Worst of the Worst -- The Axis of Evil

[godot]

I have to say that the tenor of most of the posts here are disturbing to me, for a number of reasons.

1) Even if the "poll" countries are "evil" that does not mean that we have the moral/ethical right to attack a country that has not attacked us. I've always believed that you shouldn't start fights; you should end them.

2) "Evil" is a wonderful word to conjure up when you want to villify someone because it strikes a chord with secular and religious folks, but the reality is that the U.S has done many egregious things ("evil" things?) that fly in the face of my own ideals and, I feel certain, the ideals of most contributors to this thread.

3) We have a millitary that is second to none. We spend more on our millitary than the next 15 highest spending countries combined.

4) In my opinion, the pols simply want to keep our attention focused on the "evil-doers" so that we won't notice our economy continuing to slide down the tubes, or the fact that the budget surplus has evaported, or that the much-heralded tax cuts are simply a great way for corporations to feather their bottom line and please their shareholders.

5) The hawks (both in the Whitehouse and the Pentagon) are using the natural human response to a crisis of rallying around a leader and give them carte blanche to push through one of the biggest millitary budget increases EVER. The budget INCREASE for the Pentagon is more than the combined millitary budgets of the "evil axis" countries. And the weaponry being purchased is cold-war era technology that is totally inappropriate to the types of challenges the millitary will be facing now and in the future.

6) Some have cited the development of weapons of mass destruction by unfriendly countries as a reason to strike first. That path, young Jedi, leads to the dark side. Besides, is North Korea or any other bad boy going to create a hugely complicated missle system and launch a nuke at the U.S. with the exhaust trail pointing to their guilt, leaving themselves open for condemnation and reprisal, OR would they be inclined to put a nuke on a tramp steamer registered to some other 3rd World country and sail it into New York harbor?

Anyway, this turned out to be a bit much of a rant. Must be at least my 4.3 cents.

 

[Maj]

I would also argue that anything can be painted as dangerous, thus relative danger must be wieghed. I don't doubt for a second that you can come up with numerous abuses of 'unchecked' (define) capitalism. I only question whether any of them will prove that capitalism is just as dangerous as communism. I personally don't thnk so.

I suppose I have not fully exposed the direction in which my political and economic beliefs point. I'll be blunt. I support capitalism. I reject communism. I support measured government intervention in the affairs of business enterprises.

The brief comment I made was not in support of communism but meant as a slight jest aimed against deregulation and loosening restrictions (ie 'unchecked' capitalism) the United States and Canada are experiencing.

 

[Kennelly]

I personally think that the list by Bush is really strange and only Iraq fits in an "Axis of evil"

1)North Korea?Kim Jung Il starves his people to death and has WMD,but I´ve never heard of NK supporting terrorists outside Japan and S-Korea or threatening their neighbours really harsh.But if he includes NK,why doesn´t he include countries like Syria,Sudan,Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan?
Geopolitics is the key.North Korea has no real ally,they have relations to Russia and China,but I don´t think they´d support them e.G. in a war against the South.Mostly Bush wants to Counter SKs "sunshine-policy" to maintain a strong military presence in S-Korea and Japan and probably the Philippines and Thailand.

2)Iran?Of course they support groups like Hizbollah,but when you look at their political situation,they are much better than NK,Syria or Iraq.They may not have a democracy like the West,and the Council of Guardians is a big problem,but the situation of the woman is quite well compared to countries on the "good" site like Saudi-Arabia or Kuwait.These are real dictatorships with absolutely no respect for human rights,women or Christians.Women can´t elect there as they do in Iran.But of course these countries aren´t evil,coz they´re important for the West.

3)Iraq?No doubt.S.H. is a ruthless mass-murderer and should be eliminated,when necessary by force, and Iraq really is a danger for its neighbours and enemies in Europe,Asia and Africa.

So Iraq is right,but instead of NK and Iran,he should have included at least Syria and maybe Sudan or Saudi-Arabia.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by godot
I have to say that the tenor of most of the posts here are disturbing to me, for a number of reasons.

1) Even if the "poll" countries are "evil" that does not mean that we have the moral/ethical right to attack a country that has not attacked us. I've always believed that you shouldn't start fights; you should end them.

