelevant since they have no access to US targets there. People in Europe or America are not going to hide the terrorist next door even if they are pissed at the US. Totally different atmosphere and context. They will call the cops if they suspect something. This is largely a function of intelligence, anyway. If they are in a Western country, they will either not strike, or they will eventually be found (very often by a neighbor, too). If they are in a country that is sympathetic to their cause, then they can hide - byt they can't do anything. In order for them to be a threat, they need to be in a Western country - close to their targets. And if they are in a Western country, they will not be harbored by the populace. Would you let Achmed next door just go about his bomb-making business, despite your current anger at the US? I don't think so. re: "evil" What word is more universal than "evil"? everyone understands what it means: really, really bad. The problem here is that many do not see these regimes as "really, really bad" - "evil". You guys need to educate yourselves on that. These regimes are without a doubt "really, really bad" regimes. Once you realize that, the rest is easy.
Everyone stop and think about it a moment. Maybe Bush was trying to get EVERYONE to think about N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran and their pursuit of WMD. Perhaps in the coalition he has been getting a lot of push back from other countries saying lets take this slowly, so what does he do? He puts it out there on the front pages for ALL the world to see. Yes it is a bold move, but it has ramifications. I think he is just trying to get some of our allies to get off their collective A$$es and join the fight. Wait a minute, this just in, France surrendered...AGAIN !!!! DaDakota PS One last point, the entire European continent could not even agree on the Euro...I still see British pounds are in vogue.
DaDakota, at least give people the whole picture! France only surrendered when the (British) Royal Marines (mistakenly) landed in Spain this week!
A good business principle is to focus your audience/working group on a goal in a clear and concise manner, no? Moving from 'we should take action against any countries doing X' to 'Iraq, N Korea, and Iran are evil' clearly delineates WHO we should be focusing on, and why would should focus on them. As for the Reaganesque use of 'evil'...I found this article interesting... Echoes of leadership against a global threat: Like George W.Bush, Ronald Reagan was condemned for using the word 'evil'. But his rhetoric helped to end the cold war Financial Times; Feb 20, 2002 By AMITY SHLAES A president uses the adjective "evil" in a speech to describe an enemy. US allies attack him for being unilateralist and dangerously retrograde. Diplomats cite the speech as evidence of a widening rift between the US on the one hand and Europe on the other. Colin Powell is concerned. The administration qualifies itself, slightly. The above lines could describe President George W. Bush's recent "axis of evil" speech. But they do not. They in fact represent reactions to a triad of speeches delivered by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s: his remarks at Westminster in 1982, in which he consigned Marxism-Leninism to the "ash heap of history"; the 1983 "evil empire" speech in Orlando; and his 1987 Berlin address, in which he undiplomatically ordered Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this Wall". The similarity between the 2002 reaction to Mr Bush's "axis of evil" and Mr Reagan's 1980s rhetoric has been noted. But the parallel is worth looking at more closely, especially by those who are now positing that US unilateralism endangers the transatlantic alliance. For what the history of the Reagan speeches and their consequences show is that forthright US leadership in the face of a global threat can yield positive political change. And the by-product of that change can even be a stronger friendship between America and Europe. Consider Ronald Reagan's last big inflammatory speech, his 1987 demand in Berlin that Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this Wall". Today, this speech is generally regarded as a small and obvious link in a chain of inevitability that culminated in the end of Europe's division and the superpower arms race. That, though, was not how it played at the time. Many viewed the speech as a threat to peace and an obstacle to the orderly progress of history. In the days before Mr Reagan mounted the dais in Berlin, recalls Peter Robinson, the author of the famous "Wall" line, both the US State Department and White House staffers tried to block the phrase. John Kornblum, the senior US diplomat in Berlin at the time, was concerned that it would damage the work of detentebetween the two Germanies, just as diplomats this week are saying that Mr Bush's speech is hurting Korean-Korean relations. Colin Powell, then national security adviser, personally took Mr Robinson to task. More resistance - just as after Mr Bush's State of the Union address - followed the Berlin speech. Moscow, via Pravda, attacked Mr Reagan, in much the way that the Arab press has slammed Mr Bush for the "axis of evil". As today, the speech was said to have increased the risk of nuclear war. A correspondent from The Guardian reported that crucial talks on shorter-range missiles - so vital to Europe's security - would slow down, because "the Soviet authorities have been angered" by the West Berlin appeal. The western press noted 25,000 protesters in West Berlin against Mr Reagan; a small