Forums | MacLife

So you  think that good is bad and bad is good, eh?

Um, no.  What I said was that I think the whole "Axis of Evil" assertion is either a load of crap, or that we have some nutters in office.

You think that governments who prey upon their citizens such that their leaders gain power, and governments have the  right to enslave their citizens and invade other countries and wreak havoc to other civilized nations, because "all forms of culture  are valid, they are just different?"

Um, no.  Maybe you are responding to another post.

The "Axis of Evil" phrase is a proper and appropriate sizing up of reality.

I think it obscures reality.  I think "good" and "evil" are strange, mystical, polar terms steeped in a variety of outdated religious doctrines that only serve to cloud any real understanding of very complex webs of issues and relationships.  When grown people who are aware of the world around them use such terms in speeches they are either crazy (with power, perhaps) or incredibly naive.  Why don't we just change the name of our country to "Gandalf" so we can all feel great about whatever we do?  In other words, what you deem "a proper and appropriate sizing up of reality," I am calling fantasy.

All these governments have something in common with respect to how they relate to the free world.

If it is that they are "evil," then that has got to be defined.  I suspect that what you don't like about these countries applies to a great many more countries that those three (need we make another list?).  This begs the question:  why THOSE three?  Some of us have argued here that it is a matter of the current administration's PREFERENCE, for whatever reasons, and not some universal sense of good versus evil.

They are all led by he-men, masters of the universe, who think it's valid to cause trouble in other countries.

We're arguing here that the current U.S. leadership is not entirely without those same character traits.

The "Axis of Evil" phrase is a proper and appropriate sizing up of reality.

No, you're wrong.

Have you heard Bush use the phrase lately?  Do you think he will again?

"Axis of evil" was a misnomer.  "Axis" implies coalition between the involved parties.

The "Axis of Evil" phrase is a proper and appropriate sizing up of reality.

No, you're wrong.

Have you heard Bush use the phrase lately?  Do you think he will again?

"Axis of evil" was a misnomer.  "Axis" implies coalition between the involved parties.

He's basing that comment on the FACT that North Korea supplies Iraq with weaponry.  Hence the "coalition."

Speechwriters refer to it as an emotional "hook" people. See, in your simplistic view of the world, maybe Lincoln should have started the Gettysburg address "87 years ago, a bunch of guys started a new country . . ."

I would say that all your editorializing and "intellectualizing" over the metaphor is more an indcator of insanity than the use of three words.

He was trying to make an emotional appeal in a speech - get over it.

Thanks for the compliments.  I'm confused, though, are we offering too simplistic a view, or are we "intellectualizing" too much.  My point is that we should expect clarity.  When we ask why we are going to war, phrases like "Axis of Evil" just don't really explain much.  It may make you happy, but I want more information.

Also, I think Lincoln had mroe integrity-- and certainly far less conflicts of interest-- than our current leaders.  I don't think the current administration is simply "trying to make an emotional appeal" any more than Clinton's writers.  We are being misled... away from the truth.

"Lincoln had more integrity" huh?

Well, for your information, the rank and file citizenry of the United States wanted to quit the war, so Lincoln enacted very draconian methods, including suspending habeas corpus and instantly imprisoning people who were voicing opposing political views to his - he also used the emotional hook of slavery to get the citizenry back into his pro-war camp - the state of war had existed for 2 and a half years before Lincoln ever mentioned freeing slaves as an objective.

Obviously, even historical "spin" is strong enough for the weak of mind.

"More integrity" my ass.

maybe Lincoln should have started the Gettysburg address "87 years ago, a bunch of guys started a new country . . ."

There is a big difference between Lincoln using poetic language to refer to factual (provable) events, and Bush trying to invoke a false sense of righteousness by declaring that these 3 random places he doesn't like are "evil." I don't know if that makes him insane (mostly I think it makes him dumb), but one of the reasons we don't respect Saddam Hussein's sanity is because he calls us "The Great Satan."

There is a big difference between Lincoln using poetic language to refer to factual (provable) events, and Bush trying to invoke a false sense of righteousness by declaring that these 3 random places he doesn't like are "evil." I don't know if that makes him insane (mostly I think it makes him dumb), but one of the reasons we don't respect Saddam Hussein's sanity is because he calls us "The Great Satan."

.. and worse. But your point is well taken. Today's speeches are meant to cause a brief flurry. Then they sink out of sight and are forgotten, as are any policy consequences of uttering them. Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered some famous words, notably his "four freedoms" speech, which became guiding principles of the government. Ditto for JFK, who placed the Cold War in very ringing terms.

