Posted on 01/31/2002 2:58:48 PM PST by vannrox
|
| from the January 31, 2002 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0131/p01s04-wome.html
'Evil axis' and others talk backState of Union raises hackles worldwide, even among allies.By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor PARIS - President Bush's stark warning to "dangerous" regimes he accuses of supporting terrorism - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - was jarring to many nations, including some of America's allies. "The US has now made the formal shift from operations in Afghanistan to potential operations in the Middle East," says Nigel Vinson, a military analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. "This is a significant ratcheting up of the pressure on Iraq." But the US president's speech does not signal an immediate military attack on any of the three countries he named, according to a senior US administration official and foreign observers. In light of the political and logistical hurdles, "we are still an awful long way" from any out- and-out assault on President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, widely seen as the most likely next target in the US war against terrorism, says Mr. Vinson. Bush warned in his speech that he would not allow "the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons," singling out Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, along with their "terrorist allies," as "an axis of evil." He also warned other countries where he said terrorist cells were hidden. "Some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will," the president said. That stung Philippines Defense Minister Angelo Reyes, currently overseeing his army's cooperation with a team of US military advisers helping to fight the extremist Muslim group Abu Sayyaf, into a sharp retort. "We are a self-respecting sovereign state," he said, "and we will not allow any other country to impose its will on us if it is against our national interest." The US president's speech also upset South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who is anxious to improve ties with his communist neighbor to the North. "It is important to maintain a peaceful atmosphere in North-South relations," he told his cabinet yesterday. It was Bush's reference to the Middle East, however, that drew most international attention, in the wake of his earlier unspecified threats against Iraq should President Saddam Hussein continue to refuse to allow United Nations inspectors into the country in search of weapons of mass destruction. "We reject the US accusations and we think that the world will not tolerate the hegemony of the US," said Kamal Kharrazi, foreign minister of Iran.Iraqi retort A leading Iraqi politician was equally blunt. Salem al-Qubaissi, head of the Iraqi parliament's foreign affairs committee, accused Washington of "terrorism against peoples and governments that do not surrender to US wishes," according to Agence France-Presse. A military attack on Iraq would seriously strain the international coalition that Washington has built in support of its war on terrorism. European and Middle Eastern leaders have publicly cautioned Bush against taking such a step. But the United States "even if it would prefer a coalition ... does not require any military assistance from anyone in the world" for such an operation, Vinson points out. Logistically, however, an attempt to dislodge Saddam from power would require an invasion of Iraq that would take months to prepare, military experts say. An assault would also be complicated by Saudi Arabia's likely reluctance to let US forces use its territory. Politically too, Washington would need some time to prepare domestic and international opinion for such a dramatic move. A UN Security Council vote at the end of May on continuing sanctions and demanding that weapons inspectors be allowed into Iraq appears to be the next marker along the diplomatic road. "If the Americans get a unanimous Security Council resolution through, they would be in a much stronger position" to act against a recalcitrant Iraq, says Toby Dodge, a Middle East expert at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London. If Bush's antagonism to Iraq Tuesday was of a piece with earlier policy, his attack on Iran surprised observers, who had noted a slight thaw in relations between Tehran and Washington since September 11th. Iranian leaders had offered their support for the war against terrorism. "It was not a very considered statement," says one European diplomat in Tehran. "I was surprised by the tone of it, which seemed to be pandering to the hard-line tone of the war on terrorism rather than a considered view of Iran's place in the world. It was not very helpful." Iran apparently earned its place in the "axis of evil" partly by virtue of its support for Hizbullah, a Shia Muslim group based in Lebanon which made its reputation with attacks on Israeli troops in South Lebanon, and which is now a legal political party with seats in the Lebanese parliament. On Wednesday, Hizbullah rejected Bush's accusation that it belongs to a "terrorist underworld." "The Bush administration is planning to defeat all the centers of force in the region to make the whole Middle East a juicy morsel for the joint American-Israeli ambitions," the group said in a statement. • Nicholas Blanford in Beirut, Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia, Cyrpus, and Roger DuMars in Seoul contributed to this report. Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links |
Yep. I say let 'em rant.
what is the difference between that and this?:
"..of "terrorism against peoples and governments that do not surrender to Islam/Muslim wishes."
How unlikely would it be if one of the "surprises" in store for us is our own muslim citizens planning an attack against our nation on a particular day?
Please, no flames, in light of the fact that Islamic leaders here have remained virtually silent in denouncing the 9-11 attacks?
I believe it also means Bush hit a nerve. Additionally, Bush has proven to be a man of action who backs his words--something he mentioned in his speech and also something he said this a.m. to the Florida Senior Corps. Action without words is meaningless. Bush has more than shown he has a backbone and isn't one who makes empty threats or utterances. He's a man who says what he means and means what he says.....and the world knows this.
The kick in the pants was 9/11..........
Its time for men to act as men, which in this case means using all of our power to crush..not beat crush the opposition....you want to limply shake hands with allies of conveince go right ahead.....just don't get in the way of those who will take care of buisness no matter how ugly or distasteful it is.
typo: I meant: Words without action is meaningless.
What an idiotic thing to say. We have yet to colonize a nation or enjoy the spoils of war but perhaps its time for some spoils.
In brief JumpinJackFlash is just gas.
World War II need never have happened if the US had kept to a non-interventionist policy during World War I, a clear illustration of Stromberg's Law: "There is virtually no situation anywhere in the world that can't be made worse by U.S. intervention."
"What I liked best about his speech was his referring to the Democrats as The Asses of Evil.
(I think that's what he said, or was it the Axis of something?)"
Libya has kept a low profile and the PLA of C doesn't have to care. They own enough congress-critters.
I hate to say it, but it appears that the internal debate that was occuring in this administration has been settled..and the wrong guys have won. Bush's policies have become "sharonized".
Let them hate, as long as they fear.
Roman foreign policy was best summed up by Edward Luttwak. At the height of the Empire's power, during the period of the Pax Romanum, Rome followed the axiom stated above. But it was the wise emperor who firmly subordinated martial impulses to political ends.
We must endeavor to do the same. We do not need to conquer and hold territory that we would end up leaving some day. Rather, our latent power, held in reserve for merciless and overwhelming application against an opponent, is all we need to maintain liberty and peace at home (well, okay, along with eternal vigiliance against the encroachment of the Nanny State).
The smart Eurotrash understand what we're all about. The chattering classes, otoh, are going on about how we're become an out of control collossus and a danger to the world.
The upshot: we are in a single-minded pursuit of our national interests. The chattering classes (such as the Jew-baiters over at the Guardian) cannot fathom this, so used were they to the multilateralism of the King of Sinks. Now things have changed. They don't understand that the American people have decided that we are in a fight for the very existence of our Republic.
"Let them hate, as long as they fear."
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.