US isn't very picky when it comes to chosing allies

[Datajack Franit]

Excuse me but you didn't wake up every morning at 6.30 for 2 years because of islamic prayers in the mosque

Luckily I moved away before getting brainwashed

[DanS]

"Most of my mineral interests are in marginal properties (not enough fracturing or pourousness for the oil to flow through the rock, or old fields nearing the end of production and needing enhanced recovery techniques) that are not ecomonic at lower prices; the cost of production is too high. They kick in around $25 dollars a barrel. There is a significant supply of these properties in Texas, and I would assume so elsewhere in the USA, which rapidly make a MODEST adjust to supply when the prices rise enough to cover the higher production costs."

Yes, a modest increase in many marginal producing states (which includes most of Texas nowadays, ironically).

Russia's marginal producers hit their sweet spot long before $25/bbl. So if they already aren't producing at their max at $31/bbl, and further adding capacity at a good clip, then I would have to question their management choices.

Russia might be able to break OPEC. Either that, or join it.

[Kramerman]

Untill Sept 11 you absolutely don't care about this growing evil. Sure, why you should care about this evil regime if it don't hit you? You have done nothing to help NA in their war vs. Taliban (and yes, NA is much, MUCH lesser evil in compare with Taliban).

Jesus. We get jumped on for even thinking about attacking Iraq, but we are criticized for not taking out the Taliban before we have any 'reason'? People all over the world say we have no reason for taking Saddam out, despite his despicable regime, which I infered from your post as to being a valid reason for nation building. I think it is the rest of the world that is hipocritical. Jumping on our backs when we intervene, and when we dont you jump on our backs some more. I swear, if we dont take saddam out because of international pressure, and he eventually uses WoMD on anybody, people are gonna say, "well why didnt the US do anything about it?" Sheesh. Ive said it once and Ill say it again: WE ARE DAMNED IF WE DO, DAMNED IF WE DONT.

Kman

[Sava]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus




what world do you live in?

Want to analyze the ethnic demographics of the US versus every other European country? Don't even say that any other country is as diverse as the US because I will crawl into my computer, fly through the internet, and smack you.

[Kramerman]

And no, I don't think that an attack on Iraq would have anything to do with oil. We don't need Iraqi oil; if we did, we would have taken Baghdad back in 1991.

We readily get all the oil we need from Iraq already. He is more than willing to sell what he has to us, in order to make money. Same with the Saudis, without their oil they are practically nothing. The middle east needs us alot more than we need them. We can go to russia, or Latin america, where there are plentiful reserves of oil. And Im sure the russians would be more than willing to help supply us

[Sava]

The gulf war was more about liberating the Kuwaiti's so we could get their oil. If Kuwait had no oil, there would have been no Gulf War.

[GeneralTacticus]

Why Americans consider that they have right to have them, while Iraq can not?

Well, for one thing, the US isn't ruled by an untrustworthy and unpredictable dictator who supports the complete annihilation of another nation and it's people. Plus, I don't think America has signed a treaty agreeing that they will not attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

But if so, perhaps you somehow forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaky. USA is the only country of the World which used nukes.

a) The Americans at the time had no idea how truly horrific the effects of nuclear weapons would be.

b) The Japanese deliberately murdered more people than died from the A-Bombs just in their prison camps, let alone elsewhere.

c) The use of the A-bombs was the only thing that brought the war to an end, thus saving the lives of many more people.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Jesus. We get jumped on for even thinking about attacking Iraq, but we are criticized for not taking out the Taliban before we have any 'reason'?
Kman

It was not my point.
Before the Taliban hit you at Sept 11 you done nothing, because it was profitable to you. You playing games with such villians as ObL (btw, CIA child) and regimes such as Taliban (btw, CIA child too) all the time. While your serfs are obey to you, it doesn't matter what type of bastards they are- they are always a nice guys for you. And you do nothing about them, because they serve to your national interests. But if someone (not a saint too, but a 100 times less evil then Taliban) is refusing to kiss your ass, you declare that he is a most terrible monster in human history and must be destroyed.

I think it is the rest of the world that is hipocritical.

Oh sure. Everybody are wrong, but only not Americans. USA is always right!!! USA is much holier then the rest of the World. [throw up]

Ive said it once and Ill say it again: WE ARE DAMNED IF WE DO, DAMNED IF WE DONT.

