Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (747895)	8/17/2006 3:22:56 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Pro, I suppose the problem I had with Mr. Bush designating the "axis of evil" the way he did is that it created an expectation that we were focused on and going to deal with (or have to deal with) these three nations right now, post haste. And it implied they were alligned. Remember too that Mr. Bush's neocon advisors are not big fans of talking one on one to people we disagree with, so we had no dialogue going with Iran, or North Korea.....and Iraq, well, we all know about that. So since an "axis" implies an alliance or confederation or physical geopolitical region (like the "Shia Crescent"), yeah, I think it was wrong. We weren't talking to those countries but we then told them we considered them the common enemies of the United States. We didn't acknowledge that North Korea and its idiot leadership was different than Iran....nope....Mr. Bush said they were part of an "axis". What Axis? Like in World War II? There were treaties there between Germany, Italy and Japan. No such here, until WE created the concept. So we set the stage by the use of a pithy term, and imply we are going to deal with these bad boys, this "axis of evil". So what do they do? They say: "hey, the U.S. is coming after us so we better batten down and hurry up our ambitions, be they nuclear, missle technology, etc. And they do. What is the Administration's response to these enhanced programs in NK and Iran? We shake our mighty fists and say: "better stop that. We won't talk to you directly, but you better not do that". "Gonna be ramifications". Can't tell you what they will be, but don't do that. So, Iran marches along...makes alliances with Chavez and ties down Russia and China on oil....and we do nothing, nothing, when they call our bluff. North Korea lauches the missle. We say: "Don't do it. There will be ramifications". They launch. What did we do??? They called our bluff. So, the axis of evil (whatever the hell that is!) that didn't exist before the rhetoric of Mr. Bush's now seems to have realized that we are stretched out. Two of them, Iran and NK, are moving just as fast as they can to further their objectives while we are wallowing in the quagmire of the third. Could we have dealt just with Iraq and not pushed up the betting on Iran and NK by a little calmer use of rhetoric? Sure. Could we have been talking to both Iran and NK for the past five years? Sure. Oh, you say, we don't talk to bad guys....right! Could things we worse with them than they are now if we HAD talked to them? I don't think so. So, axis of evil..yeah, I think it was stupid rhetoric. Accomplished nothing and may have hurt our strategic capabilities in dealing with world issues. Well, you asked.