"Axis of Evil" vs Nuclear Threat

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

  1. Rosey

    Rosey TRIBE Member

    no, it is unlikely that the u.s. will attack through military force, it has becoem more their style to force other nations into subjection with economic coersion and covert operations. the space defence program is just their insurance policy that nobody who trys to resist will have any chance to give them a black eye....foolishly, all it takes a tugboat loaded with 1.5kg of weapons grade plutonium in new york harbour and there ain't no satellite that can stop that.

    [quote
    Tell me this: when has America EVER attacked unprovoked? Or invaded another country in peacetime?
    [/QUOTE]

    war of 1812
    spanish-american war
    vietnam - or do you consider the conflicts in french indochina to not constitute a time of peace?
     
  2. silver1

    silver1 TRIBE Member

    So true. No person (Tribe board member) would ever nuke another country (message board) unless they had a shield (home message board with application based registration + IP anonymizer) to hide behind :p
     
  3. Adam Duke

    Adam Duke TRIBE Member

    Afghanistan?

    The U.S. government has virtually trampled all over the Geneva Convention ("prisoners of war", the use of cluster bombs, the murder of innocent civillians, secret military trials, the robbing of people's human rights), and, has not even officially declared "war" on Afghanistan. It's assumed that a blanket "war on terrorism" gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want in any country where terrorism is suspected.

    Not only that, but invasion today is not the same as it was 50 years ago. Instead of legions of soldiers invading countries, we have corporations, and their u.s. trained paramilitaries that are invading countries, and raping them of their resources and money. All of this happens with the help of the IMF's "structural adjustment programs". Resistance is met with assault, repression, the "dissapearances" of union leaders, the forceful displacement of villagers, and often the outright murder of those who stand in the way of progress. Sure these companies don't necessarily represent the government of America, but they sure as hell represent the interests of America that the government is so vehement about defending.

    Nine times out of ten the people living in these countries don't want them there. But their government has been coerced into allowing these companies to enter with the promise of big money. It's even bad for the regular (read: not the rich 1%) citizens of America because they're jobs fly overseas to save their former employers some money.

    So yes, you're probably right that technically America has not "invaded" any countries during peace time, but what's happening now is often just as bad.

    Pete
     
  4. twist

    twist TRIBE Member

    k first off all you bush haters... suck my fuicking dick. You all think he's some dumb texan who shoots off shotguns in the oval office and drinks moonshine at peace summits. You guys are fuct. He gradutaed from yale with a history degree and flew jet fighters in the air national guard. Both feats that I'm sure most of you would be hard pressed to mimic. They don't let idiots fly fighters they clean the bombs. He may not be the most articulate guy in the world he may not have been an honour student but how many of you are? Guy studies the reagan regime and loves the guy off. If you ask any american over 40 or so and they will tell you reagan is the DON FUCKING DADA. So you guys can can your dumb bush routine. Axis of evil? Guess what the day after that statement iran started beefing up their meeting schedule with the US and Iraq opened discussions on the return of misslie inspectors even the koreans were a little nervous. When hostages were taken in iran under Jimmy carter they stayed there for 2 years cause Carter was an idiot. Then reagan moves into office and they were sent home the next day. Why? Cause they new he wasn't fucking about. He was gonna get those hostages back and they knew it.

    Starving people cause of US sanctions? Suck a dick if you are a well known agressor and have tried to build up nuclear and chemical supplies before and have threatened and actually used them to wage a bs war then you can suck my ass drop your borders and take our inspectors up your ass you militant crazy fucks.

    The thing with nuclear weapons is the threat. No country thinks they're in any danger from the US launching a pre-emptive strike and you guys know it to. But the US has to maintain the ability to completely wipe any country off the face of the earth so no country will try and strike first because it would simply mean their own demise. That's always been the game did you guys miss the cold war or what? I don't think another country on earth should be allowed to get nuclear arms and bush feels the same way. You guys seem to hate america all good and dandy but what about china and their refusal to stop selling missile technology to ANYONE. Or any of the other major issues they ignore outside pressure on. Fuck iran. Bastards. They've been a constant agressor.

    Someone said the geneva convention and POWs HELLO MCFLY!!! IF we gave them legal POW status we'd have to repatriate them after the cessation of hostilities. Oh here you go OSama sorry about the war try to be good. It wasn't a nation fighting against us they were unlawful combatants. Jesus. If they were classified as POWs the canadian government would let them go within an hour from pearson give them a job and that'd be that. Wake up. Secret military. This isn't the x-files these people aren't innocent bystanders. They're people who want you dead.

