| To: greenspirit who wrote (67694) | 1/22/2003 1:03:35 PM | | From: Neeka | | | | But internal Hughes documents show that from 1995 on, the satellite maker gave China sensitive missile technology in order to win contracts in the emerging Chinese space market.
I will be very surprised it this doesn't come back to bite us someday.
M |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: michael97123 who wrote (67688) | 1/22/2003 1:12:54 PM | | From: Karen Lawrence | | | | | Mike, remember Bush's predecessor who took a lot of flack for dodging service? He was vilified and there were plenty of articles on SI stating the military did not respect him. It's quite possible GW may have stuck with the program if he'd had to. We can't know. But you do have a point, just because GW didn't really serve in the military doesn't mean he can't be a good president. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: michael97123 who wrote (67685) | 1/22/2003 1:16:42 PM | | From: Karen Lawrence | | | | | Here's the way I feel, since we went there, we should have done what we set out to do. Unfortunately, those in charge failed to accomplish their mission or maybe they didn't know what they were doing. IMO BTW, I'm not referring to any of the troops or fighter pilots. They're the best. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: JohnM who wrote (67699) | 1/22/2003 1:21:28 PM | | From: michael97123 | | | | Had read it before an reread it.
Why containment wont work No one ever answers this view of what would happen down the road. Please take a shot at it John.
Lets assume we dont go to war, saddam kicks out inspectors in late spring when its too hot to go to war, not to mention we have removed our forces.
Saddam decides to invade Kuwait again the following year. We get ready for desert strorm 2 but saddam says we have bio agents in your cities that our agents(perhaps al q) will disperse. He leaves a vial of anthrax under a park bench. Does an american president in his right mind risk Chicago lets say, for Kuwait. No a rational man would cut a deal with saddam. Big Daddy, you win. Give us a long term contract for the oil, remove the terroists or agents, and keep kuwait. Next stop saudi arabia.
No american president would risk a major bio attack, not to mention suitcase nuke or a nuke in a dingy offshore, for Arabs if the oil can be secured peaceably. Call it appeasement but that would be my policy. What would yours be in that scenarario? mike |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (67715) | 1/22/2003 1:24:00 PM | | From: michael97123 | | | | Karen,
I think we went and did what we intended but lost our focus afterwards in containing iraq. By 1998 with the inspectors were kicked out that given our short attention span it would have been better to complete the job during gulf war. But that was obvious back then--we couldnt have know we would be so stupid--Now we know we can so imho, we should take him out before this gets unmanagable--see my last post to John. Mike |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Neeka who wrote (67703) | 1/22/2003 1:24:55 PM | | From: Maurice Winn | | | | <I openly admit that I am only concerned with what is best for my country when it comes right down to it. I am not under any illusions that the people of other countries don't feel the exact same way as I do about their respective countries>
Wow, you are altruistic M. I'm far more selfish and am only interested in what is best for me.
I would have trouble even defining a country's interests. Interests conflict within a country, so I don't know how the country's interests can be measured. Usually it means the current political bosses' and their buddies' interests [meaning cash flow].
To get what's best for me, I have to think less about what is good for my country and more what is good for everyone on earth. A narrow sectional interest leads to anarchic power grabs for resources and other goodies.
The advantage of democracy is that aspiring politicians have to keep most people happy if they can.
Until the rules are changed, it's going to be a dog eat dog world with Chirac snarling at King George II, Hu barking at Taiwan, North Korea facing down South Korea, Saddam the Rottweiler biting anyone who looks worth biting with rabid Osama biting anyone who moves, or doesn't.
Mqurice |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (67712) | 1/22/2003 1:27:57 PM | | From: epsteinbd | | | | Then the Koweitis have a pretty good chance of preserving their entity for generations, starting in the late monday night, local time, hours. Or the next night, before the speech, after the speech...
I already know you DO NOT agree.
But could you tell me why a majority of your citizens do not share your views ? |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
