Their military is huge and is becoming better equipped by the month, and, more importantly, its not bogged down in a faraway land. They've suppressed political dissent, allowing their leaders to ignore domestic problems and focus on China's international status.
I agree with you economic assessment but can you provide sources for this military claim? I don't think so because it is just incorrect. China's defense spending is on par with the UK, France, Japan etc. They haven't even developed a significant offensive military capacity. Of all the major powers they have been the least aggressive militarily. The threat from China isn't a military one it's the fact that they can't be intimidated.
In the long run the lack of democracy and rural resentment against urban elites will probably do them in, but, in the meantime, we'll probably see a good 30 to 40 years of Chinese domination of Asia.
That is almost laughable, they've been around for four thousand years but you only give them another forty tops?
Sure, we may have a justification to attack Iran, but, given the amount of resources Iraq is tying up, I'm not sure we have the ability.
Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But first could you explain this justification? The rest of the rational thinking world and I are confused.
Their hatred for us is taught to them from a very young age and is religious in nature. It will not change or go away without decades of effort. No one change will even come close. Ever. Period.
Curious, Just one observation. If as you suggest 'their' hatred is indoctrinal and religious in nature, how do you explain the widespread condemnation of the 9/11 attacks throughout the Muslim world by religious leaders/media/extreme movements?
If we had been serious about defeating North Vietnam, we could have done it.
How would you define defeat? I think the US was fairly serious about defeating North (/South) Vietnam.
2 million civilians from the North and 2 million from the South, 2 million NVA, 200,000 ARVN, at least 10 million displaced. 13% of land in the South (Roughly Belgium or Massachusetts) was 'defoliated' with the use of chemical weapons, a good proportion rice crops. The US dropped more ordnance tonnage on Vietnam than all of the Allies combined during WWII, the entire country was completely decimated. It's taken thirty years to even begin to recover I think it's safe to say the US defeated Vietnam.
Also, the situation was not serious enough to justify nuclear weapons.
You will have to come up with better examples than that. The USSR invaded the first four countries you named.
Really? They seem fairly cogent to me.
The US merely helped the nationalists throw out the colonialists.
Actually in Vietnam it was the Soviets that helped the Vietnamese throw the European colonists out in the first Indochina War. They never invaded merely provided aid as you put it. So because the Communist bloc supplied aid to these countries the actual military invasion by the US, deaths of millions and displacement of tens of millions is justified? And thats just Vietnam.
As for the Panamanian elections it's also interesting why Noriega lost the elections. How could the population have voted any other way with the economic and military might of the US bearing down on them. It was basically throw Noriega out or you all starve.
Coincidently Panama still annually commemorates the invasion by the US, as the National Day of Mourning.
Fact -- On 9/11/01, an organized multinational terrorist group attacked the World Trade Center in New York, killing thousands of Americans and citizens of other countries.
Question -- Would you use your same argument against the UK for defending itself against the IRA?
I said the US has attacked other states when its economic interests are threatened. Now for some reason you've gone all lazy eyed and started talking about terrorism and 9/11? How exactly does that relate, but while were on the subject how exactly has the US defended itself in response to 9/11.
For the sort of thing I was referring to please see; Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama for direct action then the rest of the developing world for covert subversion of elections.
As for the Northern Ireland situation, if we had tried to carpet bomb the IRA then i might have cited it as a similar example.
Leftist count? What does that even mean? It makes even less sense when you pick numbers out of the air. From the article in WSJ, Human Rights Watch has estimated Saddam Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years.
But surely any civilians that died as a result of santions would have been us punishing the Iraqi population because Saddam wouldn't play ball.
The famine was "almost over" before the USA intervened because the intervention ended the famine. It's like saying "I was hungry until I ate dinner."
Wrong. It was infact international aid organisations and Somali farmers themselves that did the groundwork to end the famine. By the time the US intervened only 20% of aid destined for the country was being hijacked.