    I'm sorry we labled those countries. Fack off. Everyone agrees they're evil but we can't say they're the axis of evil cause we're afraid of stepping on their toes and hurting feelings? Fuck em they want our toes in a jar on the mantle. IS bush threatening nuclear war. No. No one's holding anyone hostage with anything. It wasn't exactly the greatest thging to say but fucking hell you guys are a little to hurt by it or whatever. beam me up scottie this place is fuct.
     
  5. Question: I wonder about this sudden labelling of an Axis of Evil being a ploy for the Pentagon, and the military to recieve large amounts of funding to re-energize their once rich coffers. The U.S. hasn't really increased defensive spending since the Gulf War, and I can't help but wonder if there is a bit of opportunity behind this declaration of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being evil. Iran wasn't exactly an enemy 10 years ago, and longer ago, Iraq was a also an ally with the U.S.

    There is no doubt that more nuclear weapons will only further create an air of paranoia, xenophobia and fear, and less nuclear weapons are indeed better. However, I can't help but think about the Reagan administration and their cold war stance that caused the 80's to be an economic winfall of financial success and growth. There might be a real threat here, but at the same time, I don't think anyone is ignoring the hidden benefits of entering into a cold war might grant the U.S. and it's allies.

    From the Ministry of my take

    Prime Minister Highsteppa
     
  6. Rosey

    Rosey TRIBE Member

    actually the states has agreed to grant POW status to taliban/afghani soldiers, they just want to hang on to al-queda fighters....can't argue with that.
     
  7. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    AWWWWWWWW CRAP.

    That was me who posted that at the studio and the damn cookies got me again. It had nothing to do with @m.

    damn damn damn.

    Pete
     
  8. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    Twist... you just keep towing the line like a good little republican and take everything our commender in chief says without question.

    And James, regarding the increase in military spending, here are some other points of interest:

    • The U.S. spends approximately $400 billion per year on defense.
    • The Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit.
    • The Pentagon cannot account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. (as per recent reports)
    • In recent years the Pentagon could not match $22 million worth of expenditures with the items purchased.
    • It has already written off billions worth of in-transit inventory and has stored almost $30 million in un-needed spare parts.

    Makes you wonder why they need to toss an additional $50 billion at it when they could probably find that sort of pocket change between the couch cushions.

    Pete
     
  9. Boo

    Boo TRIBE Member

    Then again you could just give them food because they are human beings starving to death... no conditions pegged to it at all.
     
  10. Boo

    Boo TRIBE Member

    With all this talk though ... do you realise how easy it is to actually build nuclear weapons? The know how is out there....fuck I could probably get the blueprints off the net if I wanted. Gimme some plutonium and a team of scientists and I'd be good to go.

    Scary

    Like if North Korea wanted nuclear weapons I don't see how we could realistically stop them.
     
  11. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member

    Actually, I think Twist has some good points. But lets band together with our friends like good little Tribers and not acknowledge anything anyone else says.

    And wow, you've cited examples of government mismanagement of funds. That's a new thing! Want me to post some lovely Canadian misspending stats? Let's get off the monetary issue here and focus on the real one: whether certain countries in the world should have the capabilities to nuke their neighbours/enemies/themselves in a fit of religious/old grudge/megalomaniacal fervour.

    Oh, and Pyrovitae? That "garbage" response was not worthy of your intellect - has someone stolen your password or something?

    Hehe - I was even going to edit my comment cause I knew people would be all over it, but then I figured what the hell. America's intervention in Vietnam was a mistake, but it was NOT unprovoked. Same with Afghanistan.





    :)d
     
  12. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    I'm sure he does, and I tried to make them out but I couldn't understand anything through the "suck my fucking dick", and "you guys are fucked" type comments that we know and love him for.



    Werd. :)

    And back to what I've said originally, I don't think that countries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea should have Nukes, but the U.S. is not the world police and does not, and should not have the authority to make these decisions. Bush has already given the rest of the world a great big fuck off by pulling out of the Kyoto protocol in favour of increasing his country's greenhouse gas emissions. Since he's come into office he's strained relationships with many allies with his unilateralism on many fronts including trade (BC lumber dispute), polution (Kyoto protocol), and biological arms (U.S. was the only participant country that opted out of the proposed agreement, effectively killing the whole deal).

