The "axis of evil", "weapons of mass destructions" and "war on terror", some say this is propaganda?

Question

The "axis of evil", "weapons of mass destructions" and "war on terror", some say this is propaganda, but the three statements above were all made with the real worry of nuclear weapons in mind and the United States being attacked by these weapons of mass destruction no matter how small or large.

We now have open proof of North Korea having nuclear weapons in the form of guided missiles, are these false statements when the proof is in every western new paper, now I ask you, the reference above Bush made, would you say false or true, was Bush right about all 3 of the tags he used during a speech to the nation.

Answer 1

Not in any context that surpasses his scope.

Would you shake in your boots if you knew that China has quietly been testing nuclear weapons for the past ten years at least? If you want to look at something, look it up at the USGS website. Go through the years of signifigant quakes between 90-2004. There are two or three that are called, "Possible nuclear explosion." It's all on their webiste archives.

The truth is, these are propaganda terms, in every way a term like that can be identified. We can fight against Al Qaeda, but we cannot be in a war against an undefined enemy whose existence as a warring body against us is not clear. We cannot fight against holders of weapons of mass destruction if we give our allies nuke technology, the likes (designs) of which we also gave the Iranians (and Israelis, who went on silently to develop a nuclear force through which to frighten its neighbor, who now desires that as well). It is much more complex than you think. And there is no axis, or permanent ally. Bin Laden was trained by our men. Saddam was put there with our support. Read more stuff. And look.

Answer 2

Propaganda originally meant information, but since World War 1, the meaning has spread to mean "Information created and spread to create confusion; information to support a certain idea and is generated to be misleading" So yes, I would say that Bush's rhetoric is pure propaganda. There were no WMDs; the War on Terror should be against terrorists not civilians or even armies that were never against us in Iraq, and the axis of evil? Well, where is it? Is it Iran? N Korea? Syria? Hezbollah? All of the places where we're NOT fighting? Or only the lone place Bush thought in his simple way that we could overtake, very easily and start showing them what cowboy democracy was all about? Where he could become a cowboy President that people could respect, because they obviously were not going to respect his abilities, his ingenuity, his prowess as a social leader or thinker. He's not even man enough to finish the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Answer 3

Because they are propoganda. Smoke and mirrors that the current administration is using to describe the war they've made.

The United States has its own nuclear weapons, but I don't see anyone calling those WMDs. They are just as powerful (if not more dangerous in the hands of this administration) as those in other countries.

And I just don't get how people can take someone seriously when they cannot, for the love of anything, say the word "nuclear" properly. If someone is in public office it would be nice to be able to hear them actually have a speech *of their own* with words they can pronounce.

Don't forget: Saddam Hussein was actually backed by the American government when he took power in Iraq. The leadership of that country was a direct result of something that our government did.

Answer 4

There's a wee bit of truth in these terms, but that wee bit is used to justify a BY FAR greater acts of evil like robbing nations of their wealth, and causing the death and destruction of huge masses of people which includes children, too.

Another purpose such propaganda serves is to deflect thinking on to others instead of ones own government. However, just look at the circumstances of these events and the track records. For example it is a FACT that about 500 000 Iraqi children died as a consequence of your government sponsoring sanctions on Iraq. And regarding the use of nuclear weapons why don't you look into the use of depleted uranium by your government which have actually caused sickness among American soldiers, too.

Bush used the lie of WMD to kill so many and destroy so much, and yet he's supposed to be fighting terrorism...wow, who's kidding who!

Answer 5

Bush was wrong.

He stole the "Axis of Evil" line from Ronald Reagan.

NO WMD have been found in Iraq, just some old rockets manufactured pre-1991 that even the Pentagon has stated posed little or no threat.

There is no formal "war on terror", nor can there be. You can't wage war on an ideology. You have to have a physical enemy. The enemy has finally been named, more or less - Islamic fascism. Unfortunately for our befuddled president, the terms are mutually exclusive. Fascism is a political ideology. Islam is a religious ideology, and one in which government and religion are one and the same, in its most fundamental application. And no matter how you define it, Islamic fascism is still just an ideology. It can be anywhere and everywhere, So - does this give the U.S. carte blanche to invade any country it feels like, just because there might be Islamic crackpots there?

