Who is next on the hit list?

[gigatron]

After the whole axis of evil mention out of no where, countries that were even totally unrelated to 911, the 'war on terror' began. A unilateral quest to stop all evil on this planet (hmm ?).

Not having to retell the story I just wish to point out I've been in forums on this matter since after 911. Everyone did :/ Everyone had to discuss.

Now.. Absolutely unrelated to 911 was attacked for various corny ever changing reasons the latest being wmd 'program' no longer wmd.. hah.. Becoming so obvious even people in the US gov. seem to want to get the illegal nature of the war off of their shoulders onto individuals, including blaming it all on bush.

Prior to the iraqi war, a rampage of propaganda against the entire middleast was in motion. One specific country was Iran and its nuclear reactor program, the US claiming it is for WMD. Perhaps some people even bought into that and thought that was a nuclear reactor in Iraq (which was quite below world poverty standards to even be considered capable.. as was the case with its craptacular outdated military which US. Generals proudly labeled as "mosquitos").

Israel bought onto the deal and criticised as well. Through the war for an extended period of time Israel spied on Syria and Lebanon. Syria was threatened and labeled as terrorist harbor by Arial Sharon and his cronies and words of anger were exchanged with Israel urguing the US to go after Syria next. This sidetracked the intent off of Iran to Syria.

Little to NO attention has been given to N. Korea who admits of having WMD, there is proof of WMD and admits of wanting to use them against the US. I don't know who's the village idiot but any sane person should realize something wrong here.. and now there is this:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030611_105.html

Here we go again............ the same thing with iraq all over again :/ Notice how less confident rumsfield claims to be, he claims that Iran has the capability not necessarily WMD.. although he also said that for Iraq after there was no possible WMD.. It's all a huge propaganda game in a loop cycle.. very sad :X

Might I remind the readers that the US also claimed that the WMD were transported from Iraq to Syria and possibly Iran (what an act of desperation.. what a joke -- this happened whilst trying to link Iraq to Al Qaeda and when no apparent WMD were anywhere to be found).

The US has been severely BASHED and even called "bastards" by Blix and Blix said how he was pressured into what he said by the US. That's quite fascinating because I could tell of his face and for a while I felt as if he sold out after this one visit to Washington.. Everyone thought of me as crazy but heck :/ Heh, I wonder what was really meant by Democratic Domino effect

I am pretty sure the US doesn't want to continue its agression in the region. At first there was an evident greedy movement when the US gov. was seeking international support for iraq at the same time propaganda rampage was attempted at Iran.

The only reason N. Korea might be left for last is in a sense to have a last resort. Since N. Korea is evidently evil and admits to its intents.. if N. Korea ever does something HARSH to its neighbours or any other country including the US.. the US can use it as a justification to surface as the victors after a number of conflicts. Beating evil once again (as was the case with the Nazis who were really evil). A fight in North Korea can disillusion people from what was done in Afghanistan and Iraq, making the innoscent population forget about what was done even if they slightly heard of it. But.. if the US decides to play their game for expansion once more.. well it will be interesting.. otherwise might decide to change tactics and use North Korea.. or perhaps leave North Korea as the last card to recreate their image of 'fighting evil'..

[edit]:
some people I know who are of middle-eastern descent claim that even egypt might be 'next' I feel there isn't enough evidence for that but heck.. Saudi Arabia on the other hand despite an 'ally' to the US, is constantly criticized by many war supporters I've met in life and that its the TRUE harborer of evil.. I wonder if that would be another country on the hitlist.. Sigh human history is depressing

[gigatron]

haha I guess THIS is why Britain disagrees on Iran. BOOYA!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2275249.stm

How intriguing.. first give then accuse. It's such a mind game it's not even funny.. None the less.. thought this was interesting.

[gigatron]

And lastly to no surprise here is the end result:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2914132

No surprise...

[Edit]:
Another important article on what happened yesterday regarding Iran
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/edito...r+TopHeadlines

[Cbass]

I don't know if the US will actually invade Iran... Syria is another easy target, and topmost on Israel's hitlist, so it was assumed that Syria would come next...

This swerve to Iran is interesting. Iran is a large mountainous country, has a large army, good conventional weapons, and is one of the most extreme Islamic countries in the world. Attack Iran would most certainly result in a massive outrage in the Arab world! Many were furious with the US invading Iraq, but the hardliner fanatics despised Hussein for his nonsecular regime. These are the same fanatics that view Saudi Arabia and Iran as religous havens...

Invading Iran would result in many US casualties, through active combat and terrorism alike.

[gigatron]

Actually Hussein's government was secular. Everyone in the region clearly disagreed with his methods because of his hunger for power plus he was a westerner supported and westerner supporter, the US gov. turned their backs on him after they used him up and after he clearly didn't want the oil to belong to foreigners (as he nationalized the oil as Iraqi Oil not foreign oil). He attacked the region backed by the US with US military intel (haha oxymoron).

Despite his actual evil nature, he has actually made Iraq one of the most modern countries in the region (in comparison with the west).. of course much of it was destroyed especially now... You know even non-Sadam built things were destroyed, one of those alleged Sadam palaces was actually built in.. 1953 if memory serves and for the UN... It's called The Peace Palace, had absolutely NOTHING to do with Sadam.

