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
Glad you caught my post! Frankly it took more of my attention than the noxious traitor to whom is was directed was worth. By the way, you left out the nice font size and color stuff I put in.
By the way, since you have been here since your Sore/Loserman masters sent you here during the election campaign, you should have learned by now that a statement such as this is crystal clear evidence that you are no kind of freeper at all, but just another disrupter.
First off Lucius, I didn't say one way or the other whether I agreed with his hypothesis; all I said was that this is what he thought, as he wrote it down in his book. Okay?
Right.
Bleech!
But I know what you meant.
Thanks for the warning.
I agree with all of your points except to close all bases overseas. We need to have open bases overseas because the world depends on us for help. If we stopped helping abroead then a situation similar to WWII would creep up just like Iraq tried in 93. If we were not helping in the middle east back then Irac would have taken the entire region. As long as we have interests in that are we must stay and protect.
It seems to me that you are making two assumptions in your analysis. The first is that 'Mein Kamp' was an honest book, clearly delineating everything that Hitler wished to do, as opposed to being designed in part to gain popularity, after which he could proceed with a 'hidden agenda', which might be less popular.
The second is that he did not change his mind, and develop additional goals, after the book was written in the late 1920's.
The proof would be seen in whether or not he took major actions not in accord with these principles. It seems to me that the invasion of Britain was one such action, and the alliance with Japan in its war with America was a second. If he ever would have taken the third step, and attacked America itself, that must remain in the area of conjecture.
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.