+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Axis of Evil.... 3yrs. later (/thread-215545.html)
- Dogger - 02-11-2005 07:46 AM
In his Jan. 2002 State of the Union Address President Bush cited three countries who were a continuing threat; Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea. Lets' give an honest grade on how the administration has handled each situation
N. Korea- Yesterday N. Korea backed out of the 6 nation unilateral talks. They have acquired nuclear weapons and are a KNOWN seller or proliferator of these weapons. It is my hope that the administration does not sweep this under the rug because they don't want to take the heat for it happening under there watch. Grade F
Iran- Again acquiring nuclear weapons in underground bunkers. Lesson learned. You don't go to war with the United States without nuclear weapons. He called us out in 2002 and we may be the next country he fabricates evidence to invade. e.g. nuclear proliferation Grade D (At least they are in talks with Europe to dismantle weapons program)
Iraq- The ONE country who couldn't amass nuclear weapons even though we had the yellow cake in that TSOU. The jury is still out on this one. I'll give it a C.
- DrTorch - 02-11-2005 08:16 AM
That's kind of odd, since the Bush administration was the first to identify these problems. How do they get such low grades? The previous administration, as well as current foreign administrations, turn a blind eye to the situation...yet somehow the only one to identify the problem gets the bad grade?
Not to mention, how the administration has been hindered because of this lack of international support.
N Korea could very well have used or sold nuclear arms by now, if Bush hadn't had the fortitude to stand up and use the VERY unpopular expression axis of "evil".
- Schadenfreude - 02-11-2005 08:47 AM
Dogger's point, the way I read it, is that we invaded the one country that was nowhere even close to producing newkuler weapons. We remain bogged down there, presenting us with fewer options in future foreign policy crises.
Bush deserves an F on all three counts.
And "axis of evil" remains an incredibly crude way to discuss our foreign policy interests in these three countries.
"Axis" implies the nations are working together, that they have a strong relationship -- none of which is remotely true.
And "evil" was probably counter productive in Iran, where there is a fragile reform movement.
From a foreign policy perspective, I see Bush's second term as a chance to undo all the diplomatic mistakes he made in the first term. This was the real point of Condi's European trip.
- GrayBeard - 02-11-2005 08:49 AM
Dogger Wrote:N. Korea- Yesterday N. Korea backed out of the 6 nation unilateral talks. They have acquired nuclear weapons and are a KNOWN seller or proliferator of these weapons. It is my hope that the administration does not sweep this under the rug because they don't want to take the heat for it happening under there watch. Grade FThe majority of the responsibility for that one falls on the previous administration. You know, Billary.
- DrTorch - 02-11-2005 09:01 AM
Schadenfreude Wrote:Dogger's point, the way I read it, is that we invaded the one country that was nowhere even close to producing newkuler weapons. We remain bogged down there, presenting us with fewer options in future foreign policy crises.That's probably the biggest problem with the phrase. It is wrong in that aspect.
Bush deserves an F on all three counts.
And "axis of evil" remains an incredibly crude way to discuss our foreign policy interests in these three countries.
"Axis" implies the nations are working together, that they have a strong relationship -- none of which is remotely true.
The rest of the criticisms are open to discussion. No one gets to see how things would have worked using a different approach. So, it's easy to be a critic.
However, we've ample evidence to see failures from foreign nations' policies, and the policies of the previous administration. Doing something different made good sense.
When I look at the disaster that is Canada, and what is brewing in W Europe, "good sense" doesn't seem to be of much importance there.
- Dogger - 02-11-2005 09:01 AM
For those that paid attention during the debates. Bush thought the 6 nations unilateral talks were the only way to engage N. Korea. Kerry disagreed, he thought we should of had direct talks. Another failure of this administration.
Funny I saw a video of Madeline Allbright with Kim Jung Ill last night. One of the first things Bush did in 2000 was to cut off all realtions with N. Korea to appease his right flank. An incredibly stupid manuever.
- JTiger - 02-11-2005 10:18 AM
GrayBeard Wrote:Would you have supported an invasion of N Korea when Bill was in office? Or would you have just cried "wag the dog"?Dogger Wrote:N. Korea- Yesterday N. Korea backed out of the 6 nation unilateral talks. They have acquired nuclear weapons and are a KNOWN seller or proliferator of these weapons. It is my hope that the administration does not sweep this under the rug because they don't want to take the heat for it happening under there watch. Grade FThe majority of the responsibility for that one falls on the previous administration. You know, Billary.
