Bush's "Axis of Evil": Help me understand.

[Arschloch]

First of all, no, I really am not starting this thread to start a flame war. I personally do not support Bush in most things he does. However, I always try to at least understand why he's doing or saying something. I'd appreciate it if someone could answer a couple of questions so that I can at least understand his reasoning a little more.

1) From everything I've heard, Iran has made some decent strides to reforming since Khatami took over about five years ago. Sure, they're no friend of the United States, but it seems that things are much better now than they were, say, 10 or 20 years ago. Obviously there are still some hardliners in the Iranian government that will always hate the United States. But from what I've heard, the government really has been making some pro-Democratic reforms, and Khatami has had something to do with that. Furthermore, it also seems to me that Iran has done even more positive work since 11 September, in terms of collaborating with the United States (and nearly everyone else) against Afghanistan. Assuming this is the case, was it really the best idea for Bush to single them out as part of the "Axis of Evil"? I'm sure that there are terrorist cells in Iran. But (with the exception of the hardliners) Iran also seems to be going in a direction that is more pro-democratic. I guess I'm afraid that by singling out Iran, Bush might drive some of the pro-democratic people (and maybe even Khatami) over to the "I hate America" side.

2) South Korea is a capitalist democracy, and an ally of the United States. However, South Korea has also been trying to reconcile differences with North Korea for quite some time now. By singling out North Korea, didn't Bush realize that he might set back some of these reconciliation talks? Obviously, South Korea does not want to upset the United States. But at the same time, they are still interested in working things out with North Korea. Furthermore, North Korea might now distrust South Korea as long as SK remains an ally of the United States. In my eyes, it's almost as if Bush does not care about how he (and the United States, by extension) affects the foreign relations between two other countries.

Again, this is just how I see things right now. I'm hoping someone can explain Bush's rationale a little more to me so I can see his side. Even if I don't agree with him in the end, I'd at least like to understand his thinking. I am looking for a calm discussion, not people insulting me for what I think. I think I'm half-hoping someone will change my mind.

 

[Texmaster]

<< First of all, no, I really am not starting this thread to start a flame war. I personally do not support Bush in most things he does. >>



lol what a shocker. But come on, its not like we didn't know this looking at the thread title



<< However, I always try to at least understand why he's doing or saying something. I'd appreciate it if someone could answer a couple of questions so that I can at least understand his reasoning a little more. >>



Ok, lets have em.



<< 1) From everything I've heard, Iran has made some decent strides to reforming since Khatami took over about five years ago. Sure, they're no friend of the United States, but it seems that things are much better now than they were, say, 10 or 20 years ago. Obviously there are still some hardliners in the Iranian government that will always hate the United States. But from what I've heard, the government really has been making some pro-Democratic reforms, and Khatami has had something to do with that. Furthermore, it also seems to me that Iran has done even more positive work since 11 September, in terms of collaborating with the United States (and nearly everyone else) against Afghanistan. Assuming this is the case, was it really the best idea for Bush to single them out as part of the "Axis of Evil"? I'm sure that there are terrorist cells in Iran. But (with the exception of the hardliners) Iran also seems to be going in a direction that is more pro-democratic. I guess I'm afraid that by singling out Iran, Bush might drive some of the pro-democratic people (and maybe even Khatami) over to the "I hate America" side. >>



50 Tons of Iranian weaponry to Palestine...and thats just the one we caught.
Iran is still a hotbed for terrorists and they have shown no signs to improve that.


The result of Bush's statement has been th arrrest of hundreds of terrorists in its own borders. I'd say it worked.



<< 2) South Korea is a capitalist democracy, and an ally of the United States. However, South Korea has also been trying to reconcile differences with North Korea for quite some time now. By singling out North Korea, didn't Bush realize that he might set back some of these reconciliation talks? Obviously, South Korea does not want to upset the United States. But at the same time, they are still interested in working things out with North Korea. Furthermore, North Korea might now distrust South Korea as long as SK remains an ally of the United States. In my eyes, it's almost as if Bush does not care about how he (and the United States, by extension) affects the foreign relations between two other countries. >>



This is a politics game. North Korea has never recieved true public comdemnation for their continuance to starve their people while trying to develop missle and nuclear warhead capability.

