Really just idle speculation on my part, really…
band name! (better of you spell it axe’s though…) 
Dammit. Hit enter too soon… :rolleyes:
Anyways, this is what I wanted in my OP:
I was reading this cnn article about North Korea and their nukes. When they mentioned Bush’s “axis of evil” labelling of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, I remembered everyone criticized the comment. Yet now we know N. K. has their illegal nuclear operations, and we are accusing Iraq of having a nuclear & WMD program…well, what if we have indications of Iran also developing WMD?
This is just idle speculation on my part, but what if we’re going to see two more hostile neighbors become nuclear powers a la India/Pakistan? Maybe the development of nuclear weapons is what Bush meant with his comment? That could be why Bush grouped Iraq, Iran, and North Korea specifically together.
(I’ll e-mail a mod to see if they can fix my thread…)
It’s basicly part of Bush’s plan as an international peacemaker. By lumping Iran and Iraq together as co-equal members of the A of E, he went a long way to healing the breach between them and bringing about a rapprochment between two old and traditional enemies.
What a guy.
Why does nuclear capability automatically connotate evil? Doesn’t the US have nukes too?
Quite possibly. I’ve read recently that the admin had a strong suspicions of a weapons program for nearly a year. But the Korean’s only recently made a public admission of that fact.
But it still donesn’t make the ‘axis’ statement wise. It implies an alliance between these three, and lack of concern about other nations (such as Pakistan) who are devleoping nukes. (if indeed this was a coded statement about nukes)
That statement puts Shrub in the position now where he has to account for the fact that he is negotiating with one axis member, while planning a war against another. Despite the fact that the one closer to having a actual weapon is not the one who want’s to go to war with. Which in turn leads to the conclusion that he is either unserious about war with Iraq, or lying about his motivations for said war.
Well, I’d say they’re hardly comparable, unless you mean to say that you think the US is even remotely similar to Iraq, Iran, and NK.
Well, here we know for fact that North Korea broke it’s 1994 nuclear agreement and secretly developed nukes. Bush and co. claim they have indications Iraq has WMD and is developing nukes. Both nations, who are or are considered to be developing nukes, are labelled as an Axis of Evil along with Iran. Iraq is a fascist dictatorship. NK is a repressive commie regime. Iran isn’t exactly pleasant either. All 3 nations are hostile to the US.
What if Iraq is trying to develop, or has developed, or has acquired, nuclear weapons to counter the WMD threat coming from their neighbor, Iraq?
(I don’t make any claims that this is so, this is all supposition on my part).
The criteria for “axis of evil” membership is (1) either possession of WMD or active programs to develop WMD, and (2) being on the State Department list of nations that support terrorism.
Sua
Sua,
Is it "either…or " OR “and”?
I assume it should be “and”, in which case making a convincing case for N.Korea and Iraq might be difficult. In any case, I think we may have to modify your criteria to: your #1 criterion in combination with being a threat, military or terrorist, to the US or whoever she seeks to protect around the world. This would exclude state-sponsored terrorism by Pakistan, for example.
Reference to a State Department list instead of White House willpower doesn’t objectify the criteria. The list is subject to whatever criteria Bush wants to use, including whimsy.
Sure, Bush could have used any criteria he wished, including whether the leaders of the country wore white after Labor Day.
But he didn’t. He used the criteria I noted. So argue about whether they were good criteria or bad criteria. Personally, I think it was a bad idea, but if you are going to go through the exercise of determine who are the “axis of evil,” the criteria is about the best you can do.
- It’s “and;”
- They aren’t my criteria; they are Bush’s criteria;
- A “convincing case” for N. Korea and Iran under Bush’s criteria has already been made because (a) they are on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of international terrorism, and (b) have program for development of WMD and/or already have WMD; and
- The criteria set by Bush already excludes Pakistan, as they are not on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of international terrorism.
Sua
Oops. The second quote in my last post was originally from litost.
Sua
Sua
I was referring to the criteria behind placing a country in the state sponsors of international terrorism list. That’s a biggie! The state department could afford to be whimsical in this regard. How else can one explain the exclusion of, say, Pakistan?