How to destroy a Country

[eyeball]

Please don't go holding China up as a shining beacon of the way forward, they are anything but that. Sure its working for them right now, but at what cost. People tend to forget the totalitarian nature of China. People forget the Human Rights abuses, the lack of concern for worker safety and their abysmal record for such. If China is a model of Capitalism then I'll gladly skip it. For me the prospect of coming home from work alive every day far outweighs any perceived or imagined benefits to the kind of society China has.

Anyone up for running over a few students with a tank? How bout a few back room executions with a bullet through the head? Maybe we could have more fun chaining baby girls into little high chairs and letting them starve to death.

Yup, China, just non stop fun for all.

I was being sarcastic, but I'm still willing to bet the gap between rich and poor grows faster in authoritarian countries than it does in democratic one's. China's economic 'miracle' will prove to be a flash in the pan and collapse when its environment does, in the meantime some of the world's greatest fortunes will be created.

[Topaz]

1. Because they were so "stable" .....American interests were threatened.

2. Because surrender provisions were violated.

3. Because UN and NATO Charters were invoked (A-stan)

4. Because it was consistent with past US foreign policy for the region.

5. Because it could.

Any questions?

[/quotes

Yes, what Americans interests? The pipeline the US oil companies were trying to get from the Taliban and when they said yes but pay in Euros...bam! 9/11 happen and US rushes into Afghanistan and taskes out the Taliban.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, what Americans interests? The pipeline the US oil companies were trying to get from the Taliban and when they said yes but pay in Euros...bam! 9/11 happen and US rushes into Afghanistan and taskes out the Taliban.

Actually, the TAP development project was about natural gas, not oil. See Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium. Unocal withdrew from the deal in 1998.

Nice try though.....

[buffycat]

Perhaps you could paste a descriptive paragraph from them and add a comment about why you find them insightful.

Well, I would have thought anyone commenting on these sorts of events would be quite familiar with the game plan by now, but for you Dancer I will excerpt this little tiddy bit for your reading enjoyment:

iv

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

• defend the American homeland;

• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in

critical regions;

• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary

allocations. In particular, the United States must:

MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a

global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,

not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.

RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in

the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength

from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.

REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting

permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval

deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while

increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine

and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight

ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine

Corps.

CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,

and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding

while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled

programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.

DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and

American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.

CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave

the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of

space control.

EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of

U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which

• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced

technologies, and,

• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition

between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.

INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross

domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

***

Though Dancer, I repeat, you should really just sit and read the whole document. I am sure you can do it in the amount of time you spend posting here in one day.

cheers

Edited March 27, 2008 by buffycat

[kuzadd]

1. Because they were so "stable" .....American interests were threatened.

2. Because surrender provisions were violated.

3. Because UN and NATO Charters were invoked (A-stan)

4. Because it was consistent with past US foreign policy for the region.

5. Because it could.

Any questions?

American interests were threatened,indeed, but it does not change the fact the country of Afghanistan, ditto for Iraq, were both more stable nations prior to the attacks.

This stability was not acceptable to the US, ie: not in their interest.

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

Bridas and Unocal.

So as far as the country being more stable, as Iraq, it was, but it was not that kind of stability the US was after. Therfore it is obvious instability was far more conducive to US interests in the region

Despite the spin jobs!

Edited March 27, 2008 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

Well, I would have thought anyone commenting on these sorts of events would be quite familiar with the game plan by now, but for you Dancer I will excerpt this little tiddy bit for your reading enjoyment:

***

Though Dancer, I repeat, you should really just sit and read the whole document. I am sure you can do it in the amount of time you spend posting here in one day.

cheers

Thanks. Sounds like a good plan and thanks again for sharing.

How can we as Canadians help?

[M.Dancer]

American interests were threatened,indeed, but it does not change the fact the country of Afghanistan, ditto for Iraq, were both more stable nations prior to the attacks.

You ca repeat that till you are blue in the face but it won't make it true. Afghanistan was in a civila war before 911....and since we have been helping the democratically elected government there, one of the bigger problems is resettling the returning refugees...

So let me ask....do refugees return when the situation is worse, or better?

[bush_cheney2004]

American interests were threatened,indeed, but it does not change the fact the country of Afghanistan, ditto for Iraq, were both more stable nations prior to the attacks....

Sure, if you want to count "stability" as:

1) the Kurdish region protected by western intervention

2) no-fly zones enforcing stability north and south

3) UN sanctions enforced by other nations (including Canada)

4) bombing attacks at 100 sites for UN inspection violations (Operation Desert Fox)

5) non-compliance with surrender instruments from the "stable" country's Gulf War

6) continued persecution and killing of Iraqis by their own "stable" government

Ah yes....the picture of stability. LOL!

