He called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the "axis of evil" which wants to develop weapons of mass destruction to use against the US and around the world. He basically labelled them terrorist states. Did we really need him to say this? Sure, we have our beef with Iraq but by calling out Iran and North Korea like he did....what does he want a war against all 3 of them? Is he laying the groundwork for future altercations with all 3 of them? Does he forget that such words against Iraq and Iran can only be seen by millions of Muslims around the world as aggression? Now, all of these countries are asking for the proof to back up his assertions. Well, we know what Iraq is up to...they just don't want inspectors going into their holy places and mosques . Iran kidnapped several of our people in the early 80s and we have not had formal relations with them since '79. No telling what they are up to behind closed doors....maybe our spy satellites revealed something he knows that we don't. I can't speak for North Korea....I have my hands full following everyone else . If I were on the outside looking in, then I would think the US is the aggressor and is trying to widen the conflict to places where maybe it cannot be justified. Are we really going to attack somewhere in Iran or North Korea and go after the bad people? Isn't that just basically starting a war with countries we weren't at war with before? Whatever happened to trying to open a dialogue and find some common ground....to try and make peace...to do things to contradict the overwhelming negative opinion of the US? I don't see our government doing any of that....they seem selfish. On the one hand, you let us overrun your country and establish a base there, we will be your best friend. On the other, you don't let us in at all...we will do absolutely nothing for you. That may not be completely true but it is certainly popular opinion. Popular opinion is we killed all those Iraqi children through US dictated sanctions, like this was some plan to wipe out a generation of Iraqis so we won't have to deal with them later. We say it was Saddam and his stubornness. Why not just let inspectors back in if there is nothing to hide? Well....duh. I dunno...I just think maybe Bush should be a little more careful about what he says. I think he is laying the groundwork for a very dangerous future....one which will certainly be more dangerous than it is now. We need to try and establish relations with some of these countries if possible. I think one of these days...we are going to cross that line and all hell is going to break loose. We may see this as fighting "terror" but the rest of the world sees this as an attack on their country...if your country is on "the list". The US govt. protects me, scares me, and confuses me all at the same time. I worry about what awaits us. If I were a foreigner watching that speech, then I wouldn't be so welcoming of what he said. Here is how I would understand it as a foreigner(maybe a Muslim). We are the police of the world and we will get you....you evil-doers. If it's not our way, then it's nobody's way. The US is always good....so if your not with us, your against us. You must be evil if we don't have some kind of normalized relations with you. We will deal with you in good time. We want to remain the powerhouse....while you remain the underlings. We will do whatever it takes to protect freedom and security...even if it means killing all of you with our super-funded military, i.e. sacrifice your freedoms and securities for ours. Yes, we need to find the terrorists and route them. But, we don't need to go inflaming popular opinion any more than it already is. We already side with Israel on anything and everything.... regardless of what it is. If I didn't know any better, then I would say Israel is playing us the puppet. They pull are strings any damn time they want to. It is this one-sidedness that is going to cost us in the future as the ME conflict continues....because it doesn't make sense to Arabs and I'm not sure it makes alot of sense from where I'm sitting. If we really want peace, then we need to do more. How can you have a cease fire on one side when Israel is doing targetted assasinations and occupying territories on the other? It just doesn't work. Why can't we get that and apply pressure on both sides...not just on the one? I'm just rambling...kill 'em all....I guess . Surf
You're not rambling, Surf. I have the same concerns. It was interesting how Bush said that we'd get involved whenever there were human rights abuses (or something to that effect). Is this a new policy, because when the Russians where manhandling the Chechnyaians (sp?) or the Mexican government's dealings with the Chiapians, we didn't face off with the Russians or Mexican military respectably? I don't get it.
You know what? If they get their feelings hurt, too damn bad. We dont need to tiptoe around. We are the big dog. If they wanna do something about it? Bring it the **** on. Well smash them down in 2 seconds. You know what I think? I think we should just invade the middle east and take oil whenever we want.
I don't see the issue with North Korea, to be honest. Yes, none of us like repressive dictatorships. But the situation in North Korea is well under control. The North Korean regime exists at the sufferance of China. China has a distinct interest in stability at the moment. Of course, imo, what Bush really means is that we don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. And ultimately, that does just boil down to the US wanting to maintain its monopology on power. It's legitimate for us to have nukes... for Great Britain to have nukes... just not countries that have interests that run counter to ours. Now, I can understand the argument for trying to maintain US supremacy. I don't agree... but hell, I get it. I even understand it when people dispute the classic deterrence argument that nuclear proliferation at the state level would ensure a greater chance of peace, even though Waltz's claim seems logical enough and empirically probable. But an axis of evil? Because we don't happen to like them? Come on. Take it easy, Bush. Unfiication with South Korea will occur, eventually. Why not just wait it out? There hasn't been a series confrontation in several years, there. And it looks like the last situation was resolved fairly well. Of course, there's also a distinct possibility he's mentioning NK so as not to seem as if he's exclusively focusing on Islamic states.
