Posted on 02/02/2002 7:49:21 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
WASHINGTON: North Korea yesterday blustered that it was on the brink of war with the US after President George W. Bush renewed his attacks on the "axis of evil" of so-called rogue states.
Mr Bush again labelled Iran, Iraq and North Korea the world's most dangerous regimes, warning they could face US action and prompting speculation about where the war on terror would lead after Afghanistan.
His warning, raised first in his State of the Nation address on Tuesday, drew an angry reaction from Muslim countries throughout the Middle East. But the most blunt message response came from North Korea. A spokesman for strongman Kim Jong Il said the nation was ready for war and had been wise to develop "powerful offensive and defensive means". We are sharply watching the disturbing moves of the United States that have pushed the situation to the brink of war," the Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
As the secretive communist regime's propaganda machine went into overdrive, North Korean state media said US warplanes had carried out scores of reconnaissance flights in recent weeks in preparation for an attack. The spokesman said Mr Bush's speech was "little short of declaring a war".
Undaunted by the strength of the reaction in the Middle East to his speech, Mr Bush reiterated his accusations against the three countries and warned that Washington was ready to act. He said all three nations were developing weapons of mass destruction. "They need to know our intention is to hold them accountable and the rest of the world needs to be with us, because these weapons can be pointed at them as easily as at us," he said. Iran, which Washington describes as the main state sponsor of terror ism, called Mr Bush -thirsty for human blood", while the Iraqi regime of Sad Hussein branded him "stupid, arrogant and irresponsible".
Former secretary o state Madeleine Albrigh also condemned the "axis of evil" speech, calling it "big mistake". She said many in the international community believed the US h "lost its mind" because of the way Mr Bush handled foreign policy. "I think it was a big mistake to lump those three countries together," she said. "They are very different from each other." That warning risked alienating foreign allies she said. We know that they are (already) not supportive of what we are doing in lraq or Iran or North Korea, so I don't know what the value is." But US officials said there were no plans for, any military action against the three countries. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the US was not about to open three more fronts in the war against terror now centred on Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in New York, US Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday urged world leaders to crush the cause of terrorism by stamping out poverty. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, Mr Powell said' We have to go after poverty, we have to go after despair." AFP
And Maddie's use of 'they' is interesting. Who are 'they?' Evidently she cannot name a single source to back up her claims... or, she's unwilling to name the because we don't care what Saddam's general staff has to say.
In other words, a conservatism that refuses to admit that the world has changed at all since the administration of Chester A. Arthur. Isolationism became a dead letter on Pearl Harbor Day. It became Petainist "thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another" defeatism on 9-11.
Darth Falar, formerly Van Delay Industries, formerly HamblinRoger -- all of whom share a toothbrush with Paul Fallavollita.
Right?
That was a joke about you being AMMON, Darth. But I suppose you know that I can tell the difference between you.
In any case Buchanan, Raimondo, myself, and I am sure you were not active in any political movement pre-WWII. While there are lots of neo-conservatives around, this is really a fairly loose term, since it includes both William Kristol, and Jonah Goldberg of NRO, who, with his conservative brothers, laughs at Kristol's McCainsian 'Bull Moose' pretentions.
In fact the neo-isolationism that Raimondo, and the more recent version of Buchanan promotes has been a bit of a fringe of the conservative movement since the hard anti-communist right 'fused' into the conservative movement in the late 1950's. In the forge of National Review Magazine and Human Events, among others, in the period of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations modern conservatism was created with both libertarian and traditionalist tendencies, and has been a strong supporter of the promotion of American national interests. A good summary of this was the Sharon Statement of Young Americans for Freedom, written in 1960. With a modification of the references to our defeated communist enemy, it is a good listing of the central conservative beliefs to this very day.
Conspiracy theories you do ... very well ... BUT personal attacks ... your probably right. In kind ... I too will refrain from them with you for now on.
That too was my impression. Hence my immediately hostile attitude.
My old FR screen name is "YAFer Since 1962". For this reason I need no assistance with understanding the principles to which I helped bring life, and which I helped defend from those who tried to divert it down many twisted paths in the decades to come.
The Heritage Foundation is derived from the Robert M. Schuchman Memorial Foundation, named after YAF's first national chairman, a friend of Pat Buchanan I believe, and a fine and humane person, who died of a stroke at the age of 28, one of the most terrible losses to the conservative movement in its early days.
Darth, I knew Bob Schuchman, Bob Schuchman was a friend of mine, and I have to say, YOU are no Bob Schuchman! I do not know where you got your information on the origins of the conservative movement, and the meanings of its various beliefs, and constituent parts, but it is clearly either very incomplete or very biased.
Yes, it is unclear if he simply is half educated on what conservatism is, or is a rather clever caricature of our movement.
If it is the latter, it shows more brains then I thought the DU types had. If it is the former, he shows some promise, if he is willing and able to continue his education. We shall see.
Chronicles often has brilliant pieces, but it does have a rather restricted point of view. I suggest that you read some of the articles of conservative theory that appeared in National Review in the early 1960's, when it was virtually the only journal of educated conservative opinion.
Many thinkers, including traditionalists like Russell Kirk, libertarians like Frank Meyer, conservatives of order, like Brent Bozell (the father of the current conservative activist), or eclectic conservatives like Bill Buckley (and I knew and talked to most of these men), argued publicly and privately, and made modern conservatism what it is. I suggest that you take an opportunity to reread some of this material, to see the sword while it was being forged, so to speak, and gain a broader perspective. Perhaps you will end up where you are now, perhaps not, but you will have a better understanding of where everyone is coming from.
A typical freeper.
Another possibility is that one can become knowledgeable enough about a field to recognize a more limited understanding. This limitation could be deliberate, thus the caricature or DU theories, another, to which I am now tending, is simply the relative lack of education in that field of a newcomer. I think that in rebuilding the structure of our Republic you are a sort of 'green wood', who simply needs a little more time steeping himself in conservative values in order to be a valuable part of the structure. Live and learn, Darth, live and learn!
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.