2) "Evil" is a wonderful word to conjure up when you want to villify someone because it strikes a chord with secular and religious folks, but the reality is that the U.S has done many egregious things ("evil" things?) that fly in the face of my own ideals and, I feel certain, the ideals of most contributors to this thread.

3) We have a millitary that is second to none. We spend more on our millitary than the next 15 highest spending countries combined.

4) In my opinion, the pols simply want to keep our attention focused on the "evil-doers" so that we won't notice our economy continuing to slide down the tubes, or the fact that the budget surplus has evaported, or that the much-heralded tax cuts are simply a great way for corporations to feather their bottom line and please their shareholders.

5) The hawks (both in the Whitehouse and the Pentagon) are using the natural human response to a crisis of rallying around a leader and give them carte blanche to push through one of the biggest millitary budget increases EVER. The budget INCREASE for the Pentagon is more than the combined millitary budgets of the "evil axis" countries. And the weaponry being purchased is cold-war era technology that is totally inappropriate to the types of challenges the millitary will be facing now and in the future.

6) Some have cited the development of weapons of mass destruction by unfriendly countries as a reason to strike first. That path, young Jedi, leads to the dark side. Besides, is North Korea or any other bad boy going to create a hugely complicated missle system and launch a nuke at the U.S. with the exhaust trail pointing to their guilt, leaving themselves open for condemnation and reprisal, OR would they be inclined to put a nuke on a tramp steamer registered to some other 3rd World country and sail it into New York harbor?

Anyway, this turned out to be a bit much of a rant. Must be at least my 4.3 cents.

Great post, Godot....agree with pts 1 thru 6 wholeheartedly.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It is a typical fault of the "radical chic left" to view Castro and Che Guevara as romantic heros who couldn't possibly do anything naughty, but the truth is somewhat different.

I understand the truth but I also understand the circumstances. (and I in no way think of Castro as a romantic hero!!!)

Concerning this quote on Bush and the death penalty:

No way. Besides the fact that Bush was killing criminals

The rest of the 'civilised world' (as America like to call it) have realised that the dealth penalty is barbaric and inhumane (as America like to call such things). And got rid of it. And some of us consider the treatment of 'POWS' (as they rightfully are) to be ruthless.

This doesn't even mention the torture he inflicted on some to pry information out of them

I have this theory, it's entitled the 'double standards system'. The name is self explanatory. America's treatment of prisoners taken in Afghanistan proves this theory. That is all on this theory for the time being.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
What do you all think is the most dangerous nation in the new 'Axis of Evil,' as put by President Bush?

I'm not sure if Mr Bush is correct to level his condemnation at
any nation he chooses.

Isn't this matter best decided by the International Community,
Instead of one man?

 

[adamsj]

Iraq:flamedevi

Because of what I think Saddam is a !

And they probably got chemical weapons and less likely nukes!:rocket2: :ripper: :arrow:

 

[IceBlaZe]

PinkyGen, in your earlier post you said bush was killing 'Criminals' (maybe they are, guilty untill proven innocent, dead within weeks) and castro was killing political oppositions and that makes it different.
There is a very big hint here you are suggesting about differing blood from blood.

 

[Knowltok]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
PinkyGen, in your earlier post you said bush was killing 'Criminals' (maybe they are, guilty untill proven innocent, dead within weeks) and castro was killing political oppositions and that makes it different.
There is a very big hint here you are suggesting about differing blood from blood.

Dead within weeks? I certainly hope you aren't talking about the American death penalty here. More like dead within 10-15 years. Have what opinions you want about the death penalty, but we are not exactly cutting them down with a scythe over here. It is a long and slow process, and is also rather rare, even in Texas.

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
PinkyGen, in your earlier post you said bush was killing 'Criminals' (maybe they are, guilty untill proven innocent, dead within weeks) and castro was killing political oppositions and that makes it different.
There is a very big hint here you are suggesting about differing blood from blood.

In Texas, the death penalty is being applied to criminals, aka murderers and such. Castro was has been killing and torturing not only Batista's, but pro-democracy movements on the island as well, just because they disagree with the government. An equivalent here would be Bush locking up Tom Daschle and torturing him for information on all Democratic party activity.

