Anti-Balistic-Missile-Defense

[waraxis]

I totally agree with Yanny on the idea of helping Africa out. The problem is how do we help them out. Just sending them money will not fix the problem. I don’t know if the U.N. could be trusted with the money!! We may have to actually send a very large group of people over there and fix one section at a time. I know that could take a very long time but what else could be done. I would like to hear a real good plan for helping the people out in Africa. Cause I sure don’t have one right now!

[TM Moses VII]

I am happy to hear that there are such kind-hearted people with a vested aspiration of helping others less fortunate than themselves.
Thank you!
:D :)

[Yanny]

Send over Industrial Experts, Doctors, Farmers, ect.

[TG Moses VI]

For now, we mainly need civil and agricultural engineers and doctors, instead of too much industry experts.

[yourbuttocks]

Moses’ sister, the religious argument has been going on for over a month. Check out such threads as “Seperation of Church and State”, “religion”, “prime factor” if you are curious. I think I might heat it back up again if only annoy Fisternis. I leave for a week on saturday, so it will be a brief but bitter quote-quote-quote battle. :)

What denomination are you?

Moses, I agree that the U.S. has impacted Africa negatively, however, not nearly as much as France, Britian, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, or the Netherlands. I explained this in the humanitarian post.

Not of course that we should not help. But we are helping because we are good people, not because it is our fault.

[FinsterniS]

Moses, I agree that the U.S. has impacted Africa negatively, however, not nearly as much as France, Britian, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, or the Netherlands. I explained this in the humanitarian post.

Why France is always the first on your list ? Simple coincidence ?

[Yanny]

France was possibly the largest European Imperialist in Africa :)

[TG Moses VI]

Nah, I think the “joy” of having that crown belongs to Great Britain :wink: or maybe, Germany. France is still near the top, though all of those European Imperialist were wrong in their actions IMO. Belgium’s processions were “small” compared to the other European Empires, but I’ll never forgive what King Leopold II did to Congo. Sickening :evil:

[HortenFlyingWing]

@EmuGod:

The scuds could have carried nuclear warheads, but Iraq doenst have nuclear weapons thanks to Israel.

Amen to that attack in '81!

[TG Moses VI]

Attack in '81? Tell me about it.

[HortenFlyingWing]

"The Osirik Reactor Attack
In June 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed the Osirik nuclear reactor which Iraq had been building with French help. It was destroyed before it became operational. The reason for the attack was to prevent Iraq from developing a nuclear capability. The attack was carried out with American supplied F-16’s. Under American law, weapons supplied by the United States government can only be used for “defensive” purposes.

The Israeli attack on the Osirik reactor was a violation of American law. But, in those early months of the Reagan Administration, no one cared. Everyone winked and blinked and laughed. The illegal act was done by the Israelis so normal operations of law don’t count, of course.

Nevertheless, we still sided with Iraq in the war with Iran and supplied Iraq with satellite photos and intelligence data, while our allies around the world supplied Iraq with money to buy weapons."

I’m sure this guy is happy now!

[Yanny]

I think it would be much more stable in the Middle East if Iraq had a Nuclear weapon. That way, both Iraq and Israel will have a reason to stay in line.

[TG Moses VI]

@HortenFlyingWing:

"The Osirik Reactor Attack
In June 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed the Osirik nuclear reactor which Iraq had been building with French help. It was destroyed before it became operational. The reason for the attack was to prevent Iraq from developing a nuclear capability. The attack was carried out with American supplied F-16’s. Under American law, weapons supplied by the United States government can only be used for “defensive” purposes.

The Israeli attack on the Osirik reactor was a violation of American law. But, in those early months of the Reagan Administration, no one cared. Everyone winked and blinked and laughed. The illegal act was done by the Israelis so normal operations of law don’t count, of course.

Ha, the French. I’m surprised it wasn’t the Russians. :wink:

@yanny:

I think it would be much more stable in the Middle East if Iraq had a Nuclear weapon. That way, both Iraq and Israel will have a reason to stay in line.

The problem with this is that Saddam isn’t a stable leader (in fact, nuclear weapons might be more of a reason to keep him OUT of line), neither is the Iraqi government. However, I don’t like the idea of letting Irael have nuclear weapons either. Maybe give nuclear power to a Middle Eastern country we can “trust” (to strong of a word? Any better ones?) like Saudi Arabia or Turkey (wait… does Turkey still side with the Muslims or are they more Jewish friendly?)

[Guest]

@TG:

Nah, I think the “joy” of having that crown belongs to Great Britain :wink: or maybe, Germany.

Well, Germany only was a “small player” in global imperialism. started late (about 1880ish) and lost all colonies before 1919, plus never had more than a handful.
I’d say, worldwide the britsh deserve that crown, and for Africa it’s France (even though most of their empire there was desert).

[TG Moses VI]

Well their Imperialistic intentions didn’t materialize until after industrialization and when the country was somewhat unified. But given time and a large navy (in order to defend their processions), who knows?

[DasEwokSS]

i sure as hell Dont! :)

[DeviantScripter]

@Yanny:

And I would say, your American Goverment has killed it’s own, indiginous, people. It has used Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons. Your country just has bigger guns and can rule through force.

No, our country rules through smart decisions that benefit it’s people. Unlike Saddam, who rules through personal decisions that further his own political status.

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

@TG:

Nah, I think the “joy” of having that crown belongs to Great Britain :wink: or maybe, Germany.

Well, Germany only was a “small player” in global imperialism. started late (about 1880ish) and lost all colonies before 1919, plus never had more than a handful.
I’d say, worldwide the britsh deserve that crown, and for Africa it’s France (even though most of their empire there was desert).

of course we are being quite recent here. Portugal and Spain carved up the world together well before the 17th century. And let’s not forget the Dutch who had their little empire as well. We might well give Britain the crown for imperialism, for there was more of the world available to consider an empire. When Spain and Portugal were wreaking havoc, i would guess that they had a relatively larger piece of the (known) pie.
And let’s not forget America’s (McKinnley) turn at Imperialism as well as that whole “manifest destiny thing” - “God Damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in teh Philippine Isles” - William James (he might have added Guam, Cuba, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, America Samoa . . . ).

[Yanny]

Oh, so if Congress decides to commit genocide, its OK.

[DeviantScripter]

Where is that coming from? I fail to see the correlation between the two. Why are you taking the decisions of our country to such extremes as genocide?