    If these "rogue nations" are going to be dissarmed, either by force or through negotiations, it should be done by the U.N.
    I know that they're not the effective world peace body that they should be, but they're a lot more responsible and represent a much larger part of the world's population than a single country's war-hungry government.

    Pete
     
  13. Pyrovitae

    Pyrovitae TRIBE Member

    no one stole my password. i don't really want to get into this debate, (the topic of politics is no where as appealing as philosophy,) so instead you received a one word reply.

    garbage.

    i'm just amazed at some of the misinformation you propagate and believe. for example, the u.s government not interfering in times of peace...even from my limited perspective of history i see a direct correlation between export/potential financial wealth of a country to u.s involvement. the states reminds me of star trek, to use your analogy..."we must not violate the prime directive", "we must not interfere with how other nations govern themselves (unless it works to our advantage)." remember, in star trek, the prime directive was violated ALL the time? seems similar enough.

    your initial quote was a fallacy, (invasions/involvement in peacetime,) and vietnam was *not* warranted. the states slunk out of there with their tails between their legs, vets were told they'd receive parades when they came back home, instead they were ostracized for particpating in a war they had no business fighting to begin with.

    q:

    whether certain countries in the world should have the capabilities to nuke their neighbours/enemies/themselves in a fit of religious/old grudge/megalomaniacal fervour

    a:

    obviously *not*. how do you decide who should "justifiably" own nukes, and who shouldn't? by the same token, how is it even viable to stop them? more nukes? armegeddon? if so, then aren't the counter measures taken by the persecuters the same as the initial causal actions by the oppressors?

    "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind"~mahatma ghandi

    oh, and to bring up an old debate, your conceptions of poverty and welfare are grossly inaccurate as well. it must be nice to be a white, privledged male who whines about being in a higher tax bracket...and how those who are less fortunate are committing fradulent acts against the government. you must have no idea what the concept of struggle is; i imagine you've always had a roof over your head and food in your belly, so really i shouldn't fault you for not being capable of understanding something you've never experienced.

    garbage.

    *muah*
    ~N
     
  14. Thunder

    Thunder TRIBE Member

    Ah the wonderful world of International Relations..

    The media is the real axis of evil..
     
  15. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    Ouch, I've been told!:rolleyes:

    You've obviously been following my entire spectrum of commentaries since day one - you have me at a disadvantage..........

    No one should justifiably own nuclear weapons; unfortunately that's not the situation, and its up to cooler heads to prevail when a nutcase wants to own them. And I didn't say Vietnam was warranted, I said it wasn't unprovoked - how you extrapolated my entire political statement out of a one-line comment is beyond me. But I'm sick of talking politics, and whether or not Bush is more likely to detonate a nuclear device or Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or Friedo the Happy-Horse fucker. Its old and tired, and there's no changing a bleeders mind once its set - its free the prisoners, torture the politicians and give all the weapons to the radical revolutionists cause at least they have a cause to fight for! Oh and don't get involved with any countrys policies, unless and until they ask for aid. Then unquestioningly give em everything they want. Then don't get involved any more, until they ask again. And if they're guilty of human rights offences? Who cares, its not our problem, we shouldn't get involved, cause its the way things are over there, wherever there may be, they stew up St. Bernards, torture women for adultery, and kill children cause their parents believe in a slightly different set of religious beliefs, but that's their custom, its your cultured prejudiced evil Western beliefs that is giving you that bad taste in the first place.

    Regarding the tax bracket, where do you get off judging me? This country punishes people who work hard and make money, and rewards people who sit on their asses bemoaning their situation. There's exceptions to every rule, but I'm not going to apologize for any comments I've made in the past, and I'm sure as hell not going to retract them just because it offends your left-wing bleeding hearted give-all-my-money-to-the-homeless attitude. If you don't think some people rip off the system just to get a free ride, then you should continue to bask in your naivety. Hell, maybe Canada should increase our taxes, then they could pay out even more to the "less fortunate", or to anyone who's decided that this job and that job is "not for them". It's not me you should blame, but the Canadian government; if they weren't so busy dumping funds into an already-inflated police force then maybe they could afford to give out a thousand a month to anyone who asks (and therefore qualifies). Unfortunately, the "less fortunate" you speak of too often turns out to be in one of the following categories:

    1. 18-year old mother of two - I got a money-saving idea! Don't have sex - it tends to help with the not-being-pregnant factor. Oh and if your yearly income is small, then maybe having kids isn't your best course of action - they tend to get expensive. And how is it the Canadian taxpayers problem to raise your 5 kids till they're 18? Stop poppin em out and you won't have to pay for em.