[kuzadd]

Sure, if you want to count "stability" as:

1) the Kurdish region protected by western intervention

2) no-fly zones enforcing stability north and south

3) UN sanctions enforced by other nations (including Canada)

4) bombing attacks at 100 sites for UN inspection violations (Operation Desert Fox)

5) non-compliance with surrender instruments from the "stable" country's Gulf War

6) continued persecution and killing of Iraqis by their own "stable" government

Ah yes....the picture of stability. LOL!

do you have reading issues?

I said, both countries were more stable prior to attack then they are now.

Is that hard to understand?

Read the news lately out of either country?

It's clear stability was not what the US was after.

[M.Dancer]

do you have reading issues?

I said, both countries were more stable prior to attack then they are now.

Is that hard to understand?

Speaking of reading issues...It's also not true....

[bush_cheney2004]

do you have reading issues?

I said, both countries were more stable prior to attack then they are now.

Is that hard to understand?

Read the news lately out of either country?

It's clear stability was not what the US was after.

Nonsense....your definition of "stability" leaves much to be desired.

[Jerry Galinda]

"And these same idiots who applauded this illegal war and now beating the same drum for attacking Iran!!"

Which war is legal ??

Who want to attack Iran ??

[bush_cheney2004]

"Illegal war" is an oxymoron.

[DogOnPorch]

"Illegal war" is an oxymoron.

For sure. In today's language, Alexander conducted an illegal war against the Persians.

------------------------------------------

Courage stands halfway between cowardice and rashness, one of which is a lack, the other an excess of courage.

---Plutarch

Edited March 27, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Jerry Galinda]

"Illegal war" is an oxymoron.

Thanks.

I'm ashamed- that's new for me.

First time - I learned something new here.

[HisSelf]

"Illegal war" is an oxymoron.

Only because you do not respect the framework that makes war illegal and the forum in which that framework is adjudicated.

Louise Arbour. My heroine.

Quelle ...

Well just quelle!

You go girl.

[M.Dancer]

Only because you do not respect the framework that makes war illegal and the forum in which that framework is adjudicated.

Louise Arbour. My heroine.

Quelle ...

Well just quelle!

You go girl.

And of course that doesn't make the war illegal. The legality of the war is at best a moot point that is best served by having international law students argue the pros and cons for marks.

Suffice to say no court as pronounced the war illegal. If they had the jursidiction to pronouce it ill advised, stupid and wasteful, I'm sure they would have.

[HisSelf]

And of course that doesn't make the war illegal. The legality of the war is at best a moot point that is best served by having international law students argue the pros and cons for marks.

Suffice to say no court as pronounced the war illegal. If they had the jursidiction to pronouce it ill advised, stupid and wasteful, I'm sure they would have.

It was not pronounced illegal because the judgment was rendered immediately after the case was presented to the UN.

The case may very well have been perjured. Another case is warranted.

[M.Dancer]

It was not pronounced illegal because the judgment was rendered immediately after the case was presented to the UN.

The case may very well have been perjured. Another case is warranted.

You've lost me...

[HisSelf]

Where?

[M.Dancer]

Where?

It was not pronounced illegal because the judgment was rendered immediately after the case was presented to the UN.

[bush_cheney2004]

Only because you do not respect the framework that makes war illegal and the forum in which that framework is adjudicated.

Nonsense...at least you could learn the language of the game you wish to play. No such thing as "illegal war", but we do have feel good language concerning "crimes against the peace", "war crimes", "crimes against humanity", and even "war of aggression".

Good luck with any of that...maybe start with PM Chretien to set an example?

[GostHacked]

Nonsense....your definition of "stability" leaves much to be desired.

Your interpretation of what stability means leaves everything else to be desired

I am sure Iraq is much more stable today than it was under Saddam's rule. Since we hear soooo much positivity out of that country.

[DogOnPorch]

Your interpretation of what stability means leaves everything else to be desired

I am sure Iraq is much more stable today than it was under Saddam's rule. Since we hear soooo much positivity out of that country.

Ah..."stability":

----------------------------------

Ouch!

[M.Dancer]

Your interpretation of what stability means leaves everything else to be desired

I am sure Iraq is much more stable today than it was under Saddam's rule. Since we hear soooo much positivity out of that country.

If the metric is death then the question becomes under which regime have more people dies before their time.

In that case Saddam has the far higher tally.

Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.s...00&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsu...ssein42503.html

The current average is about 20

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx