Axis of evil

[Nic Name]

What was Bush thinking when he used the expression "axis of evil" to link Iran, Iraq and North Korea?

from the dictionary

Axis: An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies.
Axis: The alliance of Germany and Italy in 1936, later including Japan and other nations, that opposed the Allies in World War II.

North Korea says Bush remarks fell just short of declaring war.

Was the President's use of the the word "axis" in the State of the Union address appropriate and wise?

Especially, if these nations have "nukular" weapons, as he says?

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Nic Name
What was Bush thinking (...)

Err. Thinking?


Patriotically yours,
X.

PS: Somebody had to make that cheap joke, and I figured it might as well be me. I like 'nukular' weapons. I like evil axes. Especially since Iran is trying really hard to appeal to the US through a secular Prime Minister and wide-reaching reforms. Nevermind all of that, now, they're evil. Nukularize them!

[kaleidoscopic ziggurat]

Beijing (SatireWire.com) — Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.
Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.

"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."

THE AXIS PANDEMIC

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.

"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

--

and yes, its one of the dumber things he's done.

[Nic Name]

The Evil Tutor's Guide to axes

Of course they SAY it's just short of declaring war. They'll never say, however, that it WAS a declaration of war UNLESS it's actually a declaration of war. Bush could say "We're going to kill all those slimy gooks over in Korea" and they'll say "That was just short of declaring war". Why?

Oh, 'cause the number of American men fit for service is about <b>23</b> times that of the North Koreans that are "fit for service".

And 'cause you don't provoke the world's superpower.

They're just tossing words around. Big fuckin' deal. We're not going to touch North Korea, and they're not going to touch us.

[Nic Name]

"He (Bush) openly revealed his dangerous design to seize North Korea by forces of arms, groundlessly linking it with terrorism," said the Rodong article, which was carried by the North's state-run news agency, KCNA, and monitored in Seoul.

The "option to 'strike' on the lips of the U.S. is not its monopoly," it said. "Our revolutionary armed forces have unlimited striking power and no aggressor against North Korea will go safe no matter where they are on earth."

North Korea is believed to have stockpiled enough plutonium to make one or two atomic bombs and thousands of tons of chemical and biochemical weapons.

The United States keeps 37,000 troops in South Korea as a deterrent against North Korea, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War that ended without a peace treaty. The Koreas share one of the world's most heavily armed borders.

No worries.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Nic Name
What was Bush thinking when he used the expression "axis of evil" to link Iran, Iraq and North Korea?North Korea says Bush remarks fell just short of declaring war.

Was the President's use of the the word "axis" in the State of the Union address appropriate and wise?

Especially, if these nations have "nukular" weapons, as he says?

I believe the reference to WWII was deliberate. As for "fell just short of declaring war", I believe that remark fails to qualify as either a horseshoe or a hand-grenade: close doesn't cut it. And what would N. Korea do about it anyway?

[Nic Name]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

... you don't provoke the world's superpower.

Time out. China would not stand by in a conflict between USA and North Korea.

Don't forget that the Asian perspective on weapons of mass destruction is that there is only one nation in history that has actually used nuclear weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=885

American President threatening Asian nuclear powers is not good foreign policy.

Nic, I know. The fact of the matter, however, is that the war won't happen. China won't fuck around with the US because we help them out too much (by buying all their exported shit). And if they <b>did</b>... well, it'd be a big ugly fucking mess, but I have no doubt who would come out on top.

By the way, the nookyooler ( ) bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives.

[Nic Name]

Sounding tough is not the same as acting smart.

Yeah, and I thought the same thing, until it occurred to me that <b>these countries are doing things that we, as citizens, don't know about</b>. Until you know what's going on in Iran (especially), Iraq and N. Korea, you don't really know whether his words were justified or not.

