Worst of the Worst -- The Axis of Evil

Which is the Worst of the Worst in the Axis of Evil?

  • Islamic Republic of Iran

    Votes: 8 17.8%
  • Republic of Iraq

    Votes: 27 60.0%
  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)

    Votes: 10 22.2%

  • Total voters
    45
ComradeDavo, what makes the US so dangerous?

You consider a nation which disagree's with your idealogy (in this case Iran, Iraq, North Korea) dangerous, therefore on the same basis I must consider the USA to be dangerous (as my idealogy is communism). And anyone with that large a armed forces, political influence, Nucleur (spelling?) weapons, intelligence forces and most importantly enemies has to be considered somewhat dangerous if you ask me!

Do you think Iran is only dangerous towards the US?

Nope, it's just the way the poll is orientated, seeing how it is about Bush's 'axis of evil' speach!
 
I am not a communist, am I dangerous to you?
Its not just about ideaologies. its about offensive idealogies, such as 'destroying the west' or 'bombing that' or 'bombing here' ideaologies.
 
I am not a communist, am I dangerous to you?

Your an Isreali, not an American. Take a look at America's track record of dealing with communists and your see why I think of them as #1 on my enemy list:rolleyes:
 
I am jewish tho.
We are all incharge of the Bankers Communist conspiracy, and while being communist and bankers we are also very greedy.
 
I am jewish tho.
We are all incharge of the Bankers Communist conspiracy, and while being communist and bankers we are also very greedy.

LOL:lol:

I'm some what of a Trotskyist, and he was Jewish!
 
Without having yet read through everybody's posts to see how many others have said so, I just wanted to put in my two bits worth:

As a STRONG supporter of the US campaign in Afghanistan, and as a guy who has nothing but contempt for the governments of all three "axis" states, I can't help but share a bit of non-american trepidation about the "axis of evil" speech and the policy implications of it. Yanqui friends, do yourselves a favour and write your congressman about the need to publicize actual EVIDENCE of linkage with Al Queda or evidence of complicity in attacks on Americans before any hostile actions begin against these states.

Why? Personally, I think an american invasion for the express purpose of liberating these three states - provided elections were the final result - would not be such an immoral thing at face value. Bully for the US for being willing to make the sacrifice for the millions of people who can't have normal lives in these states, and a quick war in Iraq might even be more humane than slowly starving the country through sanctions.

But however trusting I might be to beleive that such an expedition would turn out for the best, the world is not quick to agree, particularly since anti-americanism is rampant enough that most allied countries would be opposed to it regardless of what the motive is, UNLESS a direct link to the WTC was made. And I shudder to imagine a world that started to swing against the US just because it took on some genuinely eville states without a little careful PR first, because beleive me, much as I hate to say it, America will start to find itself alone in this world get if Bush keeps on this way.

R.III
 
Originally posted by ComradeDavo
You consider a nation which disagree's with your idealogy (in this case Iran, Iraq, North Korea) dangerous, therefore on the same basis I must consider the USA to be dangerous (as my idealogy is communism).

I definately see why the US wouldn't like to see a Trotskyist state rise to power especially if it actually followed the ideals of both Trotsky and Lenin becuase it would be among the chief sponsors of terrorism in the world (not the disliking America kind either.). :cool:

Richard III: and a quick war in Iraq might even be more humane than slowly starving the country through sanctions.

The sanctions aren't what is starving the country.
 
Originally posted by DinoDoc


I definately see why the US wouldn't like to see a Trotskyist state rise to power especially if it actually followed the ideals of both Trotsky and Lenin becuase it would be among the chief sponsors of terrorism in the world (not the disliking America kind either.). :cool:

Richard III: and a quick war in Iraq might even be more humane than slowly starving the country through sanctions.

The sanctions aren't what is starving the country.

Actually, Communism is an Idealogy and a way of life, Terrorism is what the russians used to bring it up...
If I use terror in order to make my country a well fare country, does that mean well fare is terror? or that any wellfare country will be state-terrorism?
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe
If I use terror in order to make my country a well fare country, does that mean well fare is terror? or that any wellfare country will be state-terrorism?

