Axis of Evil Comes Back to Haunt U.S.

[crlcxll]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15200995/

By Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker

Updated: 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Bush and Company deserve everything they get. I am just sorry for the residents of the United States.

[lancshotpot]

Even though I agree that Bush made a mistake with the "axis of evil" speech and should of continued with diplomacy in North Korea, I don't think the nuclear test is something to gloat about.

[crlcxll]

I am not gloating about the nuclear test. I am saying that Bush and Company should have never said what they said about the axis of evil. What goes round comes round....

[shades]

Let he whose country is without problems cast the first stone. North Korea's nuclear program was in process before Bush even became President. Be that as it may, North Korea's efforts are a threat, particularly to those countries in that part of the world (i.e. Japan).

[Center]

I don't particularly like having to defend the administration but simpleton thinking like that will get us nowhere. Both those countries' nuclear programs have been in full swing for over 20 years now. The aggressive military postures of the Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, and Clinton administrations, European, PRC, and Russian foreign policy neglect, and an over-reliance on an impotent UN, contributed to this as well.

The "Axis of Evil" statement may not have been politically correct, but frankly, "evil" is as good a description of the North Korean regime as I can think of. "Evil" may be too harsh a description of Iran, but it isn't that far off the mark.

[Eagle653]

The "Axis of Evil" statement may not have been politically correct, but frankly, "evil" is as good a description of the North Korean regime as I can think of. "Evil" may be too harsh a description of Iran, but it isn't that far off the mark.

Precisely. Not even North Koreans supposed "allies" are defending this. In fact, there is some thought that Kim Jong Il may not survive this stunt. In the end, we'll find out who is "haunted" by what, but I wouldn't be survived if the N. Koreans are the ones haunted by their stupid decision.

[crlcxll]

Why is it that America is the only one who can have nuclear weapons? And America would use them if they so desired. Kim Il Jong is not a very nice man, but neither is Bush and Company. Look what Bush did to Iraq and its people--civil war and hundreds of thousands dead not to mention the U.S. troops. America has gained nothing by invading Iraq and never will.... And remember, that Bush and Company have intimated that they would attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

[Eagle653]

Who said the US is the only one who can have nuclear weapons? No one. And, besides the US and North Korea, the countries of Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan have them as well. It's suspected that Israel and Iran do also.

You can hate Bush and his cronies all you want (many of us do too), but don't use Kim Jong Il as a sword in this. You'll get no where. Kim is being condemned by the entire world and anyone who defends him--just to spite Bush--looks totally foolish. In fact, the latest is North Korea is threatening to now fire a nuclear missile. The man is not only evil, he's probably insane--what a loathsome combination.

[hty2]

The leader of any country who states, repeatedly, that the West (that includes the EU, folks) is evil and should be destroyed needs to be taken seriously. Both Iran and North Korea hold to the belief that no nation holding beliefs contrary to its own should be allowed to exist and have set upon a course to destroy them by any means possible.

The World cannot sit idly by and ignore these threats as so much rhetoric. We're dealing with psychopaths who understand nothing other than death and destruction. Unfortunately, the United Nations cannot do anything to stop them if for no other reason than the fact that under its Charter, every member nation has the right to deny the U.N. entry into their country. It would take a declaration of war by it for the U.N. to do otherwise and the current political makeup of the organization makes that highly unlikely.

[T24bone]

Averageguy is right, here. If Crlcxll want to side with North Korea, then its two against the world. Maybe our friend from Stuttgart subscribes to the idea that Kim Jong Il, and Ahmadinejad and and Hussein are(were) simply misunderstood and if we would just be more sensitive and try to feel their pain, then they would magically turn into model citizens of the world and stop killing or ruining the lives of their own citizens. I wonder how widespread that sentiment is in Stuttgart.

[Just_Believe18]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15200995/

By Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker

Updated: 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Bush and Company deserve everything they get. I am just sorry for the residents of the United States.

I've never seen anyone more excited about the thousands of Iraqi civilians dying, Japan and S. Korea's economy's suffering from a very real threat by North Korea, and a Mad Hatter in Iran developing their own nuclear weapons program. You feel sorry for the U.S. families who's sons and fathers are dying, but you're saying this is deserved?

"AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!"

[crlcxll]

OH! Get real gentlemen! I am not siding with North Korea nor Kim Il Jong. Where did you get that idea!?! I am simply saying that Bush and Company have created a problem with these countries by issuing hateful statements toward them. Bush has been acting like a bully on a school ground rather than trying to do anything dimplomatic. He will not even try to talk to N. Korea.

Now! Before you go "flying off the handle", read my posts and think carefully before making comments which are completely nonsensical.

[crlcxll]

I would be willing to be that not a single one of you who posted here read the article through to the end.

What I meant by being deserved is that the United States is being haunted by what Kim Il Jong did--Haunted! And that IS to be deserved. If Bush and Company had kept quite about calling people names, Kim Il Jong may never have tested the weapon ( who knows) or the world may never have known that it was tested. Il Jong is attempting to show the United States that they can not bully everyone and get by with it.

[Toriko]

The leader of any country who states, repeatedly, that the West (that includes the EU, folks) is evil and should be destroyed needs to be taken seriously. Both Iran and North Korea hold to the belief that no nation holding beliefs contrary to its own should be allowed to exist and have set upon a course to destroy them by any means possible.

Kim Jong Il supposedly likes the West and the fruit of our culture.

