World's Worst Terrorists?

[CurtSibling]

My words were not designed to inflame US Civ people.

But be aware that we will have to live in our own pollution.

Thank fate there are many North Americans who know economics
are not more important than the USA's future, indeed the whole earth.

As the old saying goes:

"When all nature is dead, then we will know,
that mankind cannot eat money..."

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
On the ABM treaty:
The US signed and ratified this treaty with the USSR. A treaty is valid while the two parties that signed it exist. Please point on a current world map the the USSR. You can't? Oh, well. Then I guess the ABM treaty is so much toliet paper, isn't it?

THINK, MISTER BUSH'S PROPAGANDA-RADIO.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Yeah, us capitalist nations sure did screw up the environment good.

Thank God for Cuba and North Korea protecting the O-zone layer!

It's pretty hard to acquire standarts of healthy nation when World's mightiest economic powers
are refused to trade with you.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Juize


It's pretty hard to acquire standarts of healthy nation when World's mightiest economic powers
are refused to trade with you.

We don't trade with them because of the atrocities they committed to their people...

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


We don't trade with them because of the atrocities they committed to their people...

Like Cuba... Would you say some atrocities of them. And proves.

 

[amadeus]

Cuba's domestic humanitarian record isn't exactly what I'd call "spotless".

 

[allan]

Number one reason why we (the US) still embargo Cuba: politically-powerful anti-Castro Cubans in South Florida.

Think about it: we now trade with Vietnam (whom we fought a LONG war with, and who arguably has an even worse human rights record), and we trade with China (need I say more?).

Plus Cuba was/is not necessarily the worst Latin American human rights violator: can you say EL SALVADOR? GUATEMALA? Pinochet's CHILE? HAITI?

Human rights have NOTHING to do with it. It's all politics.

The number two reason is likely a lingering belief that we in a sense "own" Latin America, and so are chagrined that one of the Latin American states "stepped out of line"....

And ironically, if we had lifted the embargo years ago, Cuba would likely be capitalist now. There's nothing like the easy availability of quality capitalist goods to persuade the people to reject the strictures of communism.... This is slowly happening in China as we speak.

Our embargo is what keeps Castro in power.

 

[joespaniel]

Wow, I never thought I would see the day come when Juize would shred a anti-American post (from Soyuz).

Good one!

The Russian Cosmonaut is just a stupid troll anyway.

Allan - I agree with you totaly concerning the anti-Castro lobby. Sanctions against Cuba should be lifted. They are suffering all over in that country, and for no political/economic gain to the US.

Whether or not they would have become capitalist is speculative, but sheer humanity and decency should prevail instead of 30 year old political grudges. Considering what you already pointed out about VietNam and China, its a tragic wonder we didnt do this sooner.

Besides, nobody in this country can make a decent cigar.

 

[allan]

"The Japanese had no intentions of EVER surrendering, it would have taken an invasion of Japan with millions of US losses (3 million for Kyushu alone) and tens of millions of Japanese civillian and military losses."

One question though: would the US have HAD to invade Japan? So they wouldn't surrender--they had at that point NO navy left to speak of, all their pilots were either shot down or splattered on carrier decks (the last, desperate "kamikazes"), Japan's industrial war machine was pretty much reduced to rubble by bombers, and Japan was (and is) TOTALLY dependent on resources from outside its archipelago. We could have simply blockaded it and starved it into surrender....

They may not surrender, but if they can no longer fight a war, what difference does it make?

I'm not sure whether or not nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a BAD decision per se (blockade and starvation could have been more cruel, depending on how long the Japanese would choose to endure it before surrendering)--I'm just pointing out that it wasn't "either nuking or invading" like a lot of people say. There WAS a third alternative....

I've visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I served in Japan, and both visits were very sobering experiences for me. Overall I don't think it's something ANYONE can be proud of....

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by Mikoyan


:shotgun: :midfinger: :shotgun:
If you lived in 18th century england, you would have hated George Washington!

If you lived in the 18th century in the Netherlands, France, US, Spain, Turkey or Portugal, you would've hated ALL English.