"Axis of Evil" vs Nuclear Threat

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by LoopeD, Feb 27, 2002.

  1. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member

    Taken from the National Post:



    So I ask you this :

    What is worse in the big picture, that George Bush used the term Axis of Evil, or that the countries in question are aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons to God knows what end?









    :)d
     
  2. KiFe

    KiFe TRIBE Member

    all of the above...

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    So what?

    The U.S. has piles and piles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Russia has nukes. Pakistan and India have nukes. Practically everyone has nukes now.

    So these three countries are "evil" because they're trying to build some too?

    I don't get it...

    Pete
     
  4. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: "Axis of Evil" vs Nuclear Threat



    Well, considering one was a verbal comment and the other could lead to millions of fiery deaths, I'd say your judgement call is a tad off.

    Bush's statement wasn't the most graceful way of saying it, but these countries are not lead by very cool heads either, you know.........






    :)d
     
  5. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    Building them to maliciously use, not as a defensive measure.

    So because everyone has them, any nut should be able to as well?

    I don't get you.





    :)d
     
  6. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member

    Anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein should be able to build nuclear weapons if he wishes is living in a world of make believe.






    :)d
     
  7. Hi i'm God

    Hi i'm God TRIBE Member

    I aggree.
     
  8. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    That's because I'm just playing the devil's advocate trying to get a rise out of you. ;)

    I don't think that someone with Bush's intelligence should have nuclear capability either... but that's not my decision to make.

    Of course nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea shouldn't have nukes, but the whole "smoke 'em out and kick their asses" approach by Bush will not solve this problem. It will only create more terrorists pissed off at the U.S. because of their military imperialism.

    He thought he was being cool and heroic at the North/South Korea border looking out over the "evil" ahead of him, basically ignoring the peace talks between the two nations that had been steadily improving up until that point. It's easy and simple to point to a city and throw around blanket statements like "they're all evil", but even his simple mind shoudl realise that issues are a little more complicated than that.

    Also, relations with Iran had been markedly improving since Sept 11th until he started throwing around base-less accusations. It's only going to increase anti-U.S. sentiment abroad.

    As for Iraq, Hussein's a nut case who should be evicted, but the U.S. are not the ones to do it because of obvious conflicts of interest (ie: revenge for daddy and oil interests). If the people of Iraq weren't all dying as children because of U.S. imposed sanctions then they could at least have enough strength to revolt.

    If Bush wants to get everyone on the planet working together in one big happy terror-free world, it's not going to happen by force and threats of military action. It will be through peace and understanding, through negotiations and communication. And so far, that is not the road that Bush has taken.

    Pete
     
  9. Boo

    Boo TRIBE Member

    Only one country has actually used these weapons.

    America... I'm looking in your direction :p
     
  10. Rosey

    Rosey TRIBE Member

    if you think that there is such a thing a defensive nuclear measure than you are insane. any country that possesses nuclear capability is inherently making an agressive and threatening statement to other nations.

    the united states is a joke...they're like a guy armed to the teeth, packing everything from a bowie knife to a battle rifle, decked out in camo gear and body armour who gets all pissed off and aggressive because somebody else has picked up a .22

    heck, i'll take the devil's advocate (again), can you blame saddam for wanting nukes? he knows that bush is coming after him and he knows the states has nukes...saddam needs them to defend himself. (by no means do i support the current iraqi regime) :p
     
  11. graham

    graham Well-Known Member

    Whatever decreases my odds of being blown-up by nuclear weapons is good for me. If these countries don't have nuclear weapons, there is less chance of them firing them at me. Therefore, I don't want these countries to have nuclear weapons.

    Just the way I like gun control, so that Jesse down the street has less chance to shoot me to death.
     
  12. KiFe

    KiFe TRIBE Member

    looped... i said 'all of the above'

    you asked what's worse, and i think they're sorta hand in hand dont you think?

    The whole middle east is a fire .... and bush... well bush is the fuel.

    that's how i see it.

    so when you ask what's worse (the fuel or the fire) i say all of the above. comprende senior? :)
    [​IMG]
     
  13. KiFe

    KiFe TRIBE Member

    haha yeah.. cuz we all know how much 'gun control' has hindered the amount of handguns out there. :rolleyes:

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Hal-9000

    Hal-9000 TRIBE Member

    George W. Bush should be smacked around for awhile for being so cavalier about invoking language that echoes WWII; Saddam Hussein should strung up like el Duce.
     