I suggest reading Dictatorship vs. Democracy where Trotsky both defends and advocates the use of State terror both as a means for controlling domestic dissent and for coping with international strife bringing up such strawmen.
 
Firstly: Applying The term 'axis of evil' to the aforementioned states is rather ludicrous. Their only connecting features are that Mr Bush classes them as 'state sponsors of terrorism' or 'rouge states' or whatever the hell he wants to call them. Iran and Iraq still hate each other as much as they did in The 1980's.

Secondly, if Bush were to ever go after Iraq, he would probably at least need the implicit support of Iran. Iran is actually moderating itself over time, albeit slowly, although Mr Bush is apparently still living in the 1980's, carrying on with good 'ole Reaganite baggage. If The US has no plans to attempt to remove The Iranian regime, then continually allienating it in this fashion will do nothing. Whereas Europe has begun adopting a more sensible, pragmatic approach to Iran, Bush at the very least still considers it an 'evil' state. Essentially, he's set himself up for a fall with regards to Iran long term.

His thoughts on N Korea and Iraq I can sympathise to some point, but his stance towards Iran is outdated and not sensible.
 
Originally posted by Hamlet
Secondly, if Bush were to ever go after Iraq, he would probably at least need the implicit support of Iran. Iran is actually moderating itself over time, albeit slowly, although Mr Bush is apparently still living in the 1980's, carrying on with good 'ole Reaganite baggage.

You must not have been paying attention to what the Ayatollah Khameini has been doing lately. 200 secret police to train and destabalize the new Afghan government, shipping 50 tons of weapons to the Yasir Arafat, and continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

The Iranain government is hardly anything near moderate.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
You must not have been paying attention to what the Ayatollah Khameini has been doing lately.

200 secret police to train and destabalize the new Afghan government,

Evidence? Not that they were ever great friends of The taliban. Which goes to show how non-sensical The 'axis of evil' tag is.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
shipping 50 tons of weapons to the Yasir Arafat,

That could probably be applied to almost any arab state.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
and continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

I can't understand this mentality that states that just because states are extreme they're subsequently also suicidal enough to actually ever directly launch a Nuclear attack. They may be extreme, but they aren't insane. I think The USSR taught us that.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The Iranain government is hardly anything near moderate.

To a Western perspective, no.

I also never said it was moderate. I said it was slowly moderating itself.
 
Originally posted by Hamlet
Evidence? Not that they were ever great friends of The taliban. Which goes to show how non-sensical The 'axis of evil' tag is.

No, but they are good friends of Al-Qaeda.

I can't understand this mentality that states that just because states are extreme they're subsequently also suicidal enough to actually ever directly launch a Nuclear attack. They may be extreme, but they aren't insane. I think The USSR taught us that.

These people believe they are MARTYRS, though. Islamic fundamentalism is telling these people that if they kill ten million "infidels," that they'll go to a heaven filled with virgin women, etc...

The Iranian people might not want a nuclear war, but -- if some screwball fundamentalist is running the military, then, New York is going to be pretty quiet for five thousand years.
 
Originally posted by Hamlet

That could probably be applied to almost any arab state.

Untill now I thought you are educated, but this remark shows of ignorance, racism, the opposit of intelligence, and discriminating generalisation. bad bad bad.

Iran are doing anything they can the provoke israel and to cause unstability in the middle east. they supply tons of weapons to terrorists, they support the hizbullah with weapons and funds and they provoke them to attack israel, They help the hamas and the islamic jihad, and each day they say they will bomb israel with a nuke the moment they get thier hands on one.
If a suicide bomber is a 'Shahid', a country that bombs Israel or USA with nuclear weapons is far better than that for extreme muslims. bombing israel with a nuke will be almost like an orgasm to them.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hamlet
Evidence? Not that they were ever great friends of The taliban. Which goes to show how non-sensical The 'axis of evil' tag is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, but they are good friends of Al-Qaeda.

Evidence? ;)

They are certainly not good friends of Mullah Omar.

