"Axis of Evil" - I think Bush was right about this one thing.

[MyUncle]

I don't want to talk about what is the right or wrong response to events and leaders in these countries.

I think Iran and North Korea are going to try and build or continue to build nukes no matter who gets elected to the U.S. Presidency.

I think these regimes are capable of using them in a proactive manner and that is EVIL.

What else can you call it?

[Bluebear]

1. I wonder why Bush did nothing about either for four years then?

[MyUncle]

3. I can not think of anything to do.

Attack? Economic sanctions? Jawbonning? UN resolutions? These countries don't give a shit about any of that.

Any ideas?

[HFishbine]

9. I have one!

How about an evil preemptive nuclear attack?

[0007]

12. Why don't you ask the EVIL dictator of the United States?

[jdj]

60. I think the U.S. is going to try to build new nukes (bunker busters)

and use them in some really evil way.

So why weren't we included in the Axis of Evil?

Why did WE not make the squad?

Are we not pretty enough?

[DrWeird]

37. Which was worse...

Iraq invading Kuwait or the US invading Iraq?

How many countries have Iran and North Korea attacked recently?

Bush calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea the Axis of Evil is a bit like Hitler calling Poland a threat to world peace.

[atreides1]

2. And The US

And what Bush has done is good?

I think that Bush and his neocon allies want to build an Empire to rule over, and I think that they are capable of going to war to do it
and that is also EVIL.

Once again the world will have MAD, and no one will be the first to press that button, so deal with it.

[Xipe Totec]

4. So, Do You Think *'s Preemptive Strike Policy is Also Evil?

Just wondering what your position is regarding preemption.

:think:

[MyUncle]

6. Preemption scares the hell out of me as does Korea with Nukes.

I am looking toward DU for some intelligent dialouge on what I think is the most distressing situation in the world. THIS will not go away when Kerry wins the election.

[Xipe Totec]

16. You Didn't Answer the Question Regarding The Shrub

You seem to have difficulty placing blame for a preemptive policy squarely on George W. Bush.

Do you agree that Bush's preemptive attack policy is evil?

[MyUncle]

33. I will not say the policy is evil, as at some point in time

it might be necessary and appropriate.

[Xipe Totec]

39. Sounds Like You Support North Korea's Right To Preemption Then

Or Iran's for that mater. And what about Pakistan? India? Sure, they are our 'friends' right now, but they have nuclear weapons. What if they decide they don't like us?

And who started this insanity? Bush! Don't you think that was evil on his part?

[SomthingsGotaGive]

20. Why does North Korea scare you?

[MyUncle]

34. We have no idea what is going on there.

All of the reports that do leak out point to a situation that does not look like their leader has much regard for human life. It has been pointed out here that we are backing them into a corner. I agree. It is the possible reaction that scares me.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

40. Bush it seems lacks basic regard for human life.

I recommend you and every American check some International discussion forums and see how the U.S. is being described.

It might change your opinion about the U.S.'s ability to dictate morality and weapons proliferation.

[MyUncle]

48. Good points SomthingsGotaGive

Maybe I should change it to Axis of countries that scare me.

[rman]

64. so, the US part of the axis of EVIL.

and so far the US has been more proactive/preemptive then Iran or N-Korea.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

5. I think they should all have nukes.

Or nobody should have them.

Who says the U.S. should decide who has Nukes.

[MyUncle]

8. I do not believe the USA will preemtively use nukes.

I think Korea could. I think Iran could. That is why I worry.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

17. Please answer my question.

Just saying you think something is pretty weak.

Do you think the Israelis would be treating the Palestinians the way they do if Iran had nukes?

Maybe the U.S. hasn't bombed innocent N.Koreans because they Know they have nukes.

Maybe the U.S. hasn't been tougher with France over Iraq because France has nukes. France had done a lot of dirty dealing with Saddam behind the scenes. Much more than Osama.