- GrayBeard - 02-11-2005 10:23 AM
JTiger Wrote:I would have to say yes, I would have supported it.GrayBeard Wrote:Would you have supported an invasion of N Korea when Bill was in office? Or would you have just cried "wag the dog"?Dogger Wrote:N. Korea- Yesterday N. Korea backed out of the 6 nation unilateral talks. They have acquired nuclear weapons and are a KNOWN seller or proliferator of these weapons. It is my hope that the administration does not sweep this under the rug because they don't want to take the heat for it happening under there watch. Grade FThe majority of the responsibility for that one falls on the previous administration. You know, Billary.
I supported the activities in both Kosovo and Somalia.
- georgia_tech_swagger - 02-11-2005 10:31 AM
A simple analysis:
He fails for not dealing with the problem.
He would fail for dealing with all three because then we'd have to reinstate the draft.
The jury is out on Iraq because they're having trouble finding somebody other than Ted Kennedy who thinks the elections are a sign of impending doom and quagmire.
No matter what is done, or how it is done, Bush gets a F, and so do you if you support him.
I hope that helped to clarify his positions.
- Ninerfan1 - 02-11-2005 10:40 AM
Quote:For those that paid attention during the debates. Bush thought the 6 nations unilateral talks were the only way to engage N. Korea. Kerry disagreed, he thought we should of had direct talks. Another failure of this administration.
Kerry was wrong. Single party talks are exactly what N. Korea wants. Last time they got a nuclear reactor and technology from us for which they are not using for the building of those weapons.
Anyone that thinks it is the US that is going to get N. Korea under control is grossly in error. It's going to take China and Russia along with us to get N. Korea back in line. N. Korea doesn't want China involved b/c it's a fellow communist nation going against them.
There is a serious misunderstanding about this by those on the left, especially Kerry.
First, they don't understand what it is N. Korea really wants. What they are seeking is for us to give them a nonaggression pact, one that would recognize and treat it as America's "equal. For us to comply would be to send a message to every tin horn dictator and nuclear wannabe that going nuke gets you what you want. That's a profoundly dangerous message to send and would seriously endanger this country's national security.
Second, N. Korea's ultimate goal is to unify Korea, of course under communist rule. The South is where the money and industry is while in the North poverty and bankruptcy thrive under a corrupt regime. The US gives them the non-agression pact, basically acknowledging them as not a military threat, then support for our troops being in S. Korea will fall.
Third, those that bring in the "well we went to war with Iraq why not N. Korea (BECAUSE THERE'S NO OIL THERE!!!)" argument are also clueless as to the nature of this situation.
There is ZERO support from Japan and S. Korea for us to bomb N. Korea's reactors or take military action. Why? Because N. Korea will retaliate against them. It not only risks a more frightening North Korean counterstrike against South Korea's own reactors, but a complete breakdown of our security relations with Tokyo and Seoul. Bombing what we can target also leaves N. Korea with what we can't, one or more covert suspect bombs and a set of hidden uranium weapons plants that could make several more bombs a year.
The way to address this is the way we are doing. Through a show of strength and no willingness to compromise. The only acceptable solution is a non-nuclear N. Korea.
We went to Iraq because we could not allow them to become N. Korea.
Quote:Funny I saw a video of Madeline Allbright with Kim Jung Ill last night. One of the first things Bush did in 2000 was to cut off all realtions with N. Korea to appease his right flank. An incredibly stupid manuever.
He cut off relations because they were lying to us and ignoring the deal they signed under Clinton. It wasn't a political move.
I realize people have the desire to give out grades, and while people like SF will never give the Bush admin. anything other than an F, others who seek to offer them should research a little more before doing so. Most history professors would tell you it helps to know history before grading a paper on it.
- JTiger - 02-11-2005 10:40 AM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:A simple analysis:That's a pretty good analysis
He fails for not dealing with the problem.
He would fail for dealing with all three because then we'd have to reinstate the draft.
The jury is out on Iraq because they're having trouble finding somebody other than Ted Kennedy who thinks the elections are a sign of impending doom and quagmire.
No matter what is done, or how it is done, Bush gets a F, and so do you if you support him.
I hope that helped to clarify his positions.
- Dogger - 02-11-2005 10:41 AM
Gentleman-
The point of this topic was for people to grade out the handling of these three countries by W's administraation. An honest assessment.
- Ninerfan1 - 02-11-2005 10:51 AM
Dogger Wrote:Gentleman-I feel before an honest assessment can be given as much info should be known as possible. Clearly that is not the case based on the rationale for your grades.
The point of this topic was for people to grade out the handling of these three countries by W's administraation. An honest assessment.
In any case, I think it's dumb to just grade the US on this since we're not the only ones participating in this effort.