I think what many people in the west foreget is that these countries leaders respond to force and power far more than diplomacy



<< Again, this is just how I see things right now. I'm hoping someone can explain Bush's rationale a little more to me so I can see his side. Even if I don't agree with him in the end, I'd at least like to understand his thinking. I am looking for a calm discussion, not people insulting me for what I think. I think I'm half-hoping someone will change my mind. >>




Thats as calm as your going to get from me.

 

[Arschloch]

<<

<< First of all, no, I really am not starting this thread to start a flame war. I personally do not support Bush in most things he does. >>


lol what a shocker. But come on, its not like we didn't know this looking at the thread title
<snip>
Thats as calm as your going to get from me. >>



Texmaster, could you please explain why you feel the need to make antagonistic remarks? I was trying to make it clear that although with my current understanding I didn't support what Bush said, I also understand that I don't understand the issue completely. That's why I'm here asking the question -- I'm coming in with an open mind and wanting to learn.

I'm not in here saying, "Bush is a moron." But for whatever reason, you feel like you have to personally defend everything he says and does to the extent that if anyone disagrees with Bush or doesn't understand something he does, you feel like you have to make either an insulting or antagonistic remark.

That said, I appreciated the relatively calmer demeanor of your post, relative to most of your posts. I just wish you could enter a political discussion thinking more like "I need to explain something to someone so they can understand better" than "This guy is a moron for not understanding Bush!"

 

[GasX]

Solely regarding North Korea...

This is a country that is almost Orwellian in its totalitarian subjugation of the people. Without a real imminent threat to its national security, the country is starving its people to pay for a nuclear weapons program. While South Korea may (rightly) want to ease relations and eventually unify, it still has to deal with a country ready to cross the DMZ if they think the U.S.'s resolve has weakened.

 

[Tauren]

Regardless of any Democratic Policies they may be instituting, they are still supporting terrorism by ignoring it and allowing terrorists to thrive within their borders.

Regardless of whether or not our allies are attempting reconcilliation with another country, if that country still poses a threat to the world atlarge, it is a target. Using your arguement, shouldn't South Korea, as our ally, not be attempting reconcilliation with a terrorist country?

 

[tcsenter]

This is a rather funny chronology:

Daschle takes issue with Bush's 'axis of evil'

Gore sides with Bush on 'axis of evil' comment...says call evil what it is.

Oops, ok, maybe it wasn't so bad...Daschle takes back criticism of Bush's 'axis of evil'

Notice that NOBODY but the ignorant is attempting to claim that Iran has "come a long way" or "made a lot of progress". So they have ratcheted down their "Great Satan" rhetoric a few notches in the last decade. Just because I might get tired of burning crosses on your lawn doesn't mean I've 'come a long way' from my wish to see you die a horrible death.

And let's refer to Bush's ACTUAL words:

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens."

Nothing wrong there, its 100% accurate.

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."

Nothing wrong there, its 100% accurate.

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

Nothing wrong there, its 100% accurate.

 

[Arschloch]

<< Regardless of any Democratic Policies they may be instituting, they are still supporting terrorism by ignoring it and allowing terrorists to thrive within their borders. >>



I can understand that.

I guess that my question is this: in the end, is it better to try to "force" the issue? I'm sure it's having a positive effect right now. But at the same time, it might be causing more people to dislike America, and in the future, the American-haters might have the power because of something like this.

OF course, that's all speculation at this point.

 

[Arschloch]

<< And let's refer to Bush's ACTUAL words:

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens."

Nothing wrong there, its 100% accurate.

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."

Nothing wrong there, its 100% accurate.

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

Nothing wrong there, its 100% accurate. >>


I don't know who could possibly defend Iraq in this situation.

But regarding the other two, you are absolutely right. Everything Bush said was 100% true. But just by talking about them, he singled them out, and I'm sure they perceive that as a diplomatic slap in the face. Whether or not that was Bush's intentions, just the fact that he talked about those three countries means that those three countries are going to feel "singled out" and resent it.