[maveric]

36. Korea and Iran are aware of the fact that if they nuke us.

their countries would cease to exist. They would damage the US but not destroy us. Both of those nations might have a bit of evil in their systems, but they arent STUPID!

No one is going to nuke the USA! Not Korea, not China, not Russia, not Iran.

[John BigBootay]

43. "No one is going to nuke the USA?"

Are you sure about that?

My reading about the likes of Bin Laden tell me that he'd use a nuke if he had one.

During the cold war, niether side was inclined to use nukes or even escalate war because the consequences were simply too great. Each side calculated the death toll and decided that the thought of nuclear war was too horrible to contemplate-- therefore the idea of a first strike became unthinkable (unless you could effectively knock out the other side's retaliatory capability.)

After the advent of nuclear submarines and B-52 bombers that were continually deployed at the edges of the Soviet Union (and similar strategies by the USSR), it was pretty much decided that a first strike knock out was impossible. Stalemate-- strategically and morally. Only the likes of a Jack D. Ripper was prepared to start a war. Why? Because we love our planet, our children, our lives perhaps more than we hated or feared the USSR and the same could be said for the Polit Bureau.

Enter AlQaida and Bin Laden. We westerners haven't changed much in how we generally love and respect life-- how we tolerate differences, enjoy freedom, etc. But the enemy we now face have one basic aim: convert or kill.

Our way of life is a direct threat to their ideals. Bin Laden and Wahabists are not only set against US involvement in the ME, but rather are interested in spreading Islam everywhere-- including Europe and America-- and at any cost.

I believe Al Qaida wants a fundamental Islamic world. But unlike our old former enemy, Wahabists are not deterred by death as we are deterred. Bin Laden will use a nuke if he can get one-- even if it means that America responds with a nuke in a Muslim city (not even sure that's a likely retaliation-- which city do you decide to nuke?)

But I believe he WILL trade tit for tat and find comfort in the belief that those who die in the retaliation will give their lives as sacred martyrs and enjoy an eternity in paradise.

I DO believe America is a target, that it is possible for us to be nuked and this is a very real danger. I also believe Bush has absolutely raised the ire of radicalized Islam against the US and his war on terror may in fact bring on an attack sooner than if we had done nothing after 9/11 or Afghanistan.

[OneTwentyoNine]

45. Yeah,but we're not chasing OBL down,we're in Iraq remember??

Bush squandered a year and a half,spent BILLIONS of our tax dollars and killed over 1,000 Americans looking in the WRONG GD COUNTRY.

Thats what pisses me off more than anything else when I pick up our paper each morning and another handful of idiots in Kansas have no choice but to vote for Bush because he's "tough on terrorism and Kerry won't be".

Bullshit....

David

[maveric]

57. I should have said, No sovereign nation would nuke the USA.

Bin Laden and Al Quaida are not a nation.

[HFishbine]

7. Well, there's only one country in the world that has used nukes.

What was that you were saying? Evil?

[sweetheart]

10. Don't you presume much?

Iran has not been invading its neighbors. America has nuclear
weapons AND invades other countries. The moral position to
complain about nukes is mush. I'm quite sure that no matter the
official position, the covert position in all countries where the
US has delcared its intent to colonize, is to invent nukes and
develop pre-counterinsurgency plans, so that if the US does invade,
it will take casualties and suffer until it leaves. They only
respect money, then let them pay.

Lets presume that Iran has nukes. If it uses them, it'll be turned
to glass, so having them is only a defensive safeguard. Until israel
gives up nukes and pakistan, there i simply no moral ground to preach
towards iran. The evil is the ignorance that preaches and councils
colonialism... (neoliberlism)... its a tough drug to kick, but please
try.

[MyUncle]

14. OK sweetheart, this makes some sense.

Stress level going down a bit on Iran. I even think there is hope there for internal peaceful change and I do believe a more secular regime in Iran would be a good thing.

Thoughts on Korea?

