Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

November 9th, 2004

Tags

, , , , , ,

Comments

4 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Four More Years

A rogue state is one that ignores international standards of proper behavior and blatantly flouts international law. The term is used almost exclusively in the US —most countries disapprove of the very word—and perhaps because of this, President Bill Clinton replaced the term “rogue state” with the more PC “state of concern” in his last six months in office. The Bush administration returned to the original wording, and the State Department keeps an official list of Rogue States.

After eight years of Mr. Clinton’s presidency, this is a list of the nince Rogue States/States of Concern:
Cuba, Liberia, Libya, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, DPRK (North Korea)

No, I don’t necessarily blame Mr. Clinton for all of these, although he is partially responsible for Liberia (watching the country go to pot), Zimbabwe (ditto), Afghanistan (why stop with a few missiles at the terrorist training camps?), and the DPRK (thanks for letting Kim Gone Ill get nukes). The Republican congressional opposition bears as much responsibility for Afghanistan, but not the DPRK—they criticized the appeasement policy vigorously, thank you.

Dubya, to his credit, is on track to fix some of these mistakes. This is the list of remaining rogue states circa 2004:
Cuba, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran, DPRK

Afghanistan’s been taken care of. Hussein was removed from Iraq and operations are underway to fix the place. Liberia is on the mend. And Libya’s been scared straight. Bush may inspire anger in the salons of Paris, the palaces of Pyongyang, and the Latin American street. But when it comes to this administration’s foreign policy, I want four more years.

Comments to this entry

Alfred Wallace
November 9, 2004
10:03 pm
You know exactly why Clinton was restricted to a few missiles into Afghanistan; the rabid right would have cried "wagging the dog".....
Curzon
November 9, 2004
11:02 pm
Indeed -- but I've heard blood for oil; finishing Dad's war; in bed with the Saudis; neocon world empire scheme; Christian hatred for Islam; and every other kind of loony left criticism as to why Bush invaded Iraq. Clinton stopped short -- Bush didn't flinch.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » ‘Why do you like this guy?’ answered
August 4, 2005
12:21 am
[...] I’m not a Bush sycophant. I am a registered Republican. I have my likes and dislikes about Mr. Bush. Want to talk social policy and economics? I’ll probably agree with many of the critiques of Bush’s tax, agriculture, and social security policy. But I thought he was the superior choice by far in last year’s election and I’m glad he’s president, because I base my vote for president almost entirely on foreign policy. I’m basically reposting this, but since the question was asked, here goes. [...]
bushsucks
August 7, 2005
1:30 pm
I'd like to correct Curzon...Bush senior flinched, not Clinton; we were knocking on Saddam's door and he told Stormin' Norman to pull out of Iraq....WTF!? Also, "Dubya," (as redneck, Bible-thumping, ulta-conservatives like to affectionately call the moron we have for a president) did flinch. He stopped to ask the panty-waisted U.N. if they would "allow" us to go and fight terrorism in Iraq after we were told it was great that we were defending our country. Completely retarded strategy. He waited around forever waiting on approval for some lame-assed WMD excuse to be approved. Meanwhile, Saddam, who watched CNN and knew what was going on, decided to move the WMDs so that when we did finally come, they were off in Syria or some other country like that. Good job, idiot.