Bush had a hate on for Osama bin Laden for awhile, but seems to have forgotten all about him. You had the "Axis of Evil", which performed the task of letting the world know that America was mad, and America was gonna get its enemies. Now everything is Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. One wonders what's next.

Basically, it's foreign (and I supoose domestic) policy by sound byte. Bush hardly originated this concept; every president has succumbed to it for the last 20 or 30 years or so. Clinton was a particular scumbag with this.

Anyway, what you have are a bunch of catchy words, but nothing whatsoever to explain what the words mean, how they should be interpreted, or what the results will be in real-life policies. Everyone's left guessing, which I suspect is one reason so many people distrust Bush.

By the way, the speechwriter who coined the "Axis of Evil" phrase said he originally thought of something different; I believe it was "Axis of Hate". But he said someone senior changed it.

Obviously, sarcasm escapes you, by putting "Intellectualizing" in parenthesis, I am saying that all of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, your post proves my point far more eloquently than even Lincoln could.

If that was an attempt at sarcasm, it was a failure.   And even if it could pass as good sarcasm no one in their right mind would conclude, "you are making a mountian out of a mole hill."  Furthermore, if you don't think that polititians aren't hard at work making the most of the manipulative powers of language, then that would explain why you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I'm saying we are being manipulated.  And when it comes to things like war, we shouldn't just latch on to emotionally charged sound bytes and start humping them. 

For your information, the President of the United States very rarely writes his own speeches, so you mental midgets are actually criticizing his speechwriter - but that concept is far too deep for most of you to even grasp.

I'm sorry, but this is plain stupid.  I don't just mean the name-calling, but the fact that you have missed that on more than one occasion I and others have referred to speech writers.  Bush cannot complete a reasnable sentence without help.  Also, it's such common knowledge that it really doesn't need to be said here.  But your point isn't to explain something, is it?  No, rather, it's to assemble sentences that allow you to embed your obnoxious put-downs.  Spare us.  If you disagree with the content of someone's posts, fine, but no one needs the other crap.

It was a speech, not a presentation of facts - get your information from Colin Powell's presentation at the UN - see - that's what purpose it served. A speech is oration, a presentation is a source of facts.

Why can't a speech be a presentation of facts?  Of course, it can.  It can also be a truckload of lies.  I prefer facts.  Your distiction between speech, oration, and and presentation of facts is wrong.  Look up those words before your next tirade. 

[/code]

The plain FACT of the matter is that three words in a speech, obviously designed to harken back to earlier speeches made by not only his father, but Reagan, and even FDR escapes you completely. They were designed to elicit an emotional response, they did - different for every person who heard them, but definitely the actions of a sane man. He also had the foreknowledge of what Colin Powell was to deliver at the UN, so he had no need and was SMART not to tip that hand before the UN presentation, so that the spin-doctors, who are even now attempting to reduce or eliminate the impact of those facts would have no previous warning what they were, how they were gathered, or what the principals in the conversations said.
...
None of you geniuses has brought up the "Evil Empire" speech by ROnald Reagan, but if you did, the entire premise for this thread - that President Bush is insane - would be blown right out the window, unless your argument is that Ronald Reagan was insane also, if that is - indeed - your argument, I would suggest that your tinfoil hats are leaking.

Well, I'll field this one.  This thread is something where I looked for proof in Powell's presentation, and alas, I have found none.  I encourage you to contribute to it if you have any insight into where the proof of WMD is.

I'd be hard pressed to cite Reagan as the president with a sound mind, btw.  He seems to have Alzheimer's and it's rumored that Nancy was running the show for the last 4 or more years of his presidency.

But that's not what this thread is about.  When you said that Bush used the words "Axis of Evil" to elicit an emotional response (I'll go ahead and just call in sensationalism) I did have a response, and as you pointed out, it was different.  It was of an insane man on a war path.  He tried to use the age old NBC tactic that is sensationalism, and IMO failed.  Bush isn't the authority on good and evil.  Do you think that he is?  Or why do you think that he's right in naming several foreign nations as an "axis of evil?"  Also, I think it's worth mentioning that his statement has done wonders to the US relationship with North Korea.[/i]

NK is doing a fine job of presenting themselves as part of an "axis of evil" without any help at all.

NK is doing a fine job of presenting themselves as part of an "axis of evil" without any help at all.

ax

---

"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."

                                                                   --Paul Krugman