Your browser may have trouble rendering this page. See supported browsers for more information.

This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.

Title

Axis of Evil

Description

The "Axis of Evil" described by George Bush in his first State of the Union has been received differently throughout the world. Those nations that were included in it were surprised to be singled out, considering several countries the U.S. is allied with are far worse proponents of terror than they are. Just not the good kind of terror. The kind the U.S. is willing to support. Are you listening, Iran? Also, if you might have ICBM capabilities, then your evil existence justifies (no it doesn't) the Missile Defense System Bush wants to build. You hear that, North Korea? James Klurfeld, of the <a href="http://www.newsday.com">New York Newsday</a> wrote <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpklu212596813feb21.column?coll=ny%2Dviewpoints%2Dheadlines">The U.S. Is No. 1 - It Can't, Won't Act Like No. 2</a> is in full agreement with Bush and realizes also that: <span class="quote"><q>[We are in the] era of being the world's first and only hyperpower. ... That's the term the French have used to describe the United States' uncontested role as the most powerful nation in the world - and nobody is even in second place. Like it or not - and the French, of course, don't much like it - that is the new reality.</q></span> The rest of the article makes truly scary reading as well. He goes on to say: <span class="quote"><q>The Europeans have also grown soft and who can blame them after all the blood that was shed there in the 20th century? Most of their nations are now peaceful, prosperous and comfortable. They want to avoid confrontation.</q></span> The tone indicates that he thinks this is a bad thing. As to charges by Europeans that U.S. Foreign policy is "simplistic", he holds up the attack on Afghanistan as a counter-argument - "The U.S. attack on Afghanistan was implemented in a sophisticated, nuanced manner that paid attention to history and local conditions." Surprisingly enough, Pat Buchanan has written <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20020218.shtml">How a president's words can lead to war</a> coming out against Bush's foreign policy: <span class="quote"><q>Not a single NATO ally has endorsed Bush's war talk. The French and Germans are raking us. South Korea was stunned. No Arab ally save Kuwait stands with us. Iran's cooperation in the Afghan war has come to an end. And the president's united front at home is now split and wrangling over the wisdom of his war talk. </q></span> I know this isn't a humor post, but <a href="http://www.salon.com">Salon.com</a> is reporting that <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2002/02/21/nobel/index.html">Bush, Giuliani, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize</a>. So, when it's said that Nato doesn't approve of Bush and his wars, remember that that doesn't include Sweden. <span class="quote"><q>The five-member committee keeps the nomination list secret, although other sources reveal some of the nominations --- including those of Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for fighting terrorism and trying to secure world peace following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.</q></span>