[Griff]

The bombs saved lives. Keep saying it. Tell it to the civilians at ground zero. Oh, thats right, you can't since they are dead. Truman had other options besides invasion or war crime, after all the Pacific theater was not FDRs main concern in WWII. We could have closed down that effort or negotiated on some other grounds than the unconditional surrender relic of Grant.

As I read it, we mostly fried those human beings to make a point to our Russian "allies" about our capacity and because Truman was a weak new President who was not intellectually or emotionally prepared to say "No, I won't use those devices no matter how much effort went into their construction." Thats why I don't buy the "if we only knew all the facts" argument, Truman was afraid to choose not to use the bombs, I wonder what Bush is afraid of?.

As the generation who fought the World War fades away, just maybe we can start to discuss this stuff without all the bowing and scraping, to false premises and recognize that these were regular flawed people making these decisions and now and then they screwed up. As always, I could be way off target here, but that bombs saved lives business always rubs me the wrong way.

P.S. if I'm sounding a little twed here I apologise in advance.

Using the bombs definitely cost lives immediately. Well over a hundred thousand people died because of them, and that wasn't a decision that Truman took lightly. It had nothing to do about him being a weak new President. It had everything to do with <b>saving lives</b>. I guarantee you that if you could go back and ask him, he would say that making the decision to drop the bombs was the hardest decision he ever made.

Fortunately, those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not die in vain - we managed to avoid a full-scale invasion of Japan, which would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and probably upwards of one million Japanese.

The fact of the matter is, we <b>had</b> to go all the way with that war. There was no half-assing it. Japan, against their better judgement, attacked the United States and, with that one fateful attack, engaged us in a fight that could not be over until one side had very definitively won. We couldn't just fight them for a while and then go "okay, we give up, good games fellas. See you next war." That would should the world that we were weak and it would <b>invite more attacks</b>. That is not a risk that Roosevelt, nor Truman, nor the American public were ready to take. The war had to be decisively won.

Furthermore, the Japanese were warned, very explicitly, that we had a weapon of mass destruction (I forget the exact wording, but I'm sure you could locate it pretty easily) and we were going to use it if they didn't surrender. We <b>gave them a chance</b>, which is more than I can say about the folks who died at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese, in their arrogance and pride, discarded our warnings. They did not heed our very explicit warnings. And only then, when there really was <b>no other choice</b>, was the first bomb dropped. After that, they still refused to surrender and, three days later, the second was detonated. The Japanese emperor and his decision makers chose the fate of those civilians - not Truman.

As sad as it may be, <b>the bombs saved lives</b>.

[Nic Name]

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the United States with first atomic bombs used in warfare.

Documents on the decision to use the atomic bomb have been made available in full-text form. In most cases, the originals are in the U.S. National Archives. Other aspects of the decision are shown from accounts of the participants.

Read the original documents.

While demanding that the axis of evil nations stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction, the administration tables a budget for the largest military buildup in two decades. Oh yeah, remind me again where that anthrax is believed to have been developed.

The world won't be safe until the USA is the only nation with weapons of mass destruction. Only the USA can be trusted not to use these weapons against civilian populations.

Tell that to the Koreans.

UT is getting a call from Mr. Ashcroft, asking for my IP.

[jaguar]

So tempting to weigh in but fuckit.
Ill just point out
a: The US provoked Japan into war deliberately.

Nic, I know. The fact of the matter, however, is that the war won't happen. China won't fuck around with the US because we help them out too much (by buying all their exported shit). And if they did... well, it'd be a big ugly fucking mess, but I have no doubt who would come out on top.

Talk about holllow vistory. The US and China are from an economic perspective - co-dependant, US businesses have sunk well over 20 billion into china, including lots of blue chips that have the ear of the whitehouse. China has nukes, china has a fucking big army, and a patriotic spirit that is unrivialed in a country its size.

Nother Korea is not aboutot invade DC i'm sure but i'm sure they wouldn't mind selling some TB or weapons grade plutonium to piss off the county that called them "evil".