Current History, 1993
It was abundantly clear at the time [of the U.S. intervention] that the famine was almost over when the troops pushed inland from Mogadishu. One of the force's unexpected problems was counseling soldiers bewildered by the absence of masses of starving people. By the time he was forced to resign as special U.N. envoy in late October after publicly criticizing the U.N. for its slow response to the crisis, Mohamed Sahnoun was already recommending a halt to massive food imports. Excellent rainfall meant that a good harvest was expected for January. Rain and the tenacity of Somali farmers ended the famine, not foreign intervention.
In all fairness to the troll. Most of the deaths in Iraq can be chalked up to people FROM iraq blowing the shit out of each other in an attempt to start a civil war.
Yep once again, it's all America's fault!
Well Iraq was a fairly stable country until we attacked it, disbanded the army, police and government. Really what did we expect to happen after we created a complete power vacuum?
So yea I'd say the current state of Iraq and the minimum 44,000 or half million that wouldn't have died without the war is the US's fault.
This was 15 years ago, the fact remains these US energy companies had potentially huge stakes in the country. The world bank co-ordinated a study in 91' placing Somalia at the top of a list of prospective commercial oil producers in Africa.
I never suggested that US foreign poilicy is purely dictated by oil companies, they obviously hold influence. But don't you find it a little striking that after a decade of actively supporting Barre, the warlord who decimated the country leaving tens of thousands dead. The US finally intervened when he was overthrown leaving Somalia potentialy outside of US influence.
No one was stopping anyone from stopping it in Rwanda or intervening in Somalia.
Did you just ignore my previous post? Here it is again for you.
Whats your point? Were all playing for the same side (Western nations) so you tend not 'attack' each others interests, especially when your team mate is an 800 pound gorilla. The reason nobody else did anything is because two thirds of Somalia had been granted as oil concessions to Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. American oil companies.
Striking coincidence that after the US's warlord Barre was overthrown in '91 a UN resolution was finally passed in 92' huh. Bonus points if you can figure out who is the most prolific vetoing nation at the UN.
Clearly there was someone preventing intervention in Somalia and it was the US.
I'm saying that more often than not the US is the only nation that does anything to help while other nations do nothing except for sit back on the sideline and criticize.
You gave Somalia as an example of purely humanitarian action on behalf of the US I'm simply saying that wasn't the case.
As for Darfur noone is stopping the US from intervening, your point? Like I said we (western powers) are all vying for resources but basically on the same side, so were all culpable. The problem is its not in the west's interest to interfere at the moment so we ignore it. The reason we can't interfere is because we give Khartoum veto power. So theres these guys commiting genocide but we'll go see if we can have they're permission to send in peace keeping troops and stop it. How bizarre is that? but nobody questions it.
And everyone else did what to help? Regardless of reason, something > nothing
Whats your point? Were all playing for the same side (Western nations) so you tend not 'attack' each others interests, especially when your team mate is an 800 pound gorilla. The reason nobody else did anything is because two thirds of Somalia had been granted as oil concessions to Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. American oil companies.
Striking coincidence that after the US's warlord Barre was overthrown in '91 a UN resolution was finally passed in 92' huh. Bonus points if you can figure out who is the most prolific vetoing nation at the UN.
Islam by its very definition is going to hate us based on the fact that the Koran teaches violence against infidels (someone who doesn't believe in the same god you do)on nearly every page. And yes, most people believe that it is the actual factual word of Allah and that every word is to be followed literally.
I'm not an expert on the Koran but I think you might just be talking out of your arse. I am fairly sure the Koran actually teaches that violence should not under any circumstances be commited against civilians. Nontheless I think most religeons teach that if you don't believe you're gonna get smoten or struck by lightning or have a shitty time in general. Its the fundamental dogma thats gotten people to believe for centuries.
Kosovo, Somalia. Care to explain those? I know you can't, but try to explain where's the US's hidden agenda was on those interventions?