[sweetheart]

38. What is the truth about korea.

Korea has had its peninsula divided in to kingdoms for centuries of
its history on and off. The korean people would never attack their
own families with nuclear weapons. Everybody rests safely assured
that the arsenal will never be used, as indeed, beneath it all that
kim il sung has not in him the will to START a nuclear conflict
unprovoked. This is not 1950 anymore, and that border should be
disarming and opening with goodwill extended.

Frankly, I would suggest a huge boquet of flowers and a thousand
songs of peace. I mean metaphorically in international diplomacy
terms. Melt the guys heart with a historic gesture of recognition
and let the 2 koreas embrace turning the entire expenditure on
the standing armed forces there in to economic investment. The army
perpetuates the divide by its mere presence and the refusal to
stand down. A clear policy of zero tolerance can be understood,
in a generous offer to end all wars.

I really believe jesus would want that. A standing down, and a
disarmament of ALL classes of weapons... and a turning of those
massive cutbacks towards balancing budgets, and forming a national
minimum standard for universal healthcare. We must turn our mind
to our own problems, bring the army home from yesterday's wars,
and begin the reconstruction of this city on the hill, or the
ruins will be unbuildable.

Korea, of all countries knows intimately the damage that modern
non-nuclear warfare can do to a nation. It is deterred by life's
lessons. Showing people how to stand down with arms honourably
is the honourable action of a civil military and democratic state.

I'm sorry for sounding preachy, but i really wantta kerry win,
and i'm gonna not shut up until then. He's gotta win. It is
the mantra of the prayer flag.

[robbedvoter]

11. Speak tough and carry a soft stick - he did all the wring things re:

Iran and Korea. Clinton had Korea in some sort of agreement, Powell wanted to continue, but W wasn't going to keep anything Xctlintoon did - so, he f8ed it up, negotiated something new, waved instections requirement Clinton had in place and other "right" things.

[JetCityLiberal]

13. Axis of evil...

b*sh...cheney...asscroft.

President Kerry will be the leader to make us and our world safer.

b*sh has not been right about anything.

JetCityLiberal

[rogerashton]

15. Too bad Bush* just blew off our negotiations with N Korea in 2001.

But I can understand how he might not want to deal with Kim Jung-Il. After all, Kim is a playboy who would never have been considered for a leadership position had his father not been ruler of the country before him, and whose father would not have ruled had he not controlled the secret police -- a lightweight who was expected to be a passive figurehead and who shows little sign of maturity or judgment. Who would want to deal with a national leader like that?

[sweetheart]

41. yes, and in replacing bush

we'll instantly have a chance in january 25 2005 to show a new
face that DID NOT LIE THE PUBLIC TO WAR. The very ending of the bush
term gives the whole world a chance to breathe a sigh of relief.
Oh we must get a leash on that biting dog.

NK understands the bipartisan consensus of the military empire
grab in central asia, and that that is not just bush. A melting
would be a sign that the new president knows how to keep his dog
on leash and all polite-like.

[ikojo]

18. Several nations currently have nuclear capability but

only one has used the Atomic bomb not once but twice....and it's not any of those named by * as being among the axis of evil.

[MyUncle]

19. I am aware of history.

What is your interpretation of the lessons for today?

[manic expression]

21. Let's say...

YOU are Kim Jong Il. You hear that Bush has invaded one of the three countries in the "Axis of Evil". It is apparent that the U.S. may invade the second. Won't you be MORE aggressive with nuclear weapons now that it is obvious that YOU are next? Backing someone into a corner is just going to make things MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse.

[ikojo]

23. My interpretation of the lessons of history

and not too ancient history is this....the nations of the world see that * is absolutely mad with power. He is a bully who, in my opinion, will attack only those countries with a weak military. After 14 years of sanctions he knew that Iraq had no military to speak of and so he attacked it.

I really don't think he'd go after North Korea, because not only may they have nuclear capabilities but China is their neighbor. I don't think China would look too kindly upon the US invading North Korea.

I think the US is bolstering it's Iran nuke talk in order to goad Israel into pre-emptively attacking Iran. Ariel Sharon is crazy enough to do it.