  15. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member

    Some good points.

    However, someone said Bush is too stupid to have nuclear weapons. This is a narrow statement. It isn't just Bush who would give the order to use said weapons, for one thing. And I feel safer that the States have nuclear weapons than the Iraquis or North Koreans. Actually, even the Iranians - wow, relations might have been slightly improving before the Axis of Evil statement, but Iran is by no means a model regime - I trust em like Jean-Luc Picard trusts the Romulans in Star Trek.

    And the question isn't whether the States is going into these countries and dropping nuclear bombs or wheteher they will be trained at us, its what these regimes will do with the weapons once they obtain them. Its a problem not faced by North America but by the poor people in the Middle East, North Africa, South Korea, the list goes on and on.

    Yes, the only country that has used these weapons is the States.
    60 years ago. In nuclear infancy, against a country who's government was willing to sacrifice their own people rather than surrender.


    I realize your attempt at getting a rise out of me, and it is duly noted. Just please tell me this statement isn't actually how you feel..............

    Even if the States attacks, using nukes to defend himself would probably wipe out all his people as well as countless others. As you obviously already have realized, with your infinate wisdom.



    :)d
     
  16. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    [mental image]
    Bush holding up a nuclear warhead over his head to sheild him from bullet fire.
    [/mental image]

    hahahahaha..

    Nuclear weapons are destructive, they cannot blow other offensive weapons out of the sky nor defend anything.

    The only reason to harbor nuclear weapons other than to use them offensively is for intimiation purposes. Intimidation is an offensive act.

    And because the largest countries in the world openly harbor them, it's given the message to other countries that if you wanna play with the "big boys" you need them too.

    And so it escalates.
     
  17. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    Its not the terrorists who have the nukes, its governments. This isn't a discussion about breeding future terrorists, its a question whether unstable government regimes should be allowed to develop nukes and other weapons of mass destruction.

    And your peace and understanding won't work. Did you see the picture in the Sun yesterday of the 4 year old kid in Gaza holding the AK-47? Do you really think that this child is born and bred into violence purely from political interests and understands this? As long as these children are brought up with misguided ideals, then the world will be a very unhappy place. The West is not purely to blame for all these people's misfortunes; most of their problems stem directly from bad governing and corruption.

    And you said more complicated issues. Well, it sure isn't as simple as "America is the cause of all your troubles, they should all be killed".






    :)d
     
  18. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    At one time, there was a nuclear threat with the Russians. Hence the need to harbour nukes. If I had my wish, they would all disappear without a trace. Unfortunately, many countries have them now, and until they are all gone, then the only remaining military superpower would be pretty fucking stupid to get rid of theirs. I don't care what anyone says, the States would never use weapons of mass destruction unless someone else used them against them first. I wish I could say the same about certain other countries in the world.

    Oh, and I'd say intimidation is a whole lot better than actually using them offensively. Bad example, man.







    :)d
     
  19. Ditto Much

    Ditto Much TRIBE Member

    Current reports put the number of people starved to death in North Korea at 2 million. All the while food has been availble from the international community pegged to the condition that there nuke program is dismanteled. North Korea has instead allowed 2 million plus people to starve to death.

    Sounds pretty fucking evil to me!!


    But hey theres no way a represive regime would ever starve its own people to get rid of them.
     
  20. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    EXACT same situation as Iraq's starving children everyone likes to bring up. But its all the Americans fault, lets not point the finger at the idiots in power there..............






    :)d
     
  21. Deus

    Deus TRIBE Member

    Everyone country that produces weapons of mass destruction is an evildoer terrorist country.
     
  22. Deus

    Deus TRIBE Member

    No wait, I'm sorry, every country except the USA.
     
  23. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    You sure you don't disagggggree?



    ;)






    :)d
     
  24. Klubmasta Will

    Klubmasta Will TRIBE Member

    CSIS

    didn't everyone know iran, iraq and south korea were developing nuclear weapons like ... ten years ago?

    those canadian intelligence agents must be working overtime.

    and who the hell uses words like "bellicose"?

    "in the nuclear age, the real enemy ... is war itself" - denzel washington's character in 'CRIMSOM TIDE' :p
     
  25. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member



    Um, what other countries have been condemned for developing nuclear weapons other than the three mentioned?


    And there are others who probably shouldn't have them too - I won't mention any names, but countries who's strife with their neighbours is based solely on religious differences.






    :)d
     

Share This Page