I just destroyed you.
Somalia. You mean in the way the US carfeully waited until the famine was almost over until it intervened? Or the way it actively supported Said Barre who killed around 50,000 people between 78' and '90. Or how 92' was an election year and the Secretary of State even described the intervention as a real shot in the arm for the Pentagon.
Shouldn't that be the US attacks sovereign nations when its economic interests are threatened? In the context of direct military intervention when was the last time the United States was attacked by another sovereign nation?
I agree the concept of a computer in every home might have seemed far fetched, but come on were talking about commerce which has been around since, well forever. So you do it via the tubes in the internets and not in person, over the phone, carrier pidgeon or whatever. I just don't think something like that should be patentable.
Please, if you think western arms dealers don't trade in and supply these types of weapons you are extremely naive. Also you're failing to appreciate the big picture you may see AK's on the news but the undeniable truth is that the united states alone exports more weapons than the rest of the world put together. The UK and France individualy export more than Russia.
The newspapers wanted their sites removed from Google Cache. Google can't search a site it can't cache, so the sites got removed from Google entirely. I think that is what they wanted.
Believe, in the sense 'as far as I'm aware', in the sense 'I should've have read the artical more thoroughly'. Let it be stated I don't actually spiritualy believe that Google removed the links.
Something still doesn't sit right though, why would they want or even risk being removed from the largest search engine?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you economic assessment but can you provide sources for this military claim? I don't think so because it is just incorrect. China's defense spending is on par with the UK, France, Japan etc. They haven't even developed a significant offensive military capacity. Of all the major powers they have been the least aggressive militarily. The threat from China isn't a military one it's the fact that they can't be intimidated.
In the long run the lack of democracy and rural resentment against urban elites will probably do them in, but, in the meantime, we'll probably see a good 30 to 40 years of Chinese domination of Asia.
That is almost laughable, they've been around for four thousand years but you only give them another forty tops?
Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But first could you explain this justification? The rest of the rational thinking world and I are confused.
Curious, Just one observation. If as you suggest 'their' hatred is indoctrinal and religious in nature, how do you explain the widespread condemnation of the 9/11 attacks throughout the Muslim world by religious leaders/media/extreme movements?
How would you define defeat? I think the US was fairly serious about defeating North (/South) Vietnam.
2 million civilians from the North and 2 million from the South, 2 million NVA, 200,000 ARVN, at least 10 million displaced. 13% of land in the South (Roughly Belgium or Massachusetts) was 'defoliated' with the use of chemical weapons, a good proportion rice crops. The US dropped more ordnance tonnage on Vietnam than all of the Allies combined during WWII, the entire country was completely decimated. It's taken thirty years to even begin to recover I think it's safe to say the US defeated Vietnam.
Also, the situation was not serious enough to justify nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons would have been much more humane.
You misspelled owned.
Pwned.
I'm thinking you just made someones list...
Really? They seem fairly cogent to me.
The US merely helped the nationalists throw out the colonialists.
Actually in Vietnam it was the Soviets that helped the Vietnamese throw the European colonists out in the first Indochina War. They never invaded merely provided aid as you put it. So because the Communist bloc supplied aid to these countries the actual military invasion by the US, deaths of millions and displacement of tens of millions is justified? And thats just Vietnam.
As for the Panamanian elections it's also interesting why Noriega lost the elections. How could the population have voted any other way with the economic and military might of the US bearing down on them. It was basically throw Noriega out or you all starve.
Coincidently Panama still annually commemorates the invasion by the US, as the National Day of Mourning.
Question -- Would you use your same argument against the UK for defending itself against the IRA?
I said the US has attacked other states when its economic interests are threatened. Now for some reason you've gone all lazy eyed and started talking about terrorism and 9/11? How exactly does that relate, but while were on the subject how exactly has the US defended itself in response to 9/11.
