 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 157 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613449 Today 2 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe a follow up to the topics "disturbing" and "gulf war II"? here guys (and girls)... what do u think? from globeandmail.com Washington — U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday a classified Pentagon report reviewing U.S. nuclear options was simply "sound, military conceptual, planning" and not a precursor to any imminent U.S. action. Mr. Powell discussed the classified document on the CBS Face the Nation program after the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday that the Defense Department study outlined a contingency plan to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries ? China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. The New York Times reported on Sunday the secret report provided to Congress on Jan. 8 also called for developing new nuclear weapons that would be better suited for striking targets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya. See also: Iran rebukes U.S. nuclear plan Mr. Powell, however, said there was "less than meets the eye and less than meets the headline with respect to the story." "We are always reviewing our options," he said, adding the Nuclear Posture Review in question was required by Congress. He confirmed the new study had virtually eliminated Russia as a nuclear threat, reflecting the new post-Cold War realities, and had focused now on what the administration has singled out as the new threat facing the United States ? nations developing weapons of mass destruction. "All that study said ... is that this class of nations ? Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea ? are developing the kinds of weapons of mass destruction that should be troubling to all of us," he said. "We should not get all carried away with some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future," Mr. Powell added. "It is not the case. What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning and the president will take that planning and he will give his d |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
heres some more: (this ones better, i think) Axis to grind: subversion by a catchy phrase Tuesday, February 19, 2002 – Page A19 (Globe and Mail) The "axis of evil" is one of those delightfully pithy, dangerously misleading phrases beloved of speechwriters but dreaded by anyone who thinks seriously about foreign policy. President George W. Bush uttered the phrase in his State of the Union address -- the perfect sound bite for the television age, explosive and superficial. It apparently outlined the United States' perception of threats to itself and, by extension, to the world. The "axis" of countries Mr. Bush described -- North Korea, Iraq and Iran -- is, of course, not an axis at all. The very word suggests comparison with the Second World War when the "Axis" powers signed pacts to support each other. Leaving that faulty comparison aside, the three countries identified by Mr. Bush are totally dissimilar. Iran and Iraq fought a terrible war against each other; their peoples speak different languages, practise a different form of Islam, and generally can't stand each other. As for North Korea, it would be harder to find anywhere a country less like Iran or Iraq. "Axis" suggests co-ordinated efforts, the action of one country being related to that of another. On the surface, this description is absurd for North Korea, Iraq and Iran, so something else must tie them together. Now we get to the core of the matter -- "evil." There's plenty of "evil" in the world, depending on how you look at it. If "evil" means violence, there's lots of it in Colombia, Nepal and Africa. If "evil" means despotism, there's lots of that, too, beyond the three "axis" countries. No, "evil" in this context must mean regimes that somehow threaten U.S. interests, and beyond terrorism, too. And "evil" must be used as a descriptive term, no matter how misleading, in a country where moral crusades of virtue against vice have informed public discourse since the Pilgrims insisted they |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the american government are a bunch of faggots, they make threats for themselves and they only... i dunno im not gonna say anything. they are dickheads all governments are dickheads... they all need beating with a rubber hose. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(continued): The Bush administration has laid down the law: You're with us or against us in the "war" on terror. But what if, as now seems apparent, the United States believes that its defence against terror means taking offensive military action abroad? This concept of a good offence being the best defence is no idle matter for Canada. After all, our military is hungering to turn itself into an appendage of the U.S. military for the purpose of "homeland" defence. They want full integration of all Canadian land, air and sea forces with those of the U.S., in exchange for sprinkling Canadian officers throughout the command structure. But "homeland" defence is turning out to be a worldwide offensive campaign not only against al-Qaeda and regimes that harbour it, but all countries selectively deemed "evil" by the United States. Back in the days of the Soviet threat, Canada and the U.S. could readily identify a common threat to North America from Soviet bombers and mobilize a joint air defence arrangement. We can agree today on the threat to North America from al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. History shows that Canadian and American threat perceptions can be different. In the Second World War, Canada joined the fight against the "Axis" powers much earlier than the isolationist United States. And Canada did not fully agree with the U.S. belief of trying to stop worldwide communism in the rice paddies of Vietnam. Once Canada enters the Faustian bargain of total military integration for "homeland" defence, it will have largely forgone any capacity to make independent threat perceptions. This would be of little consequence if both the U.S. and Canada agreed on a common threat and how to stop it. But if the U.S. now elides "homeland" security with offensive action overseas, then Canada should think twice before yielding its capacity to think for itself about threats. The proper way to deal with North Korea, Iran and Iraq is to stop linking them and consider eac |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My thoughts exactly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
last bit!: The proper way to deal with North Korea, Iran and Iraq is to stop linking them and consider each as a separate challenge. The mere inclusion of Iran as part of this phony "axis" has given the hard-line mullahs a weapon to use against civilian politicians wishing to inch toward better relations with Western countries. The aim of sensible long-term policy has been subverted by the short-term seduction of a catchy phrase. As for Iraq, it is a country to be watched, put under pressure and dealt with by diplomatic means, not as part of a military campaign against the "war" on terror. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh shit im an idiot.... maybe i should have just posted the address? (d'oh!) sorry... : ( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's OK, now you're ''characters per post'' statistic is going to skyrocket!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
politics give me a headache >_< |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
too much thinking, im on spring break, i think i'll quit thinking |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thought i guess i do have a buddist monk burning as my picture and that had alot to do with politics in vietnam, so it's not like im totally apathetic to politics |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's no coincidence that 5 of the 7 countries (i'm not sure of nth korea's and china's figures) are the top six oil producers in the world. the US is #8. #1 in the world is saudi arabia. they have already "sold out" and have gained many benefits (the elites anyway) for their co-operation with the US. US oil companies have gained from the capture of afghanistan. the pipelines (from the baltics?) have now been finalised to finally enter the country from the north. the rewards oil companies will get from taking control of iraq will be enormous. it scares me because i think they will stop at nothing to do so. there have been speculations, i can't really confirm this one, it is believed another report outlined a plan by the US govt to use biological weapons on, it's equally oppresive brother and allie, israel and blame it on iraq. of course palestine will also be attacked. it was, however, outlined on the leaked nuclear report that an excuse to use nukes will be if iraq attacks israel. see the connections. another is the "lost in action" US pilot from the gulf war that is still captive in iraq. that's been reported by media in the US. i mean, he was reported dead, now all of a sudden he's in prison. wtf? i had a large argument with a US man this morning on my way to uni who thought this global dominance of the US was funny. he laughed at statements made like "dynamite" when referring to the power. it wasn't really an argument, i was just pointing out his ignorance and stupidity. this nuke scare will no doubt result in another arms race. it has broken all the set regulations in lowering weapon amounts. countries, like russia, hate the fact the US has done this. i listened to a good speech of a russian foregn minister from the BBC website about this. it turned it's back completely the world and peace. it's just saddening. i'm proud i live in a nuke free country. elliott smith makes beautiful music :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
isnt oil gonna run out in 20 years anyway or something? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
most likely. but woudn't you like to be the one selling the last of it? with full control you could sell it for 40 years at double the price. 100 years for 5x the price? there would also be untold power and control that would come from having the last reserves of oil. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats stupid, and its probably true. they can make cars that run on water but the oil companies have patented the method so no one can do it, vive electro cars i say... ones with fins so we can go underwater too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's why we need to make sure we take control of all the worlds resources. Wrestle power from the state and the corporations. We should control our own destiny. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
