Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Mr. Mang

'axis of evil' and america's "enemies"

Recommended Posts

[taken from guerrillanews.com]

 

"Rant: Meet the Axis of Evil

Josh Schrei, February 2, 2002

GNN's designated ranter Josh Schrei has a problem with the phrase 'axis of evil.' A big problem . . .

 

Bush is famous for his boneheaded statements. But when he called North Korea, Iran, and Iraq a new ‘axis of evil’ in his State of the Union address last week, it was no gaff.

 

Turns out the three of them have been plotting behind our back all these years. Slowly and steadily plotting the downfall of the American way of life. Secret phone calls in the middle of the night. Coded messages. The united Iraqi-Iranian-North Korean front. Baghdad to Tehran to Pyongyang.

 

Of course, this is absurd. And most the rest of the world knows it.

 

At the World Economic Forum this week, even the world’s business and government elite were bristling at the implications of the War on Terror’s latest catch phrase.

 

"For the Europeans,`axis of evil' was a bridge too far," Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, told a New York Times reporter at the conference. "There's a strong suspicion here that Bush is back to unilateralism, that after Afghanistan, America isn't especially interested in listening to the rest of the world."

 

'Little Bush' has his sights set far higher than just Osama's head on a platter.

 

Indeed, it is beginning to look very much like 'Little Bush', as the Iraqi Foreign Minister called him this week, has his sights set far higher than just Osama's head on a platter. The frontline of the War on Terror has been changing everyday. The original goal, if I remember correctly, was to find and punish those responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks. Then all of a sudden it was all about toppling those evil Taliban ... (rest assured, we've installed a far better government in Afghanistan. The new Afghan government has decided it will still stone adulterers to death, but now they'll use smaller rocks). This week the War on Terror became about Iran and North Korea, about 'weapons of mass destruction.'

 

The message seems clear: 'Little Bush' wants unconditional global approval for the right to wage war against whoever America decides is the enemy on any given day.

 

Either that or his speech writer is severely geographically challenged.

 

Needless to say, the three nations in question weren't very pleased with W's speech.

 

The Iranian spokesman called it "hegemony" and "unilateralism."

 

The Iraqi government called it "stupid."

 

The North Koreans, as broke and backward as they are, are probably just now reading about it on a beat-up teletype machine they got from the Russians back in the ‘70s.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein, or whichever Kim happens to be ruling Pyongyang this week and starving his populace to death. But before we start labeling these three countries - two of which fought one the nastiest wars of the 20th Century against each other - an 'axis of evil,’ maybe we should throw a couple of facts around:

 

North Korea, our closest arms sales competitor from the 'axis of evil,' was responsible for a whopping 0.4% of the arms trade.

 

Where to begin? How about the arms trade? This week, the CIA berated North Korea for its role in the arms trade.

 

In 2000, the U.S. was responsible for over 50% of the global arms trade. That year, the U.S. sold $12 billion in arms to the developing world. The vast majority of those arms went to non-democracies like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia. Of those non-democracies, more than half were on the U.N list of top human rights abusers. So when an Angolan baby or an East Timorese housewife got blown apart in 2000, the chances were pretty good that the hardware that did it was made in USA.

 

North Korea, our closest arms sales competitor from the 'axis of evil,' was responsible for a whopping 0.4% of the arms trade to the developing world, or 120 times less than us. Iran and Iraq weren't even on the charts.

 

Sure you say, but Iraq and Iran and North Korea are developing weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction! Well, I for one am no proponent of madmen having scary weapons, mass or otherwise. But let's be honest about who's got 'em, shall we? Last I heard, the count was 10,500 (us) to zero (them, combined). Last I heard, we can blow up the world a zillion times over. They can't do it even once.

 

Before we get all self-righteous about who should and shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, maybe we should just ask the inhabitants of Rongelap Atoll about how America handles its plutonium. Never heard of Rongelap Atoll? It’s where America's own Atomic Energy Commission decided to do a little experiment in the early '50s. They cleared a bunch of native villages, detonated a nuclear bomb, and then told the native inhabitants it was safe to move back, just so they could study the effects of radiation on them.

 

An AEC representative later testified: "While the natives' way of life is drastically different than ours, they nonetheless made a better test group than the mice."

 

(The effects, by the way, were predictable. Cancer, birth defects, and death. Their descendants are still dealing with it today.)