For the sort of thing I was referring to please see; Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama for direct action then the rest of the developing world for covert subversion of elections.
As for the Northern Ireland situation, if we had tried to carpet bomb the IRA then i might have cited it as a similar example.
Fly a plane into a building.
Please see http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=202304&cid =16561674
But surely any civilians that died as a result of santions would have been us punishing the Iraqi population because Saddam wouldn't play ball.
Wrong. It was infact international aid organisations and Somali farmers themselves that did the groundwork to end the famine. By the time the US intervened only 20% of aid destined for the country was being hijacked.
Current History, 1993
So yea I'd say the current state of Iraq and the minimum 44,000 or half million that wouldn't have died without the war is the US's fault.
I never suggested that US foreign poilicy is purely dictated by oil companies, they obviously hold influence. But don't you find it a little striking that after a decade of actively supporting Barre, the warlord who decimated the country leaving tens of thousands dead. The US finally intervened when he was overthrown leaving Somalia potentialy outside of US influence.
Did you just ignore my previous post? Here it is again for you.
Clearly there was someone preventing intervention in Somalia and it was the US.I'm saying that more often than not the US is the only nation that does anything to help while other nations do nothing except for sit back on the sideline and criticize.
You gave Somalia as an example of purely humanitarian action on behalf of the US I'm simply saying that wasn't the case.
As for Darfur noone is stopping the US from intervening, your point? Like I said we (western powers) are all vying for resources but basically on the same side, so were all culpable. The problem is its not in the west's interest to interfere at the moment so we ignore it. The reason we can't interfere is because we give Khartoum veto power. So theres these guys commiting genocide but we'll go see if we can have they're permission to send in peace keeping troops and stop it. How bizarre is that? but nobody questions it.
Whats your point? Were all playing for the same side (Western nations) so you tend not 'attack' each others interests, especially when your team mate is an 800 pound gorilla. The reason nobody else did anything is because two thirds of Somalia had been granted as oil concessions to Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. American oil companies.
Striking coincidence that after the US's warlord Barre was overthrown in '91 a UN resolution was finally passed in 92' huh. Bonus points if you can figure out who is the most prolific vetoing nation at the UN.
I'm not an expert on the Koran but I think you might just be talking out of your arse. I am fairly sure the Koran actually teaches that violence should not under any circumstances be commited against civilians. Nontheless I think most religeons teach that if you don't believe you're gonna get smoten or struck by lightning or have a shitty time in general. Its the fundamental dogma thats gotten people to believe for centuries.
I just destroyed you.
Somalia. You mean in the way the US carfeully waited until the famine was almost over until it intervened? Or the way it actively supported Said Barre who killed around 50,000 people between 78' and '90. Or how 92' was an election year and the Secretary of State even described the intervention as a real shot in the arm for the Pentagon.
Shouldn't that be the US attacks sovereign nations when its economic interests are threatened? In the context of direct military intervention when was the last time the United States was attacked by another sovereign nation?
I agree the concept of a computer in every home might have seemed far fetched, but come on were talking about commerce which has been around since, well forever. So you do it via the tubes in the internets and not in person, over the phone, carrier pidgeon or whatever. I just don't think something like that should be patentable.
a corporation can patent something as fundamental as this that would mean the whole damn patent system is screwed u... oh wait
Roll on the 'independant' government/content provider appointed 'expert'...
Please, if you think western arms dealers don't trade in and supply these types of weapons you are extremely naive. Also you're failing to appreciate the big picture you may see AK's on the news but the undeniable truth is that the united states alone exports more weapons than the rest of the world put together. The UK and France individualy export more than Russia.
True, but only because the west arms them...
Believe, in the sense 'as far as I'm aware', in the sense 'I should've have read the artical more thoroughly'. Let it be stated I don't actually spiritualy believe that Google removed the links.
Something still doesn't sit right though, why would they want or even risk being removed from the largest search engine?