[TransitJohn]

35. Bingo.

I think the US is bolstering it's Iran nuke talk in order to goad Israel into pre-emptively attacking Iran. Ariel Sharon is crazy enough to do it.

Been thinking this for several months.

[ninainsf]

22. Evil is Bush and his foreign policy

The fact that N. Korea and Iran are months away from becoming a nuclear production factory is the fault and negligence of the Bush administration. In fact, I went to a talk last night given by Graham Allison, former Asst. Secy of Defense, and nuclear arms expert, and he said enabling this happen is the single biggest US foreign policy failure of all time, in his mind.

Think about it this way... if you were N. Korea, the US administration labels you "axis of evil". The US goes and invades an "evil" country as retailiation for events they had nothing to do with...well, what would you be doing right now if you were Iran or N.Korea? Especially after the US has demonstrated that occupation is a no-win situation, and that they are currently strapped for military resources. What better time to put together your nuclear production facilities? We would not be in this mess right now without Bush and this Iraq war.

N. Korea and Iran are an area of great concern right now because of how close they are to having the nuclear weapons. The chances of them deploying them on US mainland are slim...the US could easily retaliate. The danger is that they would sell them to terrorists that have no return address. It's likely that terrorists already have nuclear weapons left over from cold war russia...very scary. Bin Laden has a goal of killing 4 million americans...by his calculation, the same number of arabs the US and Israel has killed over the years.

Read the book "Nuclear Terrorism" by Graham Allison.

[Ediacara]

24. Who is actually the biggest threat though?

I'd say it was at least a few countries OFF his list.

Like our best buddy Pakistan.

And Saudi Arabia.

And Israel.

And Christ, I'd say China and Russia are far more of a threat than Iran.

And Mexico is more of a threat than Iraq was....

North Korea..... well..... we almost had something sort of good in 2001, but that's when preschool diplomacy took over, and they were backed into a corner.

[ninainsf]

26. Terrorists with no return address are biggest threat

They will buy nukes from whoever will sell to them...I don't think N. Korea is above that.

[Ediacara]

27. Of course Korea isn't above selling nukes

After all, they bought their technology from our buddies in Pakistan.....

In any case I was referring to states that are more of a threat than those states listed within the axis of evil.

But you're correct, "stateless" terrorists are a very big threat, but like I said, Bush's preschool diplomacy is creating more terrorists and states willing to sell to them, than it is eliminating.

[Mr_Spock]

25. Well, we are weak and unpopular now and they are taking advantage.

They know we can't do anything right now and they are laughing in our face. At least Kerry doesn't have the baggage that the swaggering moron in the WH has.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. Why the heck would either of these countries launch a nuclear attack....

...on the U. S. knowing that the retaliation would wipe them off the face of the earth?

[MyUncle]

29. They would not launch on us, but

Iran on Isreal, N. Korea on South or Japan.

[21winner]

30. Well that's their tuff shit.

We have our own.

[MyUncle]

31. True,

but there a lot of US citizens and soldiers in Korea, Japan and Isreal.

I hope it does not happen, but the uncertainty is nauseating.

[livinginphotographs]

69. That's not a very good foreign policy....

to say "tough shit" to the rest of the world. A war between Israel and Iran involving nukes would be a nightmare for the entire world.

And I don't think N Korea plans to nuke anyone; they're just playing chicken to see what they can get out of us.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. Just playing chicken

Kim Jong-il and bu$h have a symbiotic relationship. Before bu$h came to power, Kim was just a little nobody, but he has been elevated to status of world-class villain by the warmongers/weapon sellers in the bu$h misadministration. In this relationship, Kim gets to have his ego stroked ("They're afraid of ME!") and his two-bit fiefdom gets to play a bit role on the world stage, while the bu$h people get to dangle Kim out in front of South Korea and Japan to sell them more weapons (Japan just recently bought a billion bucks' worth), and dangle him in front of Americans to keep the fear factor ratcheted up.