I think that's my issue. I don't have any problems with what Bush said, per se. It's just the implications that make me worry a little bit.

 

[Tauren]

<< I guess that my question is this: in the end, is it better to try to "force" the issue? I'm sure it's having a positive effect right now. But at the same time, it might be causing more people to dislike America, and in the future, the American-haters might have the power because of something like this.
>>




You're right: "if we ignore it, it will go away."

 

[Arschloch]

<< You're right: "if we ignore it, it will go away." >>


There's a big difference between doing things diplomatically, and doing them in a speech seen live everywhere around the world.

 

[cybergrave]

Dumb Americans like Texasmasters and the majority,

The real terrorists are in SAUDIA ARABIA.
AND i am from there and i support your destruction by whatever means necessary.

HE HE HE I love the US.
They pay me billions and protect my oil rich as$ so that I can ram planes into their towers. It never gets any better than this.

<<<<<<<<< ------- I am a pissed off American >>>>>>-----------

Please fellow Americans, Bush is fooling your entire minds. He is tryng to do what his father left un finished. Clinton fooled ya for 8 years!
W A K E U P !!!!!
Here is a COMMON SENSE question.
Was there a single terrorist of 9/11 from Iran/Iraq or North KOrea?
Nope. 17 of them were from Saudia ARAbia. WHat has been done to Saudia ARAbia? We kiss their as$ all the time.
Suking Saudi Arabian oil will only lead to more terrorism.
We need to kick the royal family out and establish Democracy in Saudi first.

I will bet you with every ounce of my blood, even if you annhilate Iran, Iraq or North Korea out of this world, the terrorists will still be there, and will cause more trouble. Remember, this time its gonna be nuclear and this nuclear bomb will be from PAKISTAN not Iran or Sany yong chinks. (CIA facts). SO NUKE pakaistan bastards.
Has anyone seen an Iraqi terrorist? NEither has Iraq.


Dumb people lead to 911. I think people like Texasmaster are responsible for 911 to some exend.

---

GO AWAY!

AnandTech Moderator

 

[Tauren]

<< There's a big difference between doing things diplomatically, and doing them in a speech seen live everywhere around the world. >>




From your original post, I thought you were asking why we singled them out, not why he mentioned them in a speech. I believe he was a total ass from mentioning any country in that speech.

 

[Arschloch]

<<

<< There's a big difference between doing things diplomatically, and doing them in a speech seen live everywhere around the world. >>




From your original post, I thought you were asking why we singled them out, not why he mentioned them in a speech. I believe he was a total ass from mentioning any country in that speech. >>


Oh. I guess I should have been clear.

I understand why he chose those countries. I am less clear why he decided to mention them in the speech. I guess that the way I view it, he can go after those countries, and that's fine with me. But by mentioning them in the speech, I think it also makes it a lot easier for a lot of people to stop supporting the United States -- whether it's reformists in Iran, or American allies in Europe. And I think that while going after North Korea is one thing, by mentioning them in his speech it causes more problems for South Korea than if he'd try to do things more diplomatically.

Anyway, thank you for your responses.

 

[GasX]

<< We need to kick the royal family out and establish Democracy in Saudi first. >>

Wow- you are a freaking genius. IWhy haven't we thought of that brilliant solution. The current Saudi Regime as effed up as it is is the only thing keeping Saudi Arabia from turning into a 70's Iran. It's not like we don't want democracy, but THEY don't want democracy. So good effing luck making your idea work...




<< Dumb people lead to 911. I think people like Texasmaster are responsible for 911 to some exend. >>

I sometimes agree with Texmaster and sometimes not. In this case I have to go on his side. Religious fantatics lead to 9/11 you stupid effing tool! Do we have secret government agents in the Middle East raising little suicide bombers? NO! That is a product of the backwards reactionary religous fanatics who have too much power in the middle east.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster, could you please explain why you feel the need to make antagonistic remarks? >>



Why? LOL Because I don't agree with you. Hows that for starters?



<< I was trying to make it clear that although with my current understanding I didn't support what Bush said, I also understand that I don't understand the issue completely. That's why I'm here asking the question -- I'm coming in with an open mind and wanting to learn. >>



An open mind?