group of supporters on the eastern side of the Wall got almost no coverage. And just as today, the State Department began emitting a few soothing noises. The view that held that such speeches were trouble neglected to take into account that this speech, like Mr Reagan's earlier remarks, gave eastern Europeans from Poland to Moscow the will to push for greater change. In his memoirs, Natan Sharansky, the former dissident, recalls the inspiration he derived from a 1983 letter Mr Reagan had written on totalitarianism to Mr Sharansky's wife. Mr Gorbachev himself hurried faster towards change because he knew Mr Reagan was serious. And Mr Reagan's frank remarks about the Wall did not, as feared, r****d arms negotiations: by October there was a breakthrough. Nor did the Berlin speech harm diplomatic relations at the moment they mattered most - when the Wall cracked. Indeed, the US, Britain and even France co-operated so well with the two Germanies that unification became a fact less than a year after the Wall had fallen. What about now? Europe's diplomats are taking great pains to argue that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are different from that cold war challenge. But in the emerging US view, the analogy holds. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship that defended itself with nuclear weapons; the rogue three are too - but more unreliable. Containment - to borrow a cold war word - will no longer work. This argument starts to look valid when we consider that containment was, in effect, the policy throughout the 1990s. In spite of clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was pursuing his development of biological and chemical weapons, the US desisted from its efforts to police Iraq, because doing so was too much trouble. In calling regimes preparing weapons of mass destruction "states of concern", the US was seeking a post-cold war version of detente; but such diplomacy obscured the problem, so allowing it to worsen. Which brings us back to the "axis of evil". The phrase has already had an inspiring effect for those who live in the shadow of Middle Eastern regimes; at a recent Council on Foreign Relations meeting, visiting Kuwaitis cited it while making the case for fresh US intervention in Iraq. Complaints of unilateral-ism really reflect the fact that the US is taking action in areas where Europe has been "apathetic, even though it may be concerned about the same problem," says Aram Bakshian, a former Reagan speechwriter. The point here is not to bash Europe. It is that the US now believes that diplomacy alone will not prevent the rogue states from using their dangerous weapons and that it is time to stop them. The seriousness of this project has caught everyone off guard. But success would be of benefit to us all.
There is more to "values" than sexual fidelity. Ken Lay has been proven guilty of nothing and the major witness kind of exonerated him and placed the blame elsewhere. Are you claiming that there is no political/financial corruption in Europe? At least here, most people still care about being faithful and virtuous in their marital commitments. In spite of what you say, I'd bet my house that you do... and I only know you from here. <b>rimbaud</b>: Why is it that you never understand anything I say and (according to you) I never understand anything you say? What planet are you from... Earth by chance?!! I guess my invitation of proof dumbfounded you. Let me put it in basketball terms: The US is unquestionably MVC (Most Valuable Country) of the last century. It is perhaps a unanimous vote-- near-unanimous without a doubt. Do we want to be like European nations or do they want to be like us? Is there any doubt? I know, the US is not perfect. I'm talking in the main. Let's not nit-pick.
Grizzled, those were two very good articles. If I remember you are Canadian, so you can see the errors of bullying overconfidence, being made by the US. I do think your defense of your position needs to be a little stronger, more on line with the two articles. These guys need to be hit over the head, nothing subtle gets through. Think of them as the Staussians in the article. Their position is basically: we have the military power, nothing else matters. You can't stop us from doing what we want, diplomacy is overrated. We will inform you of what we are doing. We could care less about the UN or Europe; you've had your day and are relatively useless in supporting our agenda.which is all that matters t us. So long, losers. As the articles are showing, the whole of Europe resents this and will take steps to try to prevent this. It might even wind up with the Russians becoming part of Western Europe. This state of affairs will probably continue until the conservatives ruin the economy by repeating the cycle of the 1960's and the Vietnam War. Divert excessive R and D and skilled crafstmen to defense industries , therebye hurting the civilian economy. . Refuse to raise taxes to pay for the big defense buildup, leading to deficits and stagflation. The next time the economy actually takes a big nose dive we are in trouble. At that point the consumer economies of Europe and perhaps Asia may well will be larger than the US and will have the great advantage of not being saddled with bloated defense budgets and deficits. Fortunately, though the Europeans will grow to almost hate us if we continue like this, I don't think we will actually have a cold war with the Europeans unless the continual US military bullying and unconcern about global warming and the environment leads to terrible disasters.
