|
Nicholas Berg Video
"T. Early" wrote in message ... I'd suggest that your classification of Saddam as "merely an irritating regime" raises serious questions about your credibility in the area of geopolitics. There are and will always be governments we don't like, everywhere in the world. Unless there is truly genocide going on, it's up to the locals to deal with it. Saddam was once an ally of the US. In fact, an argument can easily be made that the U.S. created Saddam in the first place. At any rate, what is worse? A brutal but local dictatorship, or a superpower that cowardly bombs and kills thousands in a third world country, using standoff weapons from high up in the air or from ships at sea where the crews remain safe and cozy? Can such a country really claim higher moral authority? I still maintain that Saddam Hussein's regime was, for the U.S., just another irritating but relatively harmless one (compared to others) - harmless, except perhaps in terms of oil supply, which is probably the real reason the US administration acted as it did, when you strip away all the spin and propaganda. |
"Pete" wrote in message news:pzMoc.10779 There are and will always be governments we don't like, everywhere in the world. Unless there is truly genocide going on, it's up to the locals to deal with it. Talking of which, what did the "international community" do when 800 000 innocent people in Rwanda were being massacred? Nothing - as it had no oil. -- Simon M. |
Simon Mason wrote:
The Taliban were fair enough after 9 SEP 01, but just to effect a "regime change" is madness. Why don't you invade China to bring western democracy to them ? Too many regimented workers would be lost. That drives up production costs for the American factories there. The bottom line wins over morals every time. mike |
Simon Mason wrote: "Pete" wrote in message news:pzMoc.10779 There are and will always be governments we don't like, everywhere in the world. Unless there is truly genocide going on, it's up to the locals to deal with it. Talking of which, what did the "international community" do when 800 000 innocent people in Rwanda were being massacred? Nothing - as it had no oil. Hey, when you folks gonna repay your WWII debt to us? We could use the money. |
On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:22:53 -0400, N8KDV
wrote: Hey, when you folks gonna repay your WWII debt to us? We could use the money. We sure do. Bush is expensive. |
"Simon Mason" wrote in message The Taliban were fair enough after 9 SEP 01, but just to effect a "regime change" is madness. Why don't you invade China to bring western democracy to them ? Sorry, it was 11 SEP 01 , we have different date formats! -- Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W™ http://www.simonmason.karoo.net |
"m II" wrote in message news:EXNoc.4658$j6.2648@edtnps84... Simon Mason wrote: The Taliban were fair enough after 11 SEP 01, but just to effect a "regime change" is madness. Why don't you invade China to bring western democracy to them ? Too many regimented workers would be lost. That drives up production costs for the American factories there. The bottom line wins over morals every time. Maybe the real reason is that the Chinese would give you a serious fight. There are over a billion of them and they have nukes as well. -- Simon M. |
Simon
Please explain the shortwave radio connection. Many thanks "Simon Mason" wrote in message ... "m II" wrote in message news:EXNoc.4658$j6.2648@edtnps84... Simon Mason wrote: The Taliban were fair enough after 11 SEP 01, but just to effect a "regime |
SM,
The USofA believes in MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction. (A Short Quick Nuclear War.) [USofA can NOT Invade China.] China (PRC) believes in MAR = Mutually Assured Reduction. (A Short Quick Nuclear War followed by a Long Drawn-Out Conventional War.) + China is willing to lose 1/4 to 1/3 of their Population in a War with the USofA. This is about equal to the Entire Population of the USofA. Note: This is a Winning Strategy for China because the can BLAME the Losses on the War and the USofA: Plus the get a Needed Population Reduction. + China only has to Target and Destroy the Top One Hundred US Cities (Urban Areas) to Win the War. This will reduce the USofA's Population by about 15%. Once that happens the USofA will Not be able to sustain the War: Therefore China Wins within the first three days. Note that China only needs 250 to 500 ICBMS to achieve their Goal of Destroying these 100 Urban Areas. - As a 'result' of the War with China; the USofA becomes a "Third World Country". The Is NO Gravity - Reality Sucks ~ RHF .. .. = = = "Simon Mason" wrote in message = = = ... "m II" wrote in message news:EXNoc.4658$j6.2648@edtnps84... Simon Mason wrote: The Taliban were fair enough after 11 SEP 01, but just to effect a "regime change" is madness. Why don't you invade China to bring western democracy to them ? Too many regimented workers would be lost. That drives up production costs for the American factories there. The bottom line wins over morals every time. Maybe the real reason is that the Chinese would give you a serious fight. There are over a billion of them and they have nukes as well. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com