 

America scorched the earth from Bikini Atoll to the Nevada Desert to Hiroshima and Nagasaki with weapons of mass destruction. Is it our place to go around preaching to anyone about the evils of nuclear weapons? I don't think so... I'll reserve that right for the UN. Or the EU. Or some other institution whose acronym doesn't spell USA.

 

But what about biological weapons, you ask? Well, here's an interesting fact ...

 

Of the 10 biological materials suspected in Iraqi warfare research, 9 were supplied by U.S. firms.

 

And another:

 

Throughout the 1980s, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control shipped 14 different biological materials with military potential to Iraq. Fourteen.

 

Oh yes, the '80s ... back when feathered hair and glam rock and Saddam was our best friend. Or is that now? I can't remember ... our enemies change almost as fast as our fashion statements these days. In '88, Saddam gassed about 5,000 Kurds on the northern border of Iraq. Men, women, and children. We didn't make any noise or rattle any sabers at the time. We didn't brand him a member of the 'axis of evil.' Nope, we actually increased weapons sales to Iraq AFTER the attack.

 

In fact, if you want to get historical about it maybe we should look at exactly how Iran and Iraq got in the position they're currently in. Like, for instance, the fact that we armed both of them to the teeth. That in the '80s we were so happy to see them killing each other that we sold weapons to both sides.

 

Last week, for the first time since the Iran-Iraq war, the two nations opened diplomatic relations and began talking to each other again. And that is 'Little Bush''s worst nightmare - two oil rich gulf nations, who have issues with the U.S., actually getting along?

 

I don't know, maybe I'm off base. Maybe you saw W's speech the other night and it made you want to go out into your front yard and belt out an a cappella “We Are the Champions” at the top of your lungs.

 

Maybe you've always harbored a secret disdain for kimchee and the films of Abbas Kiarostami and now your day of vindication has finally arrived.

 

Cambodia is now free to level the Upper East Side.

 

The pinnacle of the speech, the height of inflated American chutzpah, was undoubtedly when Bush gave a 'stern warning' to nations around the world that if they don't fight their own wars on terror then 'we will do it for them.' It must be a great feeling to be the prime minister of a struggling Third World nation and know that if you don't turn your attention (and resources) towards combating people who America - for whatever reason - finds reprehensible, then the U.S. is going to come in and strafe your hillsides with rocket fire.

 

On the other hand, maybe 'Little Bush' is right. Maybe we should have the right to go and bomb any nation - or inhabitants thereof - that we find unsavory. Maybe we should be able to unload multiple tons of military hardware whenever the mood takes us. For that matter why don't we extend that privilege to all other nations as well? Everyone is free to solve grievances through the detonation of explosives!

 

Cambodia is free to level the Upper East Side to avenge Henry Kissinger’s secret carpet bombings. Britain can fire away at Boston to get at the source of all that IRA funding. Haiti can strafe Florida in hopes that they hit one of the murderous CIA-sponsored Ton Ton Macoutes the U.S. refuses to hand over to their courts for trial. Central America - lord knows their list of grievances is long enough - is free to blow Washington to bits, anytime it wants. Bombs away!

 

Except unfortunately we've tried that model already ... for much of the last several hundred years. And after the catastrophe of World War II was over, the fanfare was that we were going to try a new way to solve disputes. A multilateral forum, in which no one nation would dominate or be dominated. That was the idea behind the first so-called New World Order.

 

If America really wants to prove itself in the eyes of the world, then maybe it should start adhering to the principles that it helped to forge after World War II. Maybe we should start respecting international institutions, or silly little things like the GENEVA CONVENTION. If we want global support for actions against terrorism, then maybe we should stop blocking the U.N.'s efforts to actually come up with a definition for the word.

 

And if we don't like the way Iran, Iraq, or North Korea happen to be behaving on a given day, then we're just going to have to learn to use appropriate, multilateral methods of resolution and deterrence, for god's sake, rather than bombing sovereign nations into oblivion.

 

Or we could ignore the signs and just continue to clap away.

 

Clap, clap, clap."

 

 

 

 

 

 

and i'm not too fond of the nuclear plan either..... tell me what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

bump for the extreme cynicism i'm going to feel today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Mr. Mang

[taken from guerrillanews.com].'

 

The message seems clear: 'Little Bush' wants unconditional global approval for the right to wage war against whoever America decides is the enemy on any given day.