About the nuclear weapons topic:
As much as I disagree with the mentioned countries I really don't see why they shouldn't be "allowed" to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons aren't forbidden internationally or something like that so what determines who has the right to develop them?
Just the west and russia? Why?
Just friends of America and Europe? Again: what gives anybody the right?
Just those who won't use them? Well, hasn't just one country ever used them? Which was that again?

So what I was trying to say is that saying "they are evil because they want to have nukes" is pretty hypocritical, at least as long as you have them yourself.
And I'm not that sure that for example Iran would use them. They probably would attack Israel if they would face no consequences. But everyone (including Iran) knows that this would be the end of their country (and the leaders themselves).
 
Iran was the worst enemy of the Taliban, almost 2 years ago they mobilized almost their entire military forces to the Afghan frontier and a war was very close to happen.
It is strange how a country with a radical muslim government could be the place in the near east (without considering israel) were woman are closer to get absolutely equal rights with men.

If you see Iran with a wider perspective you will be able to see how it turned from a hot spot in the 80s into a a kind of moderate muslim country nowadays, if we dont stop the natural course of the things in Iran maybe in a few years they will accept the existance of the state of Israel.
If they develop or "buy" A-bombs i am quite sure that they wont use them, they are not Kamikaze, the usa government seems to be very kamikaze in some aspects.
The situation is getting naturally "not so agresive" between israel and iran, something that wont help at all is to precipitate a war.
I think that the approach that the EU is giving to its relationships with iran is much more appropiate than the one that Dubya proposes.

Anyway, dont misunderstood me, i support israel because of the very illogical, inculcated by my father, ridiculous and stupid fact for most of the people i know, that the existance of israel is a prophecy that came truth.So its something deeper for me.:crazyeyes
I also have lots of jewish friends.

I really never heard about any link between Iran and al-qaeda,
can someone give me some information about it, if it exists?
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe


Saddam Hussein and Mu'ammar Qaddafi were socialist leaders, actually...

But in the Arab world, there's no conservativism/liberalism -- just whether you'd rather side with the West, or the terrorists.

OK...where do I begin here?

Unfortunately, I'm on some pretty heavy med's.....yanked teeth....so i'm not exactly clear of mind right now.

But, anyway, RM, I gotta little bit of a newsflash for you, ok? There are conservatives and moderates EVERYWHERE. The Soviet Union had their moderates and conservatives....China does.....India does..There are conservatievs and moderates in Palestine, too.

Thusly, as with EVERYWHERE else, there are conservatives and moderates in the Arab world. Hate to break that one, to you. Not really. :D

Next bit of info I have for you? Socialism is NOT a political model, but a financial one. You probably think the opposite of democracy is communism, hehe.

Guess, what bro. Socialists have THEIR conservatives and moderates, too.

Ouch, i'm done.....time for more Vicadin....
 
Originally posted by VoodooAce
You probably think the opposite of democracy is communism, hehe.

Political and economic freedoms go hand in hand. You can't have a dictoral capitalism, or the converse, a democratic communism. Communism has proven to be, so many times in the past, to be the supreme form of dictoral rule.

All nations that had embraced communism -- the Soviet Union, China, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and a few others, have all been ruled by a ruthless dictator.
 
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
I really never heard about any link between Iran and al-qaeda,
can someone give me some information about it, if it exists?

Only link I know about is some time ago when I thought Iran was going to wipe them from the face of the earth.

If you're asking if their friends? Uh, no.

Its obvious that to a great extent, when somebody mentions Iran, they think Hostages. They think Ayutollah Kohemenie. They think of the past, and are probably not fully up to date on recent news out of Iran, which is promising.

Hopefully moderates there will win out, which they probably will because its what the majority of the people favor.

Of course, if it starts raining US bombs, that attitude will change, people will side with the conservative clerics, and Duhbya will get to keep playing 'army men'.
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Untill now I thought you are educated, but this remark shows of ignorance, racism, the opposit of intelligence, and discriminating generalisation. bad bad bad.

I was merely stressing the point that Iran isn't the sole torch-bearer of either material or moral support in the Arab world (Iran isn't technically an Arab state) for palestinian groups, which is true.

How that is racist or how it displays ignorance is beyond me.
 
Back
Top Bottom