☆ENGLISH ONLY☆コミュのThe Axis of Evil

Hi ...,
Although I'm fully aware that the subject like this can be really dodgy and controversial, I've always been interested in and am well up for it.

The so called 'axis of evil' is no more than a grouping of countries who will not go along with what the US & UK governments demand. The fact that N.Korea have been offered aid packages etc to desist their Nuke programme goes to show that if the real problem was what arms a country has, then they could have done the same to stabilise Iraq & Iran with similar negotiation. The fact is, N.Korea has nothing to offer the US or UK governments (or the companies they are really run by ie. Halliburton/Carlyle Group/Bechtel etc).

Iraq & Iran have natural resources that the western governments desire for the companies they are part of. The fact that Dick Cheney is on the board of Halliburton AND is Bush's Vice President, makes the fact that Halliburton was given the contracts to 're build' Iraq very dubious. They invade the country, they destroy it, they steal their natural resources by getting the Iraqi's to sell the oil to their companies at way below what it is worth and get the country in question to pay the invaders companies to 'help' them build the roads and buildings that they destroyed in the first place. It's sick !

The Carlyle Group has been dubbed 'the ex presidents club' due to the fact that most US Presidents & UK Prime ministers when they leave the governments are given executive jobs within this and similar companies.The warmongers become the arms dealers !

When these things happen, we should always ask ourselves, who stands to benefit from this ? Which company has been given the contracts to do what and why ? the answer usually lies at the feet of these corporations. You should also question why certain stories appear in the mainstream media as more often than not they will be propaganda to plant the seed of doubt in people's minds to get them to react ("we must do something now" ! ), then the government offers the solution which they wanted all along. David Icke refers to it as PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION.

I don't agree with everything David Icke says (again, always be sceptical & keep an open mind on what you are told) but the headlines section on his website compiles very good articles that you may not always see in the mainstream press.

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/headlines.php

This book, 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' is very good, as it details how they operate in obtaining poorer countries natural resources. It was written by a former US government consultant John Perkins.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576753018/qid=1127218175/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/026-8956086-6171648

cheers

ティキティキsan,

I am in strong agreement with almost everything you said... Your explanation definitely shows why the U.S./U.K./Israel (perhaps Japan as well) axis has no credibility in truly 'international' discussions.

Concerning nuclear proliferation, until the U.S. is willing to get rid of its own stockpile, there will be no true consensus. In the early 90's, the U.S. was at one point the only country in the world that didn't entertain the thought of an international ban on nuclear weapons. When a "rogue" nation like the U.S.(a country with a long history of terrorizing weaker countries out of self interest) wants to be the only country holding 'the goods,' countries like N. Korea and Iran will naturally resist.

The sad thing is, I bet 99.9 percent of the people on the planet would like to live in a nuclear free environment.

The US obviously does not believe in an international ban on nukes now, since they are after non-proliferation, not reduction or elimination. The US getting rid of their nukes has nothing to do with non-proliferation.

The clusterfuck that is Iraq is that the US needs to admit that it is an aggressor state and that the US is in fact taking over Iraq and turning in it into the 51st state. This would make life easier on the military and the populace will be less likely to fight back. THe military will then be given the freedom to kick anyone's ass in Iraq and given the 'I will get my ass handed to me if I try anything with the GI's' feeling that will sweep Iraq, only the truly devoted jihad mongerers will try anything. Basically the military will wipe out the Iraqi people. They are slowly doing that now, they just need to be more efficient, like the Africans in Rwanda or that Slobovich (sp.?) guy or the Soviets. All Hell might break loose in the international community, but the US won't care. The US is the UN. Only by admitting that the US is taking over Iraq and not handing it back to the Iraqi people can there be true peace in the country. If the US is really handing it back, then why are they still there? To provide a stable transition of power would be the excuse, but really to sniff out and wipe out any possible detractors from any government that would be closer to the US than before. Then again I guess that would be a stable transition of sorts.

I think the North Koreans agreed to get rid of their nuke program yesterday. They want a light-water nuke plant bilt but that was to be expected. There will be problems with the agreement in the future since the NKs are all weasels and will re-neg on any agreement whenever they feel like. I have yet to meet a North Korean national who was not a prick. South koreans are different. When things are in their favor they will pull from the agreement. But that is to be expected too. They are a child playing an adult's game (they are doing a decnet job of it though) and will eventually be spanked for it.

Cohiba-san,

I believe that the United States should not have any more say in the Iraq establishment of government other than their aiding officials in creating a system of government. The United States doesn't think that any sort of other government would be suitable other than the idea of democracy. But if you think about it, the United States is not exactly a democracy all the way through as they would say. For example, there is the voting system in the country with electoral college choosing who becomes the president and not the people directly impacting the decision.

There probably will never be a stable transition for Iraq as long as the United States is playing a hand to establish democracy.

I also like how you said the Koreans will be spanked for being like children playing an adult's game. What a good metaphor!

There have been times when the electoral college in the US has not followed the popular vote. I think it was the Eisenhower election, but I don't recall.

The US should not interfere, but they will in order to get a government that is favorable to the US.

hello...thanks for the comments.
I always thought the US was run on a republic model - same as the roman empire...the two main parties are fighting for centralized/decentralized government i.e keeping the republic model versus having more 'democracy'. But I really don't know much about politics so that could be totally wrong....
I think, also similar to the roman empire, the US controls it's economic territory through taxation. There was a little spat between canada and the US last year over beef imports - canada refused to import US beef because of BSE fears, in retaliation the US hiked steel tariffs....canada relented.
Most people see this kind of thing in direct oppostion to 'democracy' and 'freedom' but the US nor any other country in a ruling position is about that. They are capitalists, about getting rich. And so they have to be if they want to remain on top....
Anyway, I was wondering about trying to pacify N.Korea...the magazine I read (Janes's) said that before N.Korea was like a wall between China and Japan. The S.Koreans are more pro China than pro US, and N.Korea are definitely more pro China than pro US, so if they were to reunite China's influence would stretch all the way down to Japan. Bad news for us maybe....Keeping N.Korea an isolated country is best for everyone (except N.Koreans) so I'm wondering why the US is even talking to them....
And I read there was a nuclear pact made between the US and N.Korea in 94 that promised to give them light water reactors for no nuclear weapons program, but after the US found later the N.Koreans were building nuclear capability they null and voided it. Agreeing to give them light water reactors now is like going back on that and saying "you got away with it". The US doesn't want to do that I guess....
Iran and Iraq is really a different case I suppose, we tend to look at it from a western point of view and say they have oil so the US wants to subjugate them etc..but I think there is a large deal of Muslim pride on the line here so just leaving them alone might be more productive. Let them join in World trade like adults....

ＮＫ may build nukes and they are not US friendly. This is the problem the US has with NK. NK ignores pacts that is why they are children playing in an adult game. They will get spanked.

yes...and I hope they get that spanking soon. TEAM AMERICA - WORLD POLICE can you hear our call?.....