This was sent to me via email but not attributed to anyone. I think it might have originated at The Onion.com, as it has that "Onion-esque" feel to it: ANGERED BY SNUBBING, Libya, China and Syria form "Axis of just as Evil"; Cuba, Sudan, Serbia Form "Axis of Somewhat Evil"; Other Nations Start Own Axes…… Beijing -- Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than " that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis" President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best." Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool." The Axis Pandemic International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just generally disagreeable." With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics." Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That AreActually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America," while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the "Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick." "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the "Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges. Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
(but on the serious side...) In his State of the Union address, President Bush certainly implied that we are going to do something. Right out of the gate, I’d suggest that we don't refer to the three countries as an "Axis" of anything. There is no evidence that the three countries substantively collaborate, and the use of the term will cause people to think that there is a single solution to the problems these three countries pose. North Korea - The North Koreans have been playing a game duplicity for the past several years, with the end result being that North Korea has gotten several billions of dollars in aid in return for a few South Koreans (paying exorbitant prices) have gotten to visit a mountain in North Korea, about 50 North Koreans got to briefly visit their families, and that's about it. North Korea also claims to have stopped its nuclear program, but refuses to provide evidence to corroborate that. Policy for this country is a tricky situation. If the nation were about to collapse due to poverty and famine, I believe it is highly likely they would engage in military adventurism to fend off that collapse. On the other hand, the aid provided has simply allowed N. Korea to continue to spend money on its military instead of having to divert money to stop its people from starving. I don't know where to go there, but demanding an actual quid pro quo in return for aid is probably a good start. Iran – I’d like to see evidence that Iran is a "rogue" nation and that there is more behind Bush’s name-calling than hurt feelings because an earlier regime threw us out and held U.S. citizens hostage and made us feel bad. I absolutely support efforts to deny Iran nuclear capability. I recognize that Iran supports a number of issues that are opposed to the perceived interests of the U.S. I recognize that some of their support is given to groups that we consider terrorists. Bush, however, seems to fail to recognize that Iran is not simply run by a power-mad elite and that it has been taking (small) steps toward a "Western acceptable" democracy for over 15 years. By unilaterally declaring them a "rogue" nation and dismissing the efforts that they have made toward becoming what "we" would like them to be, he has created a situation in which he will force them to become more the way that he has portrayed them, simply to defy his rhetoric. His rhetoric toward Iran is especially stupid at this time. Iran and Pakistan (another less than democratic nation that has supplied the world with terrorists) each have a vested interest in making sure that Afghanistan is stabilized. By placing Iran on a list of "bad" countries, Bush jeopardizes the process where both Iran and Pakistan provide counterbalancing support to factions within Afghanistan. If either side gets to prop up their own interests at the expense of the other, Afghanistan could well fall into civil war again. If Bush wants Iran to join the community of nations and stop being a "rogue," then he should be offering support for their democratic efforts, not trying to make them pariahs. If he thinks that China (which has no democratic faction in their government) can be lured into the community of nations, then he ought to be able to lure Iran, with its elected assembly and president, without any trouble. Iraq - Keep it contained. Reform sanctions to lift the burden on the Iraqi people, but keep sanctions in place that prevent a rebuilding of its military, as well as acquiring of weapons of mass destruction (remember, Iraq is the only nation that has used them since Nagasaki). End the no-flight zone overflights, but keep the planes in place in case Saddam goes after the Kurds or the Shi'ite around Basra. Your thoughts? What do you think we ought to do? Peace.
goofyfish ... Leave it to the Israelis! In '81 they destroyed Iraq's nuclear plant which was considered to be capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. Twenty years later I have no doubt that they would do the same were they to feel that Iran was becoming a threat. I trust their intelligence in most matters more than ours. Take care. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Goofyfish... I broadly agree with your suggestions. In fact, you are very much portraying the EU position on the issue. I don't know what kind of coverage Bush's 'axis of evil' speech is getting in the US, but in Europe it has gone down like a led ballon. I think the Iran issue is the most important one of the three. It is not some isolated, rogue nation with no friends and a strongman in office. It is a complex, important and influential country. You are right to point out that the move in iran has been away from extremism over the past 5-10 years and domestic political power is currently finely balanced. By wading in and calling the country 'evil' Bush does little to foster the growth of democratic institutions over religious ones. It was Khatemi and the elected (if less than totally powerful) government which initially sought to improve ties with the US in the wake of 9-11, and in this they went out on a limb. The US strung them along for a while as it was convenient and then suddenly decided to adopt Sharon's Iran policy! Now he plays into the 'good v. evil' hands of the Ayatollahs. Bush has succeeded in uniting both reformists and conservatives in their anger at the US while also setting back improving UK-Iran relations (the new UK ambassador was refused credentials two days after the famous speech). Thanks Dubya. He is also risking a serious breach in EU-US relations. The EU coordinator for foreign policy, Chris Patten, could barely contain his anger at this US unilateralism this weekend, and Europe will not go along with it. Euope will sign a trade agreement soon and continue to work with Iran on a number of areas. Iran has even suggested setting up an Iran-EU anti-terrorist body. Increasingly I have to say the US is going to isolate itself. The goodwill since 9-11 has been poorly used. This attempt to merge the universally supported crackdown on terrorism with a global division of good and evil has nowhere to go. I mean after all this rhetoric aimed at Iran, where is the US going to go? Sanctions are already in place. Military action? Don't think do. So George just sounds like he's all talk. What's the point. If Bush doesn't start listening to Powell soon he's going to lose friends. Somebody needs to keep a lid on the hawks strutting around the White House.
The problem with saber rattling and big talk is that sooner or later you might have to back it up. While you may be able to get away with pushing some little guys around, it might not turn out the way you expect. Let G.W. Bush profit from the example of Napoleon III. Peace.
i always thought one of the reasons the united states was so freindly with israel was for their intelligance in the region the axis of evil comment is in my view just a way for bush to keep his tough on terrorism campaign going, pointing out new targets.. which would proably be best considering the stink enron is creating in domestic affairs... people questioned bush's ability to handle foreign affairs, yet that's whats keeping him from getting slaughtered in the polls
