Replies

"Not all may agree but I continue to marvel at Bush's axis of evil speech - it was pure genius - and it's Ronald Regan's Birthday today so let's let him have his end of the cold war moment please."

President Bush, State of the Union Speech , January 2002

(Defining the "War on Terror" and "The Axis of Evil")

" . . .Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.) . . ."

And . . . in honor of President Reagan's 93rd Birthday . . .

The speech that began the end of the Cold War . . .
And the speech that may very soon prove to be the *true* Reagan legacy . . .

" . . .Now, thus far tonight I've shared with you my thoughts on the problems of national security we must face together. My predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of retaliation.

This approach to stability through offensive threat has worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear war for more than three decades. In recent months, however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies solely on offensive retaliation for our security.

Over the course of these discussions, I've become more and more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on both sides. . . .

If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in stabilizing the nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation, on mutual threat. And that's a sad commentary on the human condition. Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are indeed. Indeed, we must. . . .

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of the century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of efforts on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is. . . .

My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your support.

Thank you, good night, and God bless you."

- - Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983

Insult and injury in Islamabad

How A Q Khan’s nuke confessional has reversed the mood in the US — and given India a rare opportunity

SHEKHAR GUPTA

It is easy to see General Musharraf ko gussa kyon aata hai. How else can you feel when your nation’s greatest hero and role model is caught smuggling mass death to rogue states, making piles of money and investing it, among other things, in a hotel in Timbuktu and then, touchingly, names it after his wife? And how does General Musharraf express his anger? By threatening yet another missile test, a Shaheen with 2,000-km range.

Now we do not know what else this missile would do to enhance his security, redeem his nation — and his army’s — honour, or scare us Indians any more than the missiles that we know to be in his arsenal already do. A 2,000-km missile will perhaps take him to Chennai or thereabouts. But a valid question you may ask is, why should he even be bothering to reach that far when he can hit Delhi, Mumbai and even Bangalore at will anyway? Unless, either he has a problem with Jayalalithaa, or he wants to collect more frequent-flier miles? Or, are we missing the point? That the general is now seriously working at increasing the range of his missiles to reach the one city that should be the most serious target of his ire, namely, Washington, DC. He needs 12,000 km — 2,000 is at least a step forward. More seriously, don’t forget how close it takes him to Tel Aviv. (snipped...long article, but a good read)

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=40571

Nothingman: How does India fit in to the picture?

SP2BF: In the last sentence of the first paragraph, the word "Shaheen"....am I recalling correctly that Shaheen means Falcon?