I personally do not support Bush in most things he does

How open is that statement?

So far, you have concentrated half of your post to trying to make me wrong. Try dealing witht he subject material you asked for.



<< I'm not in here saying, "Bush is a moron." But for whatever reason, you feel like you have to personally defend everything he says and does to the extent that if anyone disagrees with Bush or doesn't understand something he does, you feel like you have to make either an insulting or antagonistic remark. >>



I'm sorry more than half your post. Get off your high horse and deal with the issue. If you are that thin skinned, don't bring up a political issue.



<< That said, I appreciated the relatively calmer demeanor of your post, relative to most of your posts. I just wish you could enter a political discussion thinking more like "I need to explain something to someone so they can understand better" than "This guy is a moron for not understanding Bush!" >>



#1 I never called you a moron. Learn to read more carefully
#2 You haven't ONCE delt with the material I presented which was the overwhelmingly majority of my post.


Crying about a few sentences makes you look very weak. You brought up a poltiical hot spot of a topic where you obviously already have a bias agsint bush by your own admission and then complain about antagonistic comments? Are you kidding?

You complain about my comments in my postings offending you and not dealing with the subject yet you concentrate 90% of yuor reply to me based on that very criteria, the complete reversal of my post.

The hypocracy you are demonstrating is sad but amusing.

 

[Arschloch]

<< <snip>
An open mind?

I personally do not support Bush in most things he does

How open is that statement?
>>


You read too much into my statement.

1) I personally do not support Bush in most things he does.
2) However, I'm asking about THIS topic because from what I -do- know, I don't like what he did. However, I want people like you, Texmaster, to explain Bush's logic to me so I can understand his purpose better. I don't care whether I change my mind or not. I'm just asking for someone to explain.



<< So far, you have concentrated half of your post to trying to make me wrong. Try dealing witht he subject material you asked for. >>


I didn't respond to the meaty part of your post because I had no points to debate with it. You gave a couple of responses to what I asked, and I was fine with that.

Again, you missed my point completely. I wasn't here to start a flame war. I was asking someone to explain why Bush did what he did. Apparently you assumed that I was here to debate what he had done. That was NOT my purpose at all.

 

[Texmaster]

<< You read too much into my statement. >>



Only what you put in it.



<< 1) I personally do not support Bush in most things he does.
2) However, I'm asking about THIS topic because from what I -do- know, I don't like what he did. However, I want people like you, Texmaster, to explain Bush's logic to me so I can understand his purpose better. I don't care whether I change my mind or not. I'm just asking for someone to explain. >>



You already lean towards not agreeing with Bush so its perfectly logicval to think you are going to have a bias about this subject.




<< I didn't respond to the meaty part of your post because I had no points to debate with it. You gave a couple of responses to what I asked, and I was fine with that. >>



Good then there is nothing else to say. You got your information.



<< Again, you missed my point completely. I wasn't here to start a flame war. I was asking someone to explain why Bush did what he did. Apparently you assumed that I was here to debate what he had done. That was NOT my purpose at all. >>



No I assumed you had a bias and you did. The points you asked for were given. Leave it at that and move on.

 

[Pentbomb]

<< was it really the best idea for Bush to single [Iran] out as part of the "Axis of Evil"? >>


As mentioned in a previous thred, Bush decided to take Cheney's and Rumsfeld's unilateralist route over Powell's coalition strategy. Why?

At least some Iranian elements had clearly aided fleeing al Qaeda members. Rumsfeld, Cheney and their allies made the argument that if holding Iran in some vague coalition meant that the United States had to tolerate their protection of forces that might shortly be killing Americans at home, then it just wasn't worth the price. Moreover, if other allies could not understand that the protection of al Qaeda automatically places a nation outside the pale of civilization, then those allies weren't worth the price either.

Whether or not this was the correct decision, everybody in Washington was stunned by the degree of criticism it received from the Europeans and many others in the Middle East. But the card has been dealt, and so it shall remain. It all comes down to this: Bush feels that singling out Iran in his Axis of Evil was more beneficial than including them in an already shaky coalition.

Pentbomb