 

 

I was telling everyone that he'd do that ^^ before he was even elected (by the Supreme Court)

 

And I got told I was just "doom mongering"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hope you liked the article. the format for reading it at guerrillanews.com was a lot more pleasing to the eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My axis of evil

 

satan+saddam+brian butano

 

hehehe

 

na, the world is run by people like you and me. imagine yourself in the position of a world leader (its possible). thats scary responsible shit! i feel its really all a game of bluffs. take on here for example. people talk a lot of shit saying they've painted a lot of freights and have the sickest styles, but who really knows till we battle! in the time before a suspected battle, we try our hardest to convince all other writers our opponenet is a dirty biting toy who is a stamp licker and only got his fame because he promoted himself like a polotician. if these countries want to have any support they have to talk a good game. look at the raiders, their fans (patriotism) love them like thais love the king of thailand, and they've built a favorable arsenal, but when it comes time to battle, they fold like a small time internet company. they get on tv and in the rest of the media and tell everyone how mean they are, but they're really just like every other team out there. the difference, they told people they were different. many listened.

my point is, without promoting propaganda, how can we feel safe as to the fact that our country is supporting its people. bush can go on and on about the axis of eveil and get us all hyped that hes gonna go in there and kick their ass cause they're fuckin with the us in the form of blatant conspiracy. whatever, blow them all off the map. end the world. lets just all die together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: My axis of evil

 

Originally posted by nocalfr8tr

they're fuckin with the us in the form of blatant conspiracy.

 

that would be true, if it werent completely made up. there is no 'blatent' conspiracy. there is an effort by bush to keep his approval ratings sky high, by spending the next four years with everyones eyes glued to the tv, and not the problems we have here at home.

 

 

if you dont make enemies, you dont have to make threats.

 

"real gangsta ass niggas dont run they fuckin mouths, cause real gangsta ass niggas know they got shit"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kinda off topic but im guessing that the world will be in shambles sometime before 2100. yet it dosnt scare me. in a way i think its best that way. it seems so odd that humans have their own brains but they dont know how to use them. or do we. I think we fight with each other all the time because the whole "survival of the fittest" thing is natural. it seems that nature brings us to fight with each other. destruction seems inevitable.

 

I had a lil to much to drink last night though so i might just be talking nonsence.:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it just me or does "the axis of evil" make you think of a group of super villians that the justice league of america would fight on a comic book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

bush would be that purple(?) chimp, gleek...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ted Wakowski
Originally posted by Mr. Mang

Bush is famous for his boneheaded statements. But when he called North Korea, Iran, and Iraq a new ‘axis of evil’ in his State of the Union address last week, it was no gaff.

 

 

Anything negative from Washington about Iraq is always funny considering our oil dealings with them. I'm reminded of skinheads in prison who deal drugs with latinos and blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our vice president, dick chaney, was the head of an oil company called hallbertson, actualy thats not it, but its like that, anyway, he left his position to run with bush. he did not however, leave his stock shares. hallbertson still, despite the trade embargos, does business with sadaam hussein. SO, what we have then is our vice president is making money off of sadaam hussein.

 

yeah dude, america doesnt suck ass or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

i noticed that dick got a chilly reception from

the jordanians.......................................

 

i bet dick sweats when he eats ketchup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

no.....he probly sweats when he eats any food.

i hate sweaty food eaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somthing amusing i found out tonight...

 

of the 19 people involved in the attacks, 15 of them were from saudia arabia. however we only bombed afghanistan.

 

if 15 of the 19 people were from cuba, do you think we'd be bombing switzerland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ted Wakowski
Originally posted by seeking innocence

our vice president, dick chaney, was the head of an oil company called hallbertson

 

Word, I was just talking about this with my friend the other day -- it's "Halliburton." Cheney bounced after 5 years with 34 million in retirement money. The company was doing it through subsidiaries in europe so it looked like european heads were doing the business. Shady shit indeed.

 

Thumbs up to Cheney for being a true prick, not just seemingly one. At least he has integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since all this went down, I feel pegged as a republican loony or something, whatever, I live for me, but... I said BEFORE he was elected that you all should remember that our current President's father was the HEAD of the frekin' C.I.A.

 

why is the war mongering and shady business such a surprise? MAYBE BECUASE MOST OF YOU DON'T RECALL THE BUSH SR. YEARS, MUCH LESS THE REGAN YEARS... WELCOME BACK TO THE POLICE STATE THAT WAS THE 80'S... all of you that didn't vote... this is partially your fault!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by seeking innocence

"dont blame me, i voted for nader"

 

HAHAHAHAHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ted Wakowski

I can't say I'm surprised personally, kinda saw this era coming when little bush was elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×