[Deja Q]

32. Pre-emptive striking? Makes no difference, thanks to *.

:shrug:

Good grief. Of course they're going to build nukes. With *'s pre-emptive DOCTRINE OF EVIL, it's only going to add to fear, hate, and possible retaliation.

But Iran and NK need to know. Should they use nukes, they will be nuked in return. Nor would it take much to fry the planet either.

[Disturbed]

44. N. Korea

Wasn't there a treaty signed when former Pres. Carter went to N.K.?

What did N.K. want from the US?

I may be incorrect but wasn't it a non-agression pact and economic aide, which Clinton promised to forward but that W ignored?

[bobbyboucher]

42. Bunk.

What choice have they been given? If they don't get nukes, they have to bend over for Emperor Chimpassboy. I'd be gettin' 'em too.

If there was, say, a global movement toward nuclear disarmament, then maybe we might reach a consensus, us included. But instead, we are backing them into a corner with threats and sanctions and support toward the people that they consider enemies, the nations they fear. What do you expect? Hell, we are restarting the nuclear arms race by building new nuclear weapons and implementing that ridiculous star wars horseshit.

It has gotten worse because Shitforbrains has made it worse, almost as if on purpose.

[leesa]

46. They have no choice but to build them. We have shown the world

what we do to countries that are defenseless. They MUST do it.
Beyond that, the US and Israel are very belligerent rogue nations as well, in violation of many UN resolutions against them. Why do you condemn Iran and Korea when the US has killed many millions more for no reason (Vietnam and Iran and Afghanistan) and Israel has committed genocide for years. BOTH are armed to the teeth with nukes.

Why are they evil and we are not?

[noiretextatique]

47. proactive like hiroshima and nagasaki? EVIL

is in the eye of the beholder...

[stavka]

49. Yeah, Stalin and Mao were real sweethearts...

Who cares!

Nobody is ever going to start a nuclear war if they are on the weak end - and everybody except the US, France, UK, Russia, and China are VERY MUCH on the weak end.

I'm pretty sure you are an anti-Kerry ticket poster, but if not...sorry

[MyUncle]

50. I do not agree about your assesment of strength and any kind of war.

War is madness. Aggressors many times over have lost wars, it was collective insanity that made them believe they could "win" a war.

I am not sure how you get to "anti-Kerry" through this discussion. This is a situation he will have deal with when he is elected.

[dansolo]

51. You're right, it is evil

But don't forget that the US is currently investigating how to use nuclear weapons in battlefield situations, and the Bush administration pushes for pre-emptive attacks against other countries. By your definition, that makes the US evil as well. Is Iran evil because they choose to follow the Bush Doctrine?

[camero]

52. The real "Axis of Evil"

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld

Yes, they will go on trying to build nukes no matter who is elected.

Two differences though. Kerry will work to get UN backing whereas Bush won't. Kerry won't invade these countries unilaterally as opposed to Bush who will.

[Terran]

53. I see no reason to think Iran would nuke anyone pre-emptively

The leaders of Iran may be repressive theocrats, but they are neither stupid nor crazy. They have a large, populous, prosperous and sophisticated nation to run. They would stand to lose everything they've worked to create in the last 25 years if they did such a thing. In all probability, Iran is trying to develop nukes to deter the US from making it the next Iraq. Period.

Iran may have a repressive government, but it's nothing compared to North Korea. Nothing. Now there is an evil regime. I think you're buying to the American stereotype of Iran left over from the Carter admin days and the hostage crisis.

[nayt]

54. why does any discussion of another country on this board

always just end up with "the US is evil."

the poster is asking how we think kerry will deal with north korea and iran, not whether we like bush or not.

[noiretextatique]

72. the question is: how will they deal with US?

and bush, inc's doctrine of "pre-emptive" war. why wouldn't other countries adopt that arrogant position?

[jokerman93]

55. Think about it though...

The way the cost and availability of technology drops to the street level over time, it's only a matter of years before everyone is able to brandish nukes. That's bad business for us empire builders. We got a short window of opportunity here boys! Ten years tops. Yeeeha! Roll out the product! Bring it on!