Nah, I was just exaggerating. I do believe that we dont have to tiptoe around... haven- North Korea isnt a very good place. People have to wake up every day and go outside and bow to a picture of the dictator. That pretty much sucks.
So you propose intervening in every country with a dictator that isn't too nice? Time to reinstitute the draft...
North Korea scares me. Control is an illusion. It doesn't bother me that Russia has nukes. It doesn't bother me that a President for the Democratic party has control of nukes. There is a general fear of war among most possessors of nukes. I can't call up a link or a specific item, but for some reason I recall the North Korean leadership being unstable. I could be mistaking them for another southeast asian country we're on bad terms with, but most likely not. People willing to die to kill Americans....I don't want these people to have nukes. The main defense against nuclear war is that both sides die which doesn't work with people willing to die. On US supremacy, I prefer my freedom. With as much US resentment over our mistakes in foreign policy, the ability to destroy any opponent is the only security blanket we have right now. The US isn't perfect, but considering other countries track record, we're doing okay. As far as an evil axis.......I hope he was being sarcastic.
I doubt that Bush's words were made without there being a point. I assume & would be willing to bet, that he has already had, or attempted to have, several conversations with the leaders of these countries. They've more than likely dismissed the conversations & Bush made the comments in his speech to put them on public notice. Just an assumption. I'm not sure how doing this could be beneficial, unless, as was stated earlier in this thread, he's laying the ground work for invading Iraq. Another thought, is that he's showing these 3 countries that the private conversations were serious & not to be dismissed as politcal sabre rattling. Including Korea surprised me as well. I've no choice, but to assume that there's more going on behind the scenes than we know.
His butt is writing some serious checks. However, I think he is right in speaking the truth. Too often, as a country, we have tiptoed around other countries just to try to treat them as equals. Well, look what it got us? I think we may need to step up the pressure on governments that openly house terrorists, turn on the light to see where the cockroaches run. DaDakota PS. By the way, this is exactly the kind of talk that make foreign peoples not like the USA, they think we stick our nose in everywhere. Well, guess what? Someone has to.....
Kim Il-Sung was in power in North Korea for decades. The man was a serious risk-taker. He sponsored high-jackings, assassination attempts, etc... mainly on South Korean leadership. He invaded South Korea. However, even he was never willing to go to the brink with the Americans. Now that China and the US have a much more friendly relationship than in the pre-Nixon era, his son, who's not nearly as much of a risk taker, is not going to do anything. He knows he's completely alone. But Kim isn't willing to die. North Koreans aren't religious maniacs. And they're not particularly genuine Marxists, either. They don't want to die for the "great cause" of history. You know, in the latest crisis, what Korea was willing to settle for? Limited financial aid. That's right, NK was willing to give up its nuclear weapons program for a little cash, alternative energy sources, and better relations with the US. The NK regime is desperate, but it wants to continue its existence. Yeah, it's sort of nice in a way. But in a way, it's also more dangerous. When the US is checked by foreign powers, it's less likely to have a false sense of security. No matter how powerful you are, if you alienate another country enough , eventually deterrence will fail and it will behave like a cornered animal. Hence, some would say that hegemony provides the illusion of security, and is actually more dangerous than mutli-polarity (I probably wouldn't go that far, but do think bi-polarity is safer). The US is weird. It has a long record of excellent treatment of its own citizens, and mediocre treatment of others. Of course, we do treat POW's well (even if they're not official!) so I guess that's a stroke in our favor. Sarcastic? I doubt it. But I do hope it was simple bombast.
