"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 newszMoc.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 newszMoc.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.

From: "-=jd=-"

He has his point of view and he articulates it well. I'm not required to
agree with him. He's not required to agree with anything I write either.
However, no-one gains anything by degrading the validity of their opinions
by resorting to vitriol and personal insult. I just think that when
someone posts with a level of common courtesy, you *should* feel compelled
to reciprocate, whether you agree with them or not. There's certainly a
glaring lack of common courtesy in society today and there's absolutely
nothing wrong with demonstrating some when you get a chance. That's all
I'm saying.

This from someone that has never rebuked Steve Lare for his daily common
courtesies. In fact, JD has gone out of his way to tell me that it was my
respomsibility, since I asked for it. All you're doing JD is showing how
inconsistent and hypocritical you really are.

As Stinger suggested, I have pointed out many of the same arguments. I don't
usually engage in insults until the other party initiates them. I sure don't
see you calling out folks like N8KDV, Teleamon, Tracy Fort or RHF for their
insult-laden posts. I guess that's because they're on your side, right.

What a putz!


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)