World War III is the whole point.

That's what I'm starting to think anyway.

[Ms. Clio]

56. "I think Bush was right"--that's your first mistake right there

And I think he is more than capable of using tactical nuclear weapons in a proactive manner and that is EVIL.

[MyUncle]

61. OK, I admit saying something provocative so my post got read.

"Mistake" acknowledged. I really did want to hear what people had to say about this so I had to come up with a "headline" that got people to pay attention. That said, I am really psyched about the replies in this thread. There was so much good thinking and a minimal of flaming.

Thanks DU!!!

[Xipe Totec]

68. Nice Cover Story

I don't buy it.

[fujiyama]

58. This has nothing

to do with Bush being "right" about anything.

Whether or not his "Axis of Evil" statement had any merit or not, it cannot be denied that it was a simplistic and ignorant statement.

The fact is, no two or three nations can be considered an axis of evil, especially where no real relationship exists between those nations.

Nuclear proliferation is an important issue. There you hav a point. However, why are Iran and NK necessarily a bigger threat than say Pakistan and China having nukes? What of the fact that Pakistan was transferring the nuclear material and know-how to NK in exchange for missile technology? What about the Chinese nuclear relationship with Pakistan for so many years? China has a very bad human rights record...possibly as bad or worse than Iran.

Hell, with the current regime in place here in the US how the US not a threat to global peace and security with nuclear weapons?

I'm not saying that Iran and NK aren't a threat with nuclear weapons. I would certainly prefer them not having them, but nuclear non-proliferation won't be solved the way this administration is doing it - that is by either ignoring the problem itself, or rewarding it. That too, how do statements as idiotically simplistic as "axis of evil" help bring about any solutions?

The US has made such a blunder by going to Iraq - that it has undermined any credibility the US has on weapons proliferation. Also several years ago didn't Bush disregard a UN convention on biological warfare? Small arms, bio warfare...the US ignores it all, attacks a nation because of supposed WMD...and now expects the world community to help on any crisis? No nation in the world will bat an eye when the US speaks of the threat of WMD proliferation - either because they don't believe the US, or they feel the US is such a threat to their own security, that they too need WMD to protect themselves.

Kerry is absolutely right when he speaks of American credibility disssapearing. Even in the rare case when the US makes some movement to do something right (like with the US declaring that genocide is occuring in Sudan), no one cares. Nations will just figure - "oh there goes the imperialists trying to invade another country".

So, no Bush wasn't right about anything. He hasn't handled anything properly and Iran and NK are complex matters which are beyond the scope of this administation's thought process.

[Cleita]

59. He's talking about an "axis".

Words do not roll off the tongue with Bush, so it makes me believe that this rather odd word for our day and time is something he grew up around and was indoctrinated with. AXIS was the coalition of the willing of Nazi Germany. Think about who really is evil.

[Kinkistyle]

62. You think, you think, you think.

DO you have PROOF that Iran, Iraq and North Korea, before Bush exclaimed the famous "Axis of Evil" line had nuclear weapons and were willing to use them?

No.

[ComerPerro]

63. If only he had actually done something about either of them

I mean, if he lables them as the "Axis of Evil" and then plows all of our resources into a costly and failed war based on a bunch of lies, how exactly is he making America safer?

[T Town Jake]

65. I don't...eom.

n/t

[JNelson6563]

66. Yeah, frickin' brilliant

lable entire countries as evil and call one of their leaders a pygmie. We can only aspire to such deft diplomacy.

BTW, the criteria you give that justifies the idiot usurper's blunder is as applicable to the US as those "evil-doers". What does that say about us?

Julie

[Q]

67. You must have missed that SOUTH Korea...

...was caught (by the UN) processing weapons grade platonuim and uranium.

- It seems that every country...friend and foe...wants a nuke since Bush* took office and destabilized the entire world.

[BurtWorm]

70. Right wing.