[crlcxll]

The United States invasion of Iraq set this whole thing off...... If you want to support the war in Iraq, go right ahead. It recruits dozens of terrorists every day......

[naked gent]

Cricxll I think your premise is wrong just as I think republicans who blame North Korea on Clinton or democrats who blame Bush are wrong.

All of the critics seem to believe that the U.S. could have done something to stop Kim from pursuing nuclear weapons and I don't see much evidence for that, especially if one doesn't want to appear to be giving into blackmail.

I don't think it was wise to use such a word as evil when describing another country but does anyone really think had he never uttered those words that conditions would be much different today?

Is there any reason to believe had Bush engaged North Korea in direct talks that no matter what deal we arrived at in 6 months Kim would say thats no longer enough I want more?

Not everything that happens in this world is a reflection on america or its leaders.

[Toriko]

If Bush and Company had kept quite about calling people names, Kim Il Jong may never have tested the weapon ( who knows) or the world may never have known that it was tested. Il Jong is attempting to show the United States that they can not bully everyone and get by with it.

Your sentiment here is acceptable---a foreign policy built on bullying is pointless, especially if it consists solely of name-calling.

However, you have come off a bit too excited about North Korea's alleged success with nuclear weapons, only because it spites the US administration. The same seems true for its failures with Iran and those dying in Iraq (and Afghanistan?). It seems ridiculous that you think the Foley thing is a big deal but wish to celebrate North Korea's defiance of the administration---the only reason one should make this big a deal of the Foley thing is that he had the bomb.

Also, it is a bit arrogant on your part to tell others to read more carefully, calm down, not to fly off at the handle, and get a grip, not to mention hypocritical: ("AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!")

Btw, you did ask the fallacious question, "Why is it that America is the only one who can have nuclear weapons?" That's the same reasoning Ahmadinejad has used to justify the Iranian research---sounds like a viable defense for him and for those that agree with Iran, North Korea, or any other nation that wishes to pursue it. First off, the US isn't, as has already been stated, but more importantly why is it that you think more nations should have them? Just to spite Bush?

[General_Alfie]

OH! Get real gentlemen! I am not siding with North Korea nor Kim Il Jong. Where did you get that idea!?! I am simply saying that Bush and Company have created a problem with these countries by issuing hateful statements toward them. Bush has been acting like a bully on a school ground rather than trying to do anything dimplomatic. He will not even try to talk to N. Korea.

Now! Before you go "flying off the handle", read my posts and think carefully before making comments which are completely nonsensical.

Ah, more hubris from the International Scold. Isn't there a Secretary of State willing to listen to your advice? Perhaps Kimmy needs a ripe scold --- check him out.

[190E]

Kim pulls this kind of crap every time his country is in desperate need of foreign aid. If you look back in the past, when his people were starving or he needed money, he has always pulled off some kind of cooky stunt to get the world to bargain with him. This time the other countries are not okay with the way he's doing it being that he has threatened the U.S. The E.U. and China and Russia know he's crazy, so they're skeptical about his motives as well.

I too dont think you should have worded your responses as you did, you came off as a fanatical of Kim and a little on the eager side to see Bush 'get what he deserves'. This is not a matter of karma, this is a matter of a crazy man with a world ending device, and something needs to be don about it.


According to Wikipedia: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons ) (you should really look on that page by the way, it lists all other sorts of information reguarding past powers and those who had research plans)

This is a list of states with nuclear weapons. There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Additionally, Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has never confirmed or denied this, and there have been reports that over 200 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. This status is not formally recognized by international bodies; none of these four countries is currently a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has been developing uranium enrichment technology and stands accused by the United Nations of doing so for weapons purposes. Iran insists that its intentions are limited to domestic nuclear power generation. As of February 4, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Iran to the United Nations Security Council in response to concerns on their possible nuclear programs.

[Tengilethos]

What do you mean by "Bush and Company deserve everything they get."?
It is definitely bad for the whole world if the number of states with nuclear weapons increases!
besides, the decision of Kim Jong Il to aquire nuclear weapons was more likely influenced by the invasion of Iraq, because he sees that countries without (nuclear) weapons of mass destruction are more vulnerable to such a thing than those without.

[sixthson]

Another one of those life affirming threads you are so well known for...good going.

[Keeland]

When the world doesn't care what the U.S. president says.

[sparky95]

When the world doesn't care what the U.S. president says.

Wow, this pretty much describes my feelings now! How can one President squander so much international goodwill in the period since 9/11?

[latigolad78374]

When the world doesn't care what the U.S. president says.

My feelings too. The first news item I saw monday eve said that Kim was unstable. I'm believing more and more as each day goes by that George the second is also unstable.

BTW what is "sod off"

[Toriko]

BTW what is "sod off"

Sod - This word has many uses. My father always used to say "Oh Sod!" or "Sod it!" if something went wrong and he didn't want to swear too badly in front of the children. If someone is a sod or an "old sod" then it means they are a bit of a bastard or an old git. "Sod off" is like saying "piss off" or "get lost" & "sod you" means something like "f*** off". It also means a chunk of lawn of course. You can usually tell the difference!

Source: http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml

Honestly, I read it as "fuck off".

I think that why most people don't care about this president's take on things is because he has damaged his own credibility---he's lied to the point of getting a lot of people killed---and, regardless, his stubborn tenacity to believe what he wants regardless of logic and reason and facts makes him and his opinion all the less pertinent. His opinion is only important to those that he intends to harm, so that's why Americans ought to care what his opinion is so as to properly brace themselves.