As for the Guantanomo issue, I agree, they should be considered POW's, are entitled to food, medical care, and such, which I believe they currently have. I don't see the conditions of X-ray as being particulary harsh.
However, I don't think the POW's are entitled to one thing under the Geneva Convention, and that is the right to refuse to answer questions. I don't think we should torture them, but we need to ask them questions, and perhaps later sentence them.
I feel we can hold them too this standard for two reasons.
1. Al Queda has obviously not signed the Geneva Convention
2. Terrorists do not fight in armies, under uniform. Rather, they are like spies, except worse, and thus technically not entitled to the comparatively luxurious care they are getting in Cuba.

Finally, as for the original topic, I still think the axis of evil concept in the state of the union was a bad idea.

 

[ComradeDavo]

However, I don't think the POW's are entitled to one thing under the Geneva Convention, and that is the right to refuse to answer questions.

If I remember rightly all you have to give is your name, rank and serial number.

1. Al Queda has obviously not signed the Geneva Convention

Yes but the USA has and they are they are the one's holding the prisoners.

2. Terrorists do not fight in armies, under uniform. Rather, they are like spies, except worse, and thus technically not entitled to the comparatively luxurious care they are getting in Cuba.

The fact that they were fighting in an army under uniform escapes you then:crazyeyes:crazyeyes......

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo

The fact that they were fighting in an army under uniform escapes you then:crazyeyes:crazyeyes......

The fact that they meet none of the conditions set forth in the Geneva convention defining POW status escapes you then?

 

[DinoDoc]

Powell Says Bush Mulling All Iraq Options

By BARRY SCHWEID
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Feb. 6) - President Bush is considering ''a full range of options'' for removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq's president, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.

''The United States might have to do it alone,'' Powell said at a House hearing.

Iraq is working on developing nuclear weapons, and its refusal to admit international arms inspectors prompted Bush to consider ''the most serious set of options that one might imagine,'' Powell said.

Bush has denounced Iraq for barring U.N. inspectors for more than three years and named the country as part of an ''axis of evil'' that includes Iran and North Korea.

''He is leaving no stone unturned as to what he might do'' if Saddam Hussein does not reverse course, Powell told the House International Relations Committee.

''The president is examining a full range of options,'' the secretary said. He declined to say whether Bush was considering a military assault on Iraq, or additional economic and diplomatic pressures.

Most Arab governments and some U.S. allies in Europe have cautioned Bush against a military assault on Iraq. They were nearly unanimous in supporting the anti-terrorism campaign against the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan as a response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Arab leaders say Saddam has given the United States no similar provocation.

Nonetheless, ''We still believe Saddam Hussein should move on,'' Powell said. ''The people of Iraq deserve better leadership.''

Iraq has remained bent on developing nuclear weapons, Powell said, adding that U.S. intelligence had concluded Iraq was a year or more away from its goal.

At the hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said, ''We simply cannot allow Iraq to develop nuclear weapons.'' Powell said Bush was considering ''the most serious set of options one might consider.''

''Regime change is something the United States might have to do alone,'' Powell said. ''How to do it? I would not like to go into the details of the options.''

In the past, Powell has suggested diplomatic, political and economic measures could be used to uproot terrorists and their government supporters. But at the hearing, he did not suggest these alternatives to the use of force.

Powell dismissed an Iraqi offer to hold talks with the United Nations, an overture conveyed through the Arab League and accepted by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Powell said Iraq had to accept the return of accept U.N. inspectors, and that there was nothing to discuss otherwise.

By contrast, Powell said the Bush administration was open to ''reasonable conversation'' with Iran.

Powell said the Untied States had a long-standing list of grievances with Iran, including its support for terrorism and trying to send weapons to the Palestinians.

Iran's ''latest provocation,'' he said, was ''meddling in Afghanistan'' and unsettling the fragile interim government in Kabul.

''Get out of the 'axis of evil' column and make a choice that we think your people want you to make and not the choice your nonelected government has been making in recent years,'' he said.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The fact that they meet none of the conditions set forth in the Geneva convention defining POW status escapes you then?

The fact that they ARE human beings, afterall, seems to have escaped some people.....most people.

