All friends now?Follow

Axis of Evil? Nukes? Regime change?

Nah, we didn't mean it. What we meant to say was "Help us!"



Now, this might come to absolutely nothing. Bush might tell Blair "Yo Blair, shut the fUck up, ******! I ain't getting jiggy with no A-rabs."

But, in his infinite wisdom, Blair might tell him they are not Arabs, and that it's the least worst thing to do. And Bush might listen. Not to Blair, of course, but to his advisors telling him the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, i think it's a good thing. Talking. Much better than blocking your ears and pretending they don't exist. But I don't think the "threatening them with sanction" is the best way to make them help us.

Let's face it. If we, the West, are ever gonna sort out some of the ME's throniest issues, we're gonna need the help of Iran (for Iraq, Palestine), and Syria (for Lebanon and Hezbollah).

So, time to put down the gun, and pick up the phone?

I don't think it's idealistic at all. In fact, it's very much within the realist framework of talking to your "ennemies". Even at the height of the cold war, the US and Russia were on speaking terms, if not officially, always through proxy. It's not only the sensible thing to do, it's also the mature thing to do.

I can't see what good can come out of "ignoring" other nations. What's the likely outcome? That they will be so distraught at being ignored that they will change their behaviour? I doubt it. All it does it create a siege mentality, and a feeling of paranoia. That, and it gives regime a great excuse for consolidating their powers. Look at NK and Iran: All they ever tell their people is that the US hates them and wants to bomb them. Talking to them would go a long way towards changing that.

Now, i don't think the "Help us or we'll sanction you" rethoric is going to work either. I think little threats don't work against those regimes. So what if the people starve? Does Ahmadinejad care? I doubt it.

The crucial thing is that deep down, I don't think Iranian interests and US interests are fundamentally opposed to one another. Or, at least, they don't have to be. Sure, Iran is not a very nice regime, but do they really threaten the US? Especially if they were an economic partner, as they are with China and Russia, why shouldn't they get on?

Finally, it seems that the tactic will be to divide Iran and Syria so as to isolate one of them, hence putting pressure on it.

But I still think both are needed on our side, in their own way, to solve out many of the ME's problems.

Edited, Nov 14th 2006 at 4:09am PST by RedPhoenixxxxxx

It is quite a change. Before, neither Iran nor Syria were offered anything, even if they had stopped supporting Hezbollah.

Today, we are thinking about saying to them "If you help us, we'll reward you." It is quite a departure from saying "If you don't stop, we'll sanction you."

I don't know about that Blair kid. Seems shifty.

Blair's on the way out. He's doing the same spin just like our belovêd president is with all of a sudden suggesting that we all get along.

Maybe he's worried about where his past stance on the matter will leave his Labour Party in the eyes of the mob once he steps down in less than a year?

That's the idea, sport.

I don't think he gives a shIt. He's concerned about his legacy, for sure, which is why he's trying to be a peace-maker/broker now. But the future of the Labour Party? I think he couldn't care less.

I'm becoming more and more certain out next elected government will be conservative. It's sad, but then again New Labour was pretty right-wing in many ways, and the new Conservatives, with Cameron at the helm, seem kinda leftist. They're probably wolves in sheep's clothing, but Blair was definately a wolf in wolves clothing, so I guess the difference will be cosmetic.

Still, yuo're right, he's pretty much in the same situation as your Prez.

It is idealistic because the United States aids Israel with weapons, planes, bombs, training, funding, and the like. Then Israel uses these weapons to kill muslims. Other muslims such as Iran see the United States doing this, and dislike it. Muslims and Jews have been at it since oh, I don't know, the beginning of time. The are NOT going to just get along because people want them too. I think it is safe to say Israel only exists today because of major backing from the United States. Why do you think the US doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weaponry? Is it because the US feels that Iran might nuke the US? No, it is because the US is afraid Iran might nuke Israel, or selling said technology to terrorists that would either attack Israel or the US and its allies would be a close second. For NK to have nuclear weaponry is unfavorable because it will drive an arms race in that region that the US has many intrests in. Furthermore, it is possible that NK would sell this technology to Iran, Syria, and/or terrorist organizations. The only win in this situation as far as American intrests go, is if Crazy Kim decides to disarm and dismantle, and even if he did, it would be highly scrutinized, and widely unbelieved.

Phone in hand? (Check)
Walther PPK strapped to the ankle (Check)

That works

Jaw-Jaw>War-War (Check)

Can i just tell you that i FREAKING LOVE YYOUR AVATAR

and yeah but to stay on topic i hate the war or something...

edit: p.s. i hope shes asian

Edited, Nov 14th 2006 at 8:53pm PST by Rejekted

Ah, the usual paranoia comes back. Of course the world felt sorry for you. It felt angry, too. And, obvisouly, it felt scared. We all knew that 9/11 could've happenened in Europe too. And, guess what, it kinda did! Not just in Europe, but in Bali, in Kenya, in Turkey... Islamic terrorism is not a US-only problem. We had terrorist attacks from Islamist terrorist in Paris in 1995. 6 years before 9/11. We have Muslims in europe that are far more open to the Islamic Fanatic rethoric that in the US. And we all know that terrorist attacks will happen In Europe. That's not a possibility, it is a certainty.

So it wasn't just as though the world was like "Yeah, sucks. Ah well, too bad." That's just your way of rationalising why most of the world is now pissed off with the US. You just cannot accept that Iraq was wrong, stupid, dangeous, misguided, and extremely badly managed. That it has created a whole new generation of terrorists, who are coming for us.

So ,you'd rather think the rest of the world is wrong, and are asSholes.




You're lying. Pakistan allows for US special forces to operate in their territory. Still today, you dumb-***. And that's PAKISTAN, one of the most Islamic countries in the world. Do you really think Yemen would've been able to say "no" had you asked to send some there?

As long as the rest of the world thought your actions were justified and helped world stability and peace, they would've supported it.

The "support" you had was not a cosmetic. Europe, Muslim countries, and the US are in this TOGETHER. That's what idiots like you and the Bush administration cannot comprehend. It's not a US problem. It is a world problem.




You're an idiot. They sent troops to Afghanistan. Why do you think they did that? Because of pity? Countries don't send their troops to Afghanistan because of "pity", you dumb-***.

The rest of the world supported your actions while they thought it helped to fight terrorism.

When you started to do things which everyone knew was counterproductive, that's when support faded. And yes, it's the usual: Iraq, Guanta, Abu, torture, rendition, etc...

The rest of the world is really not that bad, gbaji. You're just a sad paranoid fUck that can't accept that somewhere the US administration screwed up badly. And instead of acknoledging that, you'd rather try to convince people that the rest of the world are asSholes.

It's sad.

But mostly for you.



Edited, Nov 15th 2006 at 2:40am PST by RedPhoenixxxxxx

Bush apparently thought it was a good enough idea to pay N. Korea $95 million.

Bush was even nice enough to waive the requirement that we inspect for hidden weapons-grade plutonium before we cut N. Korea a check!