Forums | MacLife

Just because Iraq and Bin Laden don't like the United States, doesn't mean they're working together.  Or at least it didn't before we got our war drum beating.  I wouldn't be surprised if -because- of our involvement, not despite of it, they have made ties.  France doesn't like us much, does that mean they're evil too?

You overlook one important part
"states like these"
Doesn't say these states constitute. I honestly don't see the confusion over what was meant by the words. I see him listing 3 examples of a group of countries that he considers to be the worlds biggest threat in future years. states that oppress their citizens and or sponsor terrorism.

"States like these" = Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, and others.

Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and other states, and their terrorist allies, add up to an alliance of evil.

Unless you're trying to say that "states like these" is meant to specifically exclude Iran, Iraq and North Korea so as to focus on only states that are "like" them. Then we'd get "states that are like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- but not Iran, Iraq, and North Korea themselves -- and the terrorist allies of those states, add up to an alliance of evil. But that would make the sentence totally substanceless -- we don't know who he's even talking about at that point. And after getting that detailed list of all the bad things Iran's, Iraq's, and N. Korea's regimes are doing, I don't know why Bush'd suddenly be trying to not point the finger at them.

I don't see the confusion either. And I also don't see anyone using your particular interpretation of the sentence, including the conservative media, which I'd expect to make a big deal out of it if there was a big deal to be made.

To me it's a pretty straight forward Subject + Verb + Object sentence. [subject=] States that are like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and the terrorist allies of those states [verb=] constitute [object=] an axis of evil.

So, yes, he is "listing 3 examples of a group of countries that he considers to be the worlds biggest threat in future years. states that oppress their citizens and or sponsor terrorism" and then he is saying that they are an alliance of evil.

I think it is truly grasping at straws to claim Bin Laden's speech is proof of an alliance between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That's not to say an alliance does or does not exist.

"Grasping at straws" doesn't begin to cover it.

The worst part is, OBL's tape shows a very dangerous side-effect of the current policy on Iraq -- shoving to previously antagonistic monsters (Saddam and Osama) together out of mutual interest.

Richard Nixon's great stroke of genius was playing Communist China and the USSR against each other, not just lumping them together as enemies. Too bad there's no one with enough brains in Washington to embark on a similar project with the "axis". But then again, the attack on Iraq hasn't got anything to do with fighting terrorism, so why should they bother, right?

The error was saying they were evil. That's a crime in todays moral relativism mind set. The second crime is the temerity to 'go it alone'. But the current fight with the UN isn't really about Iraq. It's about who leads in a post cold war world. What will be the new 'business as usual'.
Everything has changed since the Soviets fell. Europe feared them more than us. It was really them having the dreaded 'enemy of my...' policy when being allied with the US. We were "great" when we were spending billions militarily to offset the Soviets. We were their bodyguards. Now that threat is gone and the US has become the big threat because we didn't go back to our traditional isolationism and let the Europeans run the international agenda.

Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and other states, and their terrorist allies, add up to an alliance of evil.

Don't states have to be allied to form an alliance?  Just because they have similar goals doesn't make them an alliance.  Sun and Microsoft are both in the game to make money -- they have similar goals -- but they're not an alliance by any measure.

That's exactly the problem that a lot of people had with Bush's statement: the word axis means alliance, so it was implied that these people were working together, which doesn't appear to be true.

The other problem was use of the word evil. I think Farmerkev is right on when he says, "That's a crime in todays moral relativism mind set." Once our leaders start painting our enemies to look like cartoon caricatures of supervillains, they've started down the path of sounding a lot like bin Laden -- I think he believes in his heart that everything he's doing is righteous and good, and that we are true evil -- or even Saddam who calls us the Great Satan.

Anyway, bratboy's post about the admin admitting the phrase was an error is hopeful. To have them keep using it would be bad.

The error was saying they were evil.

No, the error was calling them an Axis. I don't know why you're reluctant to admit it, but "Axis" in the context of nations refers to some form of alliance. To wit:

axis

10a. An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies. b. Axis The alliance of Germany and Italy in 1936, later including Japan and other nations, that opposed the Allies in World War II.

That definition has been posted before, and you ignored it, so I suppose you'll ignore it again. The White House basically said that its enemies were allied against it. This is a factual error, but the worst part is the effects of this policy. During the Cold War, the West was able to play off rival Communist countries against each other, and by referring all its enemies as part of an "axis", Bush basically makes it impossible to find diplomatic solutions to conflicts.

Worse, by painting these countries in cartoonishly simple language, he made it much more difficult to finesse the problem. It made North Korea paranoid, for example, and made life difficult for the pro-democracy movement in Iran.

Stark rhetoric has the short-term effect of motivating people, but politically and diplomatically it severely limits options.

That's a crime in todays moral relativism mind set. The second crime is the temerity to 'go it alone'. But the current fight with the UN isn't really about Iraq. It's about who leads in a post cold war world. What will be the new 'business as usual'.
Everything has changed since the Soviets fell. Europe feared them more than us. It was really them having the dreaded 'enemy of my...' policy when being allied with the US. We were "great" when we were spending billions militarily to offset the Soviets. We were their bodyguards. Now that threat is gone and the US has become the big threat because we didn't go back to our traditional isolationism and let the Europeans run the international agenda.

Interesting theory, but I'll go you one better. I personally believe the core of this conflict is a contest between the urge to solve problems through international cooperation, and the urge to stick to the ancient "great game" approach of endlessly competing nations.

You suggest the resistance on Iraq is based on this conflict, but I'll go you one better: the whole attack on Iraq is based on it, too, as part of an effort by Washington to show the world that the old rules still apply, and always will.

One last point. Keep in mind that it's not just Europe that opposes the US on Iraq. In fact, I can't think of a single foreign country where a majority of the people support Bush's Iraq policy.