To name a few, the airport it was fascinating, all out of marble, lots of different landmarks and buildings and structures were present in Iraq. The rebuilding of Babylon, etc... all with phenomenal quality, my father during the iran vs iraq fighting worked on the Dam in northern iraq with two former-yugoslavian companies, an american company, an italian company, a germany company and a japanese company. It was bigger then hoover dam.. whatever the hell happened to it who knows probably also destroyed.

Woman were equal to man because they were able to get jobs, health care, education, everything man could, there was no such thing as only man here or only woman there. Tradition on the other hand thats different but gov. wise there was equality in that respect (contrary to what certain media channels attempted).. When it comes to tradition you could criticize current western society still being sexist yet in some ways exteremist feminist.. o_O despite the laws.. So despite Sadam's obvious evil he actually did much for Iraq. However, going power hungry over oil turned into corruption and disagreement with the west. What actually led Iraq to success was the nationalization of the oil.. the oil was once owned by foreigners -- goes back hundred years with the brits, americans, french and germans.. world war, colonial power, etc..

None the less whatever the neighbouring views and actuality of iraq, it's regardless because now we wait who the likely victim will be... can't predict the decision but these are possible candidates.. There isn't any strong outspoken messages by Bush and his crew as of yet.. just mixed hints nothing solid.. Bush and his crew are full up to their necks with stuff to cover up and whipe from this war.. so :/ Don't be fooled, what was done was done.. and if there is a pause don't forget what was done :/ The blits effect is cooled down merely because of bush being criticized by his own people and others within the government, not just foreign countries and foreign people. Might let things cool down for people to get back to 'regular' lives.. might plan to attack N. Korea to gain some miserable respect.. but.. maybe not..

After months of debate with a pro-bush individual on another forum, I've managed to partially convince a person that bush is a damn liar... I just can't see how people can NOT see that bush, dick, rice, rumsfield, powel, and the rest of their crew LIED to everyone.. The sad thing is, the cycle might start again as it already has been slightly but not as proudly as with Iraq.. we'll see.. I am following every daily event as much as possible.. this entire 'war on terror' crap is serious.. who does Bush and his cronies think they are labeling groups as evil and then attacking illegitimately.

*end rant*

[gigatron]

One would think N. Korea was forgotten
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=2915624

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

You like to write alot don't you?

Hit list ?

I was talking to fellow country men and women today about Mr G W Bush and they think he's nuts

The whole Axis of evil thing is crazy. Branding people as Evil is just asking for trouble. Bush is extreme and the whole Iraq thing is going to blow up in his face. If the American and English people have any sense they'd throw their leaders out respectively. The whole WMD is blown way out of proportion.

If Mr Bush doesn't want anyone to have WMD's then why doesn't he get rid of America's its not like he needs them. They don't have any benefits in anyway maybe its Bush's security blanket or whatever makes him sleep well at night. It's absurd.

[gigatron]

I totally agree :/

The reason the nuclear arms race began was simpl because other nations didn't want to be threatened by the US they wanted security "if you fire at us we'll fire at you". I don't believe anyone would trully want to use nuclear arms considering how much damage the two used bythe US on japan did and those were SMALL.. the MOAB is almost like those and its not a nuclear bomb..

The thing is people both in the US and Britain have been protesting.. but the media didn't cover it.. and when it finally broke out at how many ppl were protesting globally and locally.. the media did report it but with lowered figures and not reporting everything.. not reporting who was protesting (for example politicians and ex-politicians in the US, many music artists, actors, etc.. the whole group was just labeled anti-war protesters.. yes there was reports of who .. but very few).

However the response the US administration gave was basically a big FUCK OFF.. I remember watching rice responding to the protests with a very angered sarcastic tone and fascial expressions "PFFt ukh.. whatever" and shaking head. Heh I have a picture of her somewhere from CNN article giving the idea of how she acted ...

The biggest protests were in europe, London was HUGE.. even the people under blair were opposing blair! But it didn't change a thing..... :/ Argh..

[gigatron]

Ah funny pic from british protests

[Pick]

Originally posted by gigatron


The reason the nuclear arms race began was simpl because other nations didn't want to be threatened by the US they wanted security "if you fire at us we'll fire at you".

That is not true. The Arms Race began because Russia saw we had the capability of bulding nukes and since we were on of the only 2 remaining superpowers, Russia had to be the more powerful of the 2 by building weapons of its own. I don't recall us ever deploying weapons 100 miles off the coast of Russia. How do you blame the US for something like that? It was jealousy and power-hungry communism.

Originally posted by gigatron
The thing is people both in the US and Britain have been protesting.. but the media didn't cover it.. and when it finally broke out at how many ppl were protesting globally and locally.. the media did report it but with lowered figures and not reporting everything.. not reporting who was protesting (for example politicians and ex-politicians in the US, many music artists, actors, etc.. the whole group was just labeled anti-war protesters.. yes there was reports of who .. but very few).