None of you appear to have the slightest inkling of what's really going on. You seem to think that we'll be done as soon as Osama is caught. You guys (and the public in general) haven't studied your history, and you're not too "with it" as far as foreign affairs go. So you get all surprised when the Prez brings up the possibility that we may have some problems with three of the world's rogue nations? This amuses me... I'm not going to give a history lesson here, but I will touch on a few issues that none of you apparently know: I won't go into Iraq here. I've done plenty on that in other threads... Iran is the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They make the Taliban look like the Boy Scouts when it comes to state sponsored terrorism. They are behind this fundamentalist push we see. They are the root of most global Islamic terrorism efforts. They have large chemical and biological arsenals, and are frantically working to develop nuclear weapons. They have at least three large terrorist training bases that we know of. Their Revolutionary Guards have been exporting terror throughout the world for two decades. Most recently, they've been caught A) trying to export arms to Arafat in their fight against Israel, B) transporting Al Qaeda escaping from Afghanistan to Gaza and the West Bank (and unconfirmed reports have it that they helped Osama escape, too), and C) trying to break up the interim government in Afghanistan by supporting insurgents in the Herat area. They must either change their ways or become a target. I for one don't think they'll change their ways. N. Korea is the most unstable and deranged government on the planet. They are truly irrational when it comes to foreign affairs (not to mention domestic affairs - they let tens of thousands of their own people starve a couple of years ago - and wouldn't let us feed them when we offered). They refuse to reunite with the South peacefully, and regularly use peace talks as opportunities for blackmail (they're currently blackmailing us into building them a light water nuclear reactor). They continue to attempt to develop nuclear weapons; the CIA believes that they already have 2 or 3. And they will use them. Until they blackmailed us into building them a nuclear reactor (and giving them several billion $ cash) they had a thing for firing missiles over Japan and S. Korea. They are f*ing crazy. I for one am glad that Bush has finally decided to deal with these threats. Just because Clinton (and Bush Sr, and Reagan, for that matter) decided to ignore them doesn't mean that they're not there. Bush isn't kidding when he says that the War on Terror is just beginning...
Not really. I've read (and written) a case study on the issue, and most of their actions are entirely rational. They invaded South Korea after the US defined SK as outside of US protection. We changed our minds... in a way, the war came as a result of a press conference gaff. Their regime is corrupt, repressive, and cruel. But it's not crazy. If they were truly crazy, they probably would no longer exist. Their actions appear irrational to you, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they don't make perfect, calculated sense from a different perspective. Their existence might even run coutner ot US interests- but they're never going to gamble on something that could lead to their obliteration. Union with South Korea is coming. It will just take time. Concerning Iran, I don't really know enough to truly argue with you. I am interested in the Iranian democracy movement, but I'm quick to recognize that this movement has not gained in power the way people hoped when Khatami was originally elected.
Bush sucks . His speech was a total joke. I seriously dont see how people take this guy seriously, look at the way he talks. Calling out those countries was very dumb. But everything this guy says is dumb so Im not surprised he said it.
The "evil axis" mantra from last night was the same as the "Soviet Union is the evil empire" mantra from the Reagan administration. Like all Presidents do, Bush is trying to institute some catch phrases with the American public so they will remember them and remember what he wants them to remember. Like all State of the Union speeches from all Presidents, last night's speech was more theatre than anything else. I am disappointed in that he didn't state exactly HOW he was planning the bring the economy out of recession and I am disgusted with the fact that he didn't have the guts to mention Enron by name. IMHO, Bush is a carbon copy of his father. An absolutely fantastic wartime leader who is absolutely clueless when it comes to domestic issues, especially the economy.
Francis3 -- that ranks among the worst posts i've ever seen in my life. "he's stupid so everything he says sucks." great post, pal! real thought-provoking! everyone else -- I had some of the some reactions you guys had last night...it was clear he was taking a really tough stance with those countries. but he seemed to be affirmed today by daschle, who said that as long as their kept in the loop, Congress agrees with the President's assessment that these countries pose real threats that need to be dealt with. as much as many of you have tried to make this battle a partisan one, it's not shaping up as such among our elected leaders. haven -- i think you stand alone as not seeing N. Korea as a threat. and having said that, i think China may act like they'd be upset if we did something about N. Korea...but secretly, i bet they're scared crapless of a nation that has nukes so close to them. they'd be rooting for us, i bet, whether they said so publicly or not. you also seem to villify (spelling?) the US for not wanting nuclear weapons to be in the hands of countries they don't deem worthy to have them...i don't see what's wrong with that. that's called foreign policy and negotiating from power. i enjoy living under the protections of the world's only superpower, and I'd enjoy keeping it that way...i sleep easier.
I was actually speaking in general about people willing to die for a cause. I don't see US Supremacy being more dangerous. Personal opinion. I don't think we have a sense of security anymore . Other countries want to attack the US and I don't see how letting down our guard or being weaker is beneficial. I don't expect it to end with Osama. I find the word choice of "evil axis" to be wierd. I took it to compare those countries to Italy, Germany, and Japan,to some extent, before WWII. I don't see it.