    2. Meth/heroin/coke/booze addicts - see above, but replace "kids" with addictive expensive narcotics. We're not here to fuel your own personal destruction binge here; just cause you're too white and shaky to hold down that McDonalds job doesn't mean the taxpayer has a God-given right to support your loser ass. Same with "chronic alchoholics" - cry me a river - you want to get soused and cry? Check yourself into a treatment program and stop bringing the rest of the world down with you - even though we gotta pay for that too, its a whole lot better than the stumbly beat my wife and kids alternative. To paraphrase John Bender: Pull yourself up, or Bury your head in the fucking sand, and wait for that check so you can cash it in on a nice new bottle of Jimmy, Johnny or Jack.

    3. Freshly-arrived non-English or French speaking immigrants - ah, my favorite. So you want to come to a new country, not learn the local language, have no marketable skills and we have to pay for it? No problem while you get started and take some educational courses for your eventual entry into the workforce, but if you're going to sit around all day shovelling fog off the bay then I don't see how you think you are entitled to anything. Tell you this much - if I moved to another country, the language is the first thing I'd learn - tends to come in handy when you're actually interacting with anyone who isn't of your precise ethnic origin. This is a diverse country; chances are you're going to meet someone that doesn't speak your local dialect. And that someone might just have given you a job if you could have at least asked for it. I know Italian grandmothers who've been here for 35 years and don't speak a word of anything but Italian. All the power to you, and if your husband stops bringing in the bacon for any reason, there's always the welfare system. My father was an immigrant; he arrived here with about 50 dollars to his name. But he worked his "white overprivileged" ass off to get where he is today, and never went on the dole once in his life. Sure, he was white and he spoke English. But if you think that anyone who isn't white is getting screwed for jobs, then you are stuck in the 40's. My work has about 5 English natives and about 40 minorities, and everyone pulls their weight and gets shit done. So you can put that in your pipe and smoke it, my deah - this country has jobs if you're willing to pull up your socks and go out and get them - they might be factory jobs, but its a paycheck, and if you set your goals high, who knows what you can accomplish.

    4. People with eternal bad backs: OK, this is a sensitive yet extremely common one. I've seen guys who haven't worked for 5 years because of a "bad back" - a father I know sits around smoking pot all day collecting the checks, but has no problem muscling a case of Labatt 50 out of the car trunk when he's thirsty.

    5. Landscapers: Question: Just cause it snows in the winter, you're entitled to work 5 months and get government checks for the other seven? How does this work? I got an idea - get an INSIDE job for the cold months and pull your fucking weight.

    6. People getting paid under the table: Ah, probably the largest and oldest scam in the book. Great buddy, you're screwing the system, good for you, just don't brag to me about it, you fat fuck, while you sit there and eat your lunch, drink your beer and collect pogey checks at the same time, while hard-working people pay 50 percent of their checks to support you and your lowlife boss.

    These are obviously bad examples of a good system, but believe me they do exist, and in greater numbers than you think. And its disgusting to see someone take advantage of a system put in place for those who are honestly unable to work.

    You're right, I am a white privileged male, and a cynical prick, and I don't have anything to apologize for, my dear little computer-addicted friend. If you want to help the underprivileged so much, sell your monitor and give the proceeds to the squeedgee kids who's parents live in fucking Rosedale and who are just checking street life out cause their folks yelled at them for coming home methed-out.


    Here's a quote you might find familiar:

    I'm an asshole, and proud of it....Dennis Leary


    *muah*




    :)d
     
  16. Pyrovitae

    Pyrovitae TRIBE Member

    my friend, i *am* the less fortunate. i have *never* received a "sweet paycheque for sitting on my ass" from the government. i've worked 80 hour weeks enduring more physical labour and shit than you could even imagine only to be met by verbal abuse. just recently it had been about a week before i had a decent meal that my mother bought me, and thankfully she decided to get me some groceries as well. when you have no money food is at times a luxury that you cannot afford. i have creditors calling on a daily basis, i have an estimated hundred dollars to last me indefinately, and if i can't find a way to get a job *now* i will lose my place of residence as of april 1st. i have fought, struggled and done so completely on my own. and i *know* i will transcend, that this already *is* making me a stronger person.