That is totally not true. The ratio of anti-war protests shown on the TV to pro-war supportswas about 50:1. All I ever saw as far as protesting/supporting was a bunch of idiots laying down in the middle of a street and throwing shit at cops OVER AND OVER. The protest in London was covered for 3 hours on CNN. HOW STUPID??? NObody in America wants to see that trash This administration knows there are protests, but why dwindle on appeasing them when we have a psychopathic leader in possesion of WMD's sitting in a threatening state?
And if you want to label yourself as being with those protesters, I will tell you this: 75% of those protestors in France, England, Russia, Palestine, Jordan, and even in the US hate America and its policies. They were protesting America, not the war.

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick

That is totally not true. The ratio of anti-war protests shown on the TV to pro-war supportswas about 50:1. All I ever saw as far as protesting/supporting was a bunch of idiots laying down in the middle of a street and throwing shit at cops OVER AND OVER. The protest in London was covered for 3 hours on CNN. HOW STUPID??? NObody in America wants to see that trash This administration knows there are protests, but why dwindle on appeasing them when we have a psychopathic leader in possesion of WMD's sitting in a threatening state?
And if you want to label yourself as being with those protesters, I will tell you this: 75% of those protestors in France, England, Russia, Palestine, Jordan, and even in the US hate America and its policies. They were protesting America, not the war.

You should have looked a bit less local, there were a lot of anti-war protests in the NE

[gigatron]

You are official blind..
The 'big' pro-war protests were military families and politicians in support of the war! The biggest was like a thousand.. PLEASE what about all the citiziens in the tens of thousands across america? They were not reported..cut the crap you are now labeling your own media as liars? sheesh!


And you are still blinded to the 'communist-scare' hahaha.. omg.. and reagen was the last to scare the hell out of everyone on the issue. Every country in the world built nukes to prevent the US threat rate sorry bud. AND the US had so many more nuke sites then russia around russia! How about European countries? Those bases were all removed after the cold war (hah i wonder). So please stop you are quite wrong on the matter... And if you wana find info on those past bases you can watch your own local little thing called CNN go online and check out US nuclear arsenal (minimized of course but still the largest amongt the global nuclear arms analysis -- bias analysis yet still they were partially honest showing the US with the most).

[Pick]

Originally posted by gigatron
You are official blind..
The 'big' pro-war protests were military families and politicians in support of the war! The biggest was like a thousand.. PLEASE what about all the citiziens in the tens of thousands across america? They were not reported..cut the crap you are now labeling your own media as liars? sheesh!

You don't know what the hell they were. The biggest war supporting rallies were people who were BEHIND THEIR PRESIDENT!!! And even if I wasn't a war supporter, I wouldn't go out in the streets of San Francisco to wreak havoc in a PEACE protest. Idiots......... Face it, all theses 'anti-war' protests were really anti-consevative and anti-Bush protests. Very few people were actually there because they had a better answer to war. For example, the ACLU (the American Communist Liberal Union) was protesting against Bush's 'racism' in favor of Muslims. What the hell? There was PETA saying that animals would be killed in the war. The NAACP claimed the war was 'stereotypical' . These people weren't protesting the war. They were there to advance their liberal causes and to be anti-Bush. I bet you were with them.

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

there were anti war protests all the time in Britain

but i just felt some people were using it as an excuse to cause a rucus and in alot of cases damage to private property and they had no real motivation for doing so.

Secondly if the US doesn't want another arms race then it should negotiate for unilateral disarmament of WMD's since it also has weapons of nuclear and that of toxic/harmful weapons.

if they give reasons for reasearching it fair enough but they don't need to stock pile it and make it into missiles.

[jon@af]

Speaking for myself and many of my friends, I sincerely hope that people wise up and see that the president, President Bush, is nothing more than an imbicile wishing to do what he feels is "right" when in fact what he is doing is isolating his own country from the allies he may have had, the allies he could have had, and that which should come first and foremost, his people, the people of the United States. With the attack on Iraq, he stated that WMD would be found for certain and that Iraq would be less of a threat. In my honest opinion, North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq had even posed at the time. Who admitted to possessing nuclear capabilities? N. Korea. Who said they would be using their nucelear capabilities should they deem it fit? N. Korea. The United States as a whole knew of N Korea as well, because it was shown in the news their capabilities. No one but the government could verify WMD in Iraq, which means that the people of the United States had no way of knowing the truth, and was being led by, what turned out to be, a blind man. I say that because it has been 2 months since the end of the war and WMD have yet to be found in Iraq. Im sorry, but that has caused me to lose faith in the intelligence of the United States military. They GUARANTEED that WMD would be found, yet they have nothing to show.

Now, about the whole "axis of evil" thing, Im going to have to agree with NSX-R-SSJ20K, to brand people that one doesnt know by any means as evil? Is this not ignorant? People are evil in general, there are evil people in the US, and everywhere else on earth, you can never just up and decide who is evil over others, nor can you destroy all the evil in the world.

I dont know, I may just be bitter, but I think Bush should be Impeached and kicked out of office, because he obviously doesnt know what the hell he is doing. I also hope that should he go up for reelection next year(which I assume that he will) that the people and the electoral college vote for the other candidate. I feel that this may end up being the better choice.