Iraq (B-)
The rest aren't just our problem, therefore not just our grade.
- DrTorch - 02-11-2005 10:58 AM
Dogger Wrote:Gentleman-Any such assessment is premature, if not downright flawed.
The point of this topic was for people to grade out the handling of these three countries by W's administraation. An honest assessment.
An assessment would require stating the metric for assessment, and many people don't agree on that. Obviously Hussein doesn't give the Bush administration high marks...but folks tearing down his statue might disagree.
Moreover, even if we could agree on such a metric, it's doubtful we could employ it effectively at this time. We don't have the tools to do it (typically those tools come with time: a historical perspective with some consequences well established.)
Additionally, unlike science, no-one gets a "redo" on this. So, whether you like or dislike a course of action, you really cannot evaluate how it compares w/ other courses that were available. Even a "bad" course of action may have been the best option available.
Finally, such an assessment implies there is an absolute standard to go by (that the metric is worth a damn) I find this a bit ironic given the mantra of the day, "If it's true for you, then it's true." Not that anyone on this board has really said that, but the problem I have is not everyone has identified their absolute standard. Nor have they examined it to see if it's a logically sound position.
- blah - 02-11-2005 11:44 AM
GrayBeard Wrote:Well 75% of America supported invading Iraq too, until things didn't turn out exactly the way we wanted and we weren't in and out in 2 weeks. Are you John "Flip-Flopper" Kerry's brother? That's the part about being President that is hard. You have to make a decision. It is easy to be everyone else and Monday morning quarterback the decision after it was made. Do I agree with everything Bush is doing, no, but I sure as hell know that the United States as a whole won't stand for dealing with Iran or N. Korea right now.JTiger Wrote:I would have to say yes, I would have supported it.GrayBeard Wrote:Would you have supported an invasion of N Korea when Bill was in office? Or would you have just cried "wag the dog"?Dogger Wrote:N. Korea- Yesterday N. Korea backed out of the 6 nation unilateral talks. They have acquired nuclear weapons and are a KNOWN seller or proliferator of these weapons. It is my hope that the administration does not sweep this under the rug because they don't want to take the heat for it happening under there watch. Grade FThe majority of the responsibility for that one falls on the previous administration. You know, Billary.
I supported the activities in both Kosovo and Somalia.
I'd be interested to hear what you and Dogger would have done had you been President.
However, I would give the administration a B- in Iraq and a N/A in N. Korea and Iran. All they have done is identify what is going on.
- Dogger - 02-11-2005 12:07 PM
General Ulysses S. Grant was once asked why he didn't discipline a subordinate General. He candidly said he would rather have someone pissing out of his tent than pissing in it. It would have been wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer in realtions with N. Korea. We had cameras in the nuclear power plant under Clinton. Under Bush they were removed from the lack of dialouge. A collossal failure.
- Rebel - 02-11-2005 12:09 PM
blah Wrote:I think you misundertood Graybeard's statement.GrayBeard Wrote:Well 75% of America supported invading Iraq too, until things didn't turn out exactly the way we wanted and we weren't in and out in 2 weeks. Are you John "Flip-Flopper" Kerry's brother? That's the part about being President that is hard. You have to make a decision. It is easy to be everyone else and Monday morning quarterback the decision after it was made. Do I agree with everything Bush is doing, no, but I sure as hell know that the United States as a whole won't stand for dealing with Iran or N. Korea right now.JTiger Wrote:I would have to say yes, I would have supported it.GrayBeard Wrote:Would you have supported an invasion of N Korea when Bill was in office? Or would you have just cried "wag the dog"?Dogger Wrote:N. Korea- Yesterday N. Korea backed out of the 6 nation unilateral talks. They have acquired nuclear weapons and are a KNOWN seller or proliferator of these weapons. It is my hope that the administration does not sweep this under the rug because they don't want to take the heat for it happening under there watch. Grade FThe majority of the responsibility for that one falls on the previous administration. You know, Billary.
I supported the activities in both Kosovo and Somalia.
I'd be interested to hear what you and Dogger would have done had you been President.
However, I would give the administration a B- in Iraq and a N/A in N. Korea and Iran. All they have done is identify what is going on.
- Rebel - 02-11-2005 12:10 PM
Dogger Wrote:A collossal failure.A common talking point. You just get through listening to Air America? :wave:
- Dogger - 02-11-2005 12:21 PM
I think I finally found something that all of us can agree on.....................
Blah's video feed!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Dogger - 02-11-2005 12:23 PM
I've never listened to Air America. I was thinking about signing up for Sirius radio to get it though.