Article

2003-01-07 Axis of Evil

NKor continues ranting and spewing spittle...

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-01-07 03:59 pm|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If/When they try to use their ?2 nukes? would not the WAR then be over????

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-07 16:39:04|| 2003-01-07 16:39:04|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds more like a monologue to me. Let them keep talkin'...while we take notes and make plans.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-01-07 18:22:02|| 2003-01-07 18:22:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Both North and South Koreans despise President Bush. SK was practicing a bilateral, constructive engagement policy, which was working, then Bush intervened with his "axis of evil" vandalism, which the articulator - David Frum - attributes to the President's need to regurgitate third party rhetoric that fits his narrow understanding of world affairs. Then, after whitewashing the terror-making Saudi's al-Haramain Foundation, his gang of oil-patch over-achievers put out the stupidist military-diplomatic paper - "The National Security Strategy of the USA" - ever produced. Then to top that, these clowns promise $29 million to the madrasa incitement centers of Islamania, supposedly to promote the "democracy" of which Saudi Arabia is exempted.

Bush is a bad actor, who was handed the role of President.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-07 18:53:29|| 2003-01-07 18:53:29|| Front Page Top

#4 Yeesh, and I usually know better than to feed the trolls.

"SK was practicing a bilateral, constructive engagement policy, which was working..."

Hmm, that's interesting interpretation/ description of the NK protection racket: "Give the worker's paradise food and fuel or we'll start a war that'll kill tens of thousands in Seoul on the first day alone".

I can see the SK's deciding that they needed to play ball, but let's not delude ourselves about what it was all about.

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-01-07 19:20:27|| 2003-01-07 19:20:27|| Front Page Top

#5 My grandfather told me a lot about the Korean war, where he flew transport planes. [He was a b17 and b24 pilot in WW2] To see someone come to tears while telling a story, someone who you have never seen cry before, was very powerful.

I say F south korea. Either fully support our troops protecting your country, or engange in a dialouge with the north that doesnt involve US bashing.

Bush may not be an intellectual giant, but he is a straight up leader for the most part. NK will eventually sell nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to other countries/terrorists. They must be stopped.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-07 20:35:20|| 2003-01-07 20:35:20|| Front Page Top

#6 "Bush is a bad actor, who was handed the role of President. "

Yawn. Recycling lines used against Reagan already? The DPRK was busy building its nuclear program during that "bilateral, constructive engagement policy." Interesting policy, we give them money and food, they build nuclear weapons anyway.

Posted by John Thacker 2003-01-07 21:13:14|| 2003-01-07 21:13:14|| Front Page Top

#7 Phillips:
Trolls like you need fiction. The SKs know that it is a fact that constructive engagement worked with South Africa. It is working between China and Taiwan. Bush made $6,000,000 for doing nothing with the Texas Rangers, $2,500,000 for dry oil wells with Arbusto in Texas, and another $1,500,000 for dry wells in the U.A.E. This is inter-personal discourse and not the Nuremburg Rally, pal. If you want to understand a real President's obligations, start with the US CODE, Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 401. It doesn't say: whitewash the Wahabis.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-07 21:53:31|| 2003-01-07 21:53:31|| Front Page Top

#8 Anonymous,

Feel free to call me Pat. I'm not a formal person.

My, I sure got under your skin, didn't I?

Oh, I'm not a troll. And I'm now willing to concede that you aren't either. The true troll hits and runs. He never sticks around. He wants to cause others to lose their cool -- not lose it himself. So on both counts, you're not a troll.

So what was fictional in what I said about North Korea? You made the claim, you didn't bother to back it up.

And have you read anything about South Africa lately? I'm not sure I would be in a hurry to use around the word "successful" about any aspect of modern South Africa -- although that country was screwed pretty much no matter what.

Does your analysis of the constructive engagement between Taiwan and China take into account the military posturing China indulges in every few years towards Taiwan -- much like NK does every few years to SK? There's nothing new about what's going on the Korean peninsual write now -- it happens every few years.

As for the rest of your "inter-personal discourse": how the heck does the Nuremburg Rally even apply? And so what if Bush made some money in the baseball biz and lost money in the oil biz? What's that got to do with anything I wrote? And as for your last sentence -- try plain-speaking instead.

In fact, how does anything after the first two sentences in your response have anything to do with anything I said? How do you know I'm not a virulent hater of George Bush and his policies who just happens to think that the "give us your stuff or else" protection racket is wrong when it's practiced by the local street gang, the Mafia,or North Korea?

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-01-07 22:22:25|| 2003-01-07 22:22:25|| Front Page Top

#9 Anonymous: OK, let's say I accept everything you say about President Bush. Now, YOU are the president. What would you do about North Korea? Bomb their reactors? Try to contain them with a naval blockade? Withdraw? What, precisely would your plan be?

As for Saudi Arabia, you aren't seriously suggesting that Bush is the first president to give them an easy ride are you? Can you say Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton? Saudi Arabia's regime is terrible, but right now, we need them to stay out of the way while we do Iraq. Call me Pollyanna, but I believe that we're pushing them very hard on many fronts, including on their funding to Al Queda, and that pressure is going to build after we take Iraq and our bayonets are staring them in the face...another reason why Iraq is the key to transforming the Middle East. But again, I ask, what would you do? Invade Saudi Arabia and be forced to deal with an extremely hostile population? We aren't going to do that. Not now. There are other priorities.

Finally, the National Security Stategy policy is hardly the stupidest ever produced. Try reading the Clinton administration's NSS is you want to find the true meaning of "wishful thinking". The Bush document is a response to a very different set of geo-political circumstances than the Cold War. Is it perfect? Of course not, no grand strategy is. Is it risky? Of course it is, every strategy ever pursued by great powers has inherent risks and will have unanticipated consequences. But, if you've read the document, and I have, it very clearly sets out, for the first time, what the TODAY'S threats are and how they can be answered.

I can say it no better than did John Lewis Gaddis, writing in Foreign Policy last month:

"The Bush NSS report could be, therefore, the most important reformulation of U.S. grand strategy in over half a century. The risks are great--though probably no more than those confronting the architects of containment as the Cold War began. The pitfalls are plentiful--there are cracks to attend to before this vehicle departs for its intended destination. There's certainly no guarantee of success--but as Clausewitz would have pointed out, there never is in anything that's worth doing."

Posted by Ramon McLeod 2003-01-08 00:00:40|| 2003-01-08 00:00:40|| Front Page Top

#10 Reply:
Fred is a retired intelligence officer, who doesn't want his site turned into an internet shouting match. However, freedom is not being served by this President.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-08 00:46:28|| 2003-01-08 00:46:28|| Front Page Top

#11 Well, I'm going to stick my nose in this. So, any comments on Insight Mag's article that Bubba knew they had nukes in 94 and pushed the deal anyway?

Posted by Anonymous2 2003-01-08 01:31:16|| 2003-01-08 01:31:16|| Front Page Top

11:43 Hermetic
07:49 Ptah
07:47 Ptah
07:24 raptor
05:27 Mike
04:27 Sam
04:05 Peter
02:24 mojo
02:20 mojo
02:13 mojo
01:39 Anonymous
01:34 Anonymous
01:31 Anonymous2
00:52 Gary Williams
00:46 Anonymous
00:00 Ramon McLeod
23:51 Bashir Gemayel
23:32 Meryl Yourish
22:25 Steve
22:22 Patrick Phillips
22:08 Angie Schultz
21:53 Anonymous
21:15 John Thacker
21:13 John Thacker