    less than a year ago i was making a big fat paycheque at a corporation where i was doing very little work relative to the money i was making. so i understand where you're coming from, and i pray you will never know what it's like to be at the opposite end of the spectrum, because then you would eat your words.

    so thank you for assigning me the label of a "left-wing bleeding hearted give-all-my-money-to-the-homeless" individual, but i do hope you realize that i speak out of compassion and experience.

    i haven't followed your commentary or posts from the beginning, but i *will* vocalize what angers me. and your relegating all responsibility to the free-loaders of this nation, (that you personally know, as well as some of your thoughts within this thread,) made me laugh.

    forgive me if i assume you have no comprehension on what you're talking about in regards to this issue, but you have not been there. you can look down your moral high horse at those less fortunate than you, but you have no IDEA of what their experiences may be relative to your own.

    you're right about one thing, though...i probably should turn off my computer and get outside. i was only using it to look for a *job*. (there are those who *do* want to be employed and don't *like* sitting around not working.)

    one more thing, completely irrelevant, but to say it would make me feel oh-so good:

    kiss. my. ass.:)

    *muah* indeed
    ~N

    p.s. (hi neil.:) long time no see.)
     
  17. H2Whoa

    H2Whoa TRIBE Member

    Pyrovitae 738 posts
    LoopeD 1412 posts

    :)
     
  18. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member



    Oh dear, Chronic, and Rosey, and Otis, looks like your arguments were just blown out of the water, now that your buddy Tony Blair has jumped on the anti-Iraq bandwagon. Wow, as I and many others said all along IT'S NOT JUST GEORGE W. BUSH who thinks Iraq probably shouldn't have WOMD. And since your ENTIRE argument was based on the whole "U.S. being world police", then what say you now, my left-winged friends? Did Bush slip Blair some roofies? Or is it all an American plot to undermine British Parliament?


    P.S. Pyrovitae, saw there was a personal message, went to pick it up, no message was there, so I gave up. By the way, I really don't want to talk to you any more, that was my post, it might have been a little harsh, I was pretty crabby, but hey, who gives a shit, cause its ONLY A MESSAGE BOARD! This is NOT ICQ, just cause the new board has messenging doesn't mean I want to have little personal message wars with anybody and everybody, so please cease and desist..........








    :)d
     
  19. InFa

    InFa TRIBE Member

    here! here! to your whole statement... it was just too long to repost.


    reality check.
     
  20. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    What are you talking about? Because 1 single nation, the one nation that has been kissing U.S. ass more than anyone since Sept 11th, joins the U.S. against Iraq, they now have the entire world's support? Where do you get off making such grand assumtions?

    My arguments are still a whole lot more valid than anything that you've posted in here yet. And another thing... what is with your debate tactics?

    Any time someone makes a comment that goes against what you're saying, you try to put words into our mouths that were never there to begin with. If we don't think the U.S. should be blowing innocent people up in their pursuit of terrorists you tell us that we're supporters of Bin Laden who don't have any respect for the thousands who died on September 11th. If we think that more money should be spent on the poor it's because we're bleeding heart liberals who think that everyone should be given a free ride.
    You do this in every single one of your posts and it only reflects your reluctance to actually read and try to understand another person's point of view. That's why people get so frustrated, and that's why people call your posts garbage.

    You think exactly like Bush. That we're either with you, or that we're with the terrorists. It's not that simple. There's a lot of space in between the two extremeties and the longer you keep pigeon-holing anyone who you dissagree with the longer it will take you to understand what's really going on.

    Pete
     
  21. Pyrovitae

    Pyrovitae TRIBE Member

    it was essentially saying i hope there are no hard feelings, because after all this *is* a message board. no war...although i'm not sure if i should be flattered or insulted that you thought i would continue to "harrass" you. despite your preconceived perceptions of me, i dislike any sort of animosity.

    regardless, i'm not going to "force" anyone to talk to me when they don't want to. i just wanted you to be aware that there are those who don't fit your generalized criteria...i thought you *liked* debating?:)

    take care. remember that they're just words.:)

    *muah*
    ~N
     
  22. Hi i'm God

    Hi i'm God TRIBE Member

    A little off topic but... If this is a war on terrorisim why are terrorists still gunning people down in jerusalam? why arnt the Yanks in there stopping those people before they do that. I keep hearing "a terrorist plot to bomb US embassy in bumbfuck nowhere as been foiled" but what about the thousands of other terroist factions at work that arnt directed at a us embassy???

    Just wondering.
     

Share This Page