The fact that the United States that I had always considered to be 'The Good Guys' now actually makes the same arguments you would have expected out of the USSR, Viet Nam, China, etc..., is extremely disheartening to me. We've exchanged our white hats for, if not the black ones, then certainly a darker shade of grey.

Funny thing is I was much, much more patriotic pre 9/11 than I am now. Its not just the policies of the current administration, and the fact that they'd even begin to argue semantics when talking about the Geneva Convention.

Its the reaction of the people that has saddened and embarrassed me. I never realized what a bunch of hypocrites we've become. We absolutely have a double standard, here.

Now we even have serious debate on whether or not to torture these guys.

I don't know what to think anymore.

BTW, I agree that Saddam either has to go, or he needs to open up fully and satisfy our need to know that he has not nukes. Simple as that. I've agreed with Powell a lot the last few months, and this is no exception.

 

[animepornstar]

according to mirror.co.uk

President Bush has performed a u-turn over Camp X-Ray and agreed it must comply with the Geneva Convention, it was reported today.

But the move only applies to Taliban troops held at Guantanamo Bay and not al-Qaeda fighters or other terrorists.

Bush is believed to have decided to apply the Geneva rules to the Afghanistan conflict to make sure US soldiers would have the protection of the convention if they were captured.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
The fact that the United States that I had always considered to be 'The Good Guys' now actually makes the same arguments you would have expected out of the USSR, Viet Nam, China, etc..., is extremely disheartening to me. We've exchanged our white hats for, if not the black ones, then certainly a darker shade of grey.

Oh, please. This is getting ridiculous.

You're comparing the United States armed forces to the Soviet Union, and the Viet Cong now.

First, we're doing anything BUT torturing the detainees. We have signs pointing to Mecca for them, "culturally approved" meals, they are even allowed to converse with each other. What the hell else do you want us to do, free them?

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
The fact that they ARE human beings, afterall, seems to have escaped some people.....most people.

Which ones? The fact that they are human beings doesn't automatically qualify the for POW status under the Geneva Convention or would you have Germany brought before the World Court for its treatment of the Baader Meinhof Gang.

Now we even have serious debate on whether or not to torture these guys.

Really? Where have you found people engaged in such a debate because I haven't seen any evidence of it in this thread?

I don't know what to think anymore.

You should never give someone such an obvius straight line.

animepornstar: This suprises you? It was the only intellectually consistent the administration could have taken wrt the status of the Taliban fighters. Nothing at all really changes for the unlucky al Qaida fighters though.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Which ones? The fact that they are human beings doesn't automatically qualify the for POW status under the Geneva Convention or would you have Germany brought before the World Court for its treatment of the Baader Meinhof Gang.

Really? Where have you found people engaged in such a debate because I haven't seen any evidence of it in this thread?

These aren't serious arguments, your just trying to jump onto as many technicalities as possible, as I find so typical of America's supporters these days (sorry if you support America and this doesn't apply to you, it's just the majority give out the propaganda line)

You're comparing the United States armed forces to the Soviet Union, and the Viet Cong now.

What is so wrong in doing so???? I think you are just automatically assmuing that the USA is the 'good guy'. Don't take this the wrong way it's just that I feel that many people refuse to believe something is wrong once they have embraced it (so meaning that once they have began to believe something they refuse to ever change their mind on the issue).

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
These aren't serious arguments, your just trying to jump onto as many technicalities as possible,

If you can not defend your arguement on the basis of international law the kindly refrain from couching it in such terms, Davo. Otherwise, don't be suprised when people use legalistic arguements against you. It only makes you appear foolish to whine about it so.

 

[ComradeDavo]

If you can not defend your arguement on the basis of international law the kindly refrain from couching it in such terms, Davo. Otherwise, don't be suprised when people use legalistic arguements against you. It only makes you appear foolish to whine about it so.

You should be a lawyer. I was actually saying that I found your replies I quoted to be a bit of a 'whine'.

Any way --> America practically makes 'the law' so it would be counter productive for me use it to argue against them. That would be foolish.

Also basically I don't like it when people constantly quote the law rather than speak with their own emotions. If I think something is wrong then I will always think it is wrong regardless of what the law says. The law can be easyily bent to one's own will therefore I resent the use of it in preference to speaking one's mind.

Basically I prefer it when someone says 'I think' rather than when they say 'it says'.