AXIS of Evil.

Re: AXIS of Evil.

Was it the truth?

More like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, it was and remains the truth.

Re: AXIS of Evil.


Was it necessary. Was it diplomatically helpful or harmful?

So, you feel that the countries in question did not pursue relatively evil policies prior to Bush's statement, right?

Re: AXIS of Evil.


Should Bush have called them ambassadors of goodwill perhaps?

Re: AXIS of Evil.

You may prefer leaders who are too tactful to identify great evil on the world stage, but some of us do not.

Brandon, McG

Try for a change to answer the question instead of jumping to the defense of your hero.

Was it necessary. Was it diplomatically helpful or harmful?

No, I feel that the countries in question could have been encouraged to develop more enlightened policies through inclusion in the world community and diplomacy rather than through rhetorical posturing and saber rattling. The failure of the latter course is self-evident.

Oh, you mean the way you answered my question, "Was it the truth?" Like that? Actually, I did answer you when I said:

"You may prefer leaders who are too tactful to identify great evil on the world stage, but some of us do not. "

Still no answer. As expected you are Brandonizing.

Too soon to say. Currently, I think it brought out in the open, exactly what was going on the those nations and has created serious debate in the US as well as in the UN.

Was the Axis of Evil portion of the President's speech necessary?

No, it wasn't necessary ... but it was useful.

All three of the countries listed were brutal dictatorships long known for oppressing their own people, and threatening their regional neighbors. None of the three had shown the least bit of willingness to engage in honest negotiations or diplomacy. Both the DPRK and Iran were already working feverishly toward building their own nuclear warheads, and Iraq was coyly insinuating that they possessed, or would soon have, weapons of mass terror. Iraq and Iran had long supported terrorism, while the DPRK has continually conducted special operations against ROK since the 1950's. Iraq and Iran encouraged attacks on Israel and applauded terrorist attacks on the U.S. As pointed out above, identifying these three countries as an "Axis of Evil" was well supported by the facts.

Declaring the three an "Axis of Evil" in an important national speech clearly signaled a change from the soft-soap diplomacy of past administrations (both Republican and Democrat), that had failed for over 50 years in the case of the DPRK, and decades in the Iranian and Iraq cases. This was similar to JFK's famous inauguration pledge to promote democracy around the world. Of course, it also was reminiscent of the Democratic sloganeering during WWII. The President was calling for Congressional and public support for a long and expensive struggle against enemies determined to wage unconstrained war against the West. All in all it was, in my opinion, a clear and necessary focus intended to guide Congress and the Nation in the days ahead.

Was it diplomatically useful, or harmful?

It was diplomatically useful, in the same way it was useful domestically as described above.

It wasn't harmful, because none of the three named rogue States had ever shown themselves willing to engage in honest diplomacy. All were openly and directly dangerous to their regional neighbors. The DPRK and Iran were rushing to build nuclear warheads. There was no reason then, nor now to believe that any of the three would become less threatening in the future. Identifying them was in itself a strong diplomatic effort to caution them that in the future the U.S. would take a much stronger position when threatened. They were warned. Saddam ignored his ultimatum believing his friends and partners in France and Russia would prevent the U.S. from taking him down. The DPRK and Iran presumably got that message, but have been emboldened by the difficulties we've faced in Iraq, and the success they've had in mobilizing pacifists in our own camp.

And you answered my question when?

The question you are criticizing me for "not answering" was actually your only response to my prior question, you hypocrite:

Look Brandon, Ash knows how to answer a question.
I know it's a lot to ask, but why don't you learn from his example.

Official statements about other gov'ts are always the truth and never diplomatic strategies? Oh, please!

I have no idea what Bush intended with that speech--probably just the chest-thumping he was doing back then--but he sure has been more careful in talking about No. Korea and Iran now!

This kind of childish personal jibe with no value, and no relation to the topic is the quintessence of what's wrong with A2K. I can only hope that one day we'll have mostly members who behave like adults.

I thought that I did answer his question, but just for the sake of argument, why would I be required to answer the questions of someone who had already, in the very same thread, ignored a question I asked him?

Considering your historical eagerness to "win" debates you seem to suffer from a deficiency in common sense.
A question was posed in the introductory post.
It is up to the participants of that thread to resond to the question, not to make demands of the poster to respond to their questions.
I highly doubt that a debate would function as it should if you avoided the topic and instead demanded that the organizers respond to your questions.
Seems silly to me, but I'm sure you have a perfectly logical explanation for why you're right.

My jibe was not personal, it was similar in kind to many comments that have in the past been made in your direction. The nature of it was related directly to the discussion throughout the thread, namely, to respond to the question.
I merely pointed out Asherman's articulate post and suggested that you could combat the criticisms of your MO by following his example.

In the future I will be mindful of your fragile ego and rethink my responses to you so as to not cause any undue harm.

W has given Iran the upper hand by eliminating Saddam's control of Iraq.