Answer 6

It's interesting that the "Axis of Evil" all happen to be countries that changed from trading oil with dollars to euros. Coincidence?

WMD? Still looking...

War on terror. Does the US really have to go it alone and be the worlds police?

North Korea is only saber rattling trying to extort more money out of the rest of the world. If they were truly a threat, it would be over all ready.

Answer 7

No.

Considering the US in the only country to have used nuclear weapons on people...all i can say is i guess time catches up with you.

There are many countries in the world that have nuclear weapons..and some of them are even LESS stable than the ones in the "Axis of Evil"

Seriously. What a farce.

Answer 8

Yes they were used as propaganda.

I will explain.

1. axis of evil - Bush said Iran, Iraq and N. Korea

A. Iran - is a member of the NPT therefore has every right to enrich uranium for energy purposes as long as inspectors have full access. They have repeatedly stated they have no intentions of enriching uranium metal that is required for nuclear weapons. When you hear Bush talk on tv about Iran and nuclear weapons, those are his words.. propaganda.. not what Iran has said. Also, Iran has no history of being the aggressor during any military conflict.

B. Iraq - Saddam was contained due to very successful sanctions. Contained, as in, he had absolutely no WMDs, his military was next to nothing and posed no threat to any other nations.

C. N.Korea in the late 90s stated it desired to created nuclear missiles but after testing one in 1998, there were a lot of negotiations so they backed off. In December, 2001, Bush removed the USA from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (treaty that states you will not make long range nuclear weapons). Consdier the following sequence of events:
1. Bush removes the USA from the ABT in Dec, 2001
2. Bush stated N.Korea, Iraq and Iran are on his axis of evil - 2002
3. Bush asked the UN to invade Iraq but UN says not yet
4. Bush ignores the UN and invades Iraq -2003
Once N.Korea saw this they immediately restarted their nuclear weapon program.

Axis of Evil conclusion - there is no axis of evil
- Can you blame any of those countries for reacting the way they have?
- Who is the evil? The one who is taking threatening actions, Bush? Or the ones attempting to defend themselves?

2. WMDs

A. There were no WMDs.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

B. Refer to Axis of Evil under C.N. Korea for explanation of their creating nuclear weapons.

3. War on Terror

A. By unjustiably occupying Iraq, Bush has created more terrorists than we ever could have imagined.

B. Bush could have ended the war on terror on Sept 18 and 19th, 2001 when the Taliban offerred to hand B.Laden over to a nuetral country to be put on trial. Bush said no.

War on Terror Conclusion:
- Yes there is now a war on terror but it has been the direct result of Bush's actions.
- We were attacked on 911 by the Taliban. We had the Taliban dismantled and defeated with 3 months after 911.

Answer 9

nicely, Iran admits to having those guns, so no, No they don't seem hypocrites. "guns of Mass destruction" change into used as a device for Bush, as there change into no direct data of Iraq funding terrorism. convinced, I understand their were training camp in Iraq, even if the 9/11 terrorists discovered to fly in Florida, so ought to we invade. He actually necessary more beneficial data and purposely falsified this data. there change into UN exams of Iraq's centers on dissimilar activities that stated they do no longer have those guns. the position Iran on the different hand promotes that they both have or attempt to attain those guns. i visit end with a question, Did you pass the third grade?

Answer 10

all three of them are a myth meant to instill fear so the people back the administration and its policies ... do hypothetcal threats to you exists? oh, of course ... but what we are doing is giving up our liberty and way of life and the very principles this country was founded on in order to be protected from these hypothetical threats .... govts all throughout history and even the united states has been documented as performing false flag operations on their own citizens and country ... blaming it on political enemies either real or manufactured, to achieve political objectives at home and abroad ... a state of war only exists as an excuse for domestic tyranny.