Exactly. Because you act- when you shouldn't have been act, and don't act when you should. You doing all wrong, all the time.
Just face it. It's your fate to receive bashing from all around the World, because no one except you didn't declared that he is a World's policmen.
No one like cops, so it's only your fault.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, for one thing, the US isn't ruled by an untrustworthy and unpredictable dictator who supports the complete annihilation of another nation and it's people. Plus, I don't think America has signed a treaty agreeing that they will not attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

Oh sure, they ruled by legitimately elected government, in country of freedom, not in country ruled by dictator, BUT it doesn't change the fact that USA is THE ONLY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD who used NUKES to kill citizens of foreign country. Is see no difference between president of democratic country who ordered to nuke two cities and to kill hundreds thousands of civilians and a dictator of non-democratic country.

a) The Americans at the time had no idea how truly horrific the effects of nuclear weapons would be.

This is not an excuse.
And btw, it's not true. People who made decisions know everything. What? Bombs wasn't tested in Nevada's test facility before they were droped on Hiroshima and Nagasaky?

b) The Japanese deliberately murdered more people than died from the A-Bombs just in their prison camps, let alone elsewhere.

Perhaps, but this is not an excuse too. Murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians just proved that USA is no better then Japanese.

c) The use of the A-bombs was the only thing that brought the war to an end, thus saving the lives of many more people.

Not true. Just an American fairy tale. The only reason why bombs were droped was a demonstration of power to Soviets. USA develop A-boms for Soviets from the beggining. For SOVIETS, not for Japanese.

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh sure, they ruled by legitimately elected government, in country of freedom, not in country ruled by dictator, BUT it doesn't change the fact that USA is THE ONLY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD who used NUKES to kill citizens of foreign country. Is see no difference between president of democratic country who ordered to nuke two cities and to kill hundreds thousands of civilians and a dictator of non-democratic country.

I mean that they can be trusted a bit more not to nuke somebody again - though I'm growing a bit unsure about that.

This is not an excuse.
And btw, it's not true. People who made decisions know everything. What? Bombs wasn't tested in Nevada's test facility before they were droped on Hiroshima and Nagasaky?

You think dropping a bomb in an unpopulated area shows you what the bomb will do to people?

Perhaps, but this is not an excuse too. Murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians just proved that USA is no better then Japanese.

That was more an argument against the Japanese than for the US, saying they have little right to complain.

Not true. Just an American fairy tale. The only reason why bombs were droped was a demonstration of power to Soviets. USA develop A-boms for Soviets from the beggining. For SOVIETS, not for Japanese.

Evidence?

[Serb]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I mean that they can be trusted a bit more not to nuke somebody again - though I'm growing a bit unsure about that.

Why somebody who never used nuckes and who actually don't have it should be trusted less then someone who have it and who used it to kill hundreds of thousands of people?

You think dropping a bomb in an unpopulated area shows you what the bomb will do to people?

Of course. Only complete idiot could beleive that human being could survive a temperature of say +5000C created during explosion
Do you think efects of radiation weren't known to humans before August 6 1945? That no one died because of radiation before the bombs were droped?
Those bombs were created by scientists, one of the most genious scientists of that time, not by school seniors who have no idea WTF they are doing.

That was more an argument against the Japanese than for the US, saying they have little right to complain.

I didn't say that Imperial Japan was a nice country, but USA acted like player of the same league. With only exception- after they done it, they start to exuse that it was for World's sake and for Japanese own sake. Very nice.

Evidence?

Can you accept my words as evidence?
Not so long ago I saw a historical programm about Manheten project. One of the scientists who participated in this programm said smt like this- "We have a great progress in our work and made a little party. The cheif of project was drunk and said to us- "listen guys, do you think we create bombs for Japanese? No, for Soviets, only for Soviets. With Japanese we can handle without nukes." After such words this scientist left this project. Don't remember names, sorry.

[GeneralTacticus]

Why somebody who never used nukes and who actually don't have it should be trusted less then someone who have it and who used it to kill hundreds of thousands of people?

Um, maybe because they haven't shown themselves to be trustworthy? The US has never used chemical or biological weapons (unless you call napalm or defoliants chemical weapons, but I really don't want to to turn this into a Vietnam discussion), yet they have had both for a long time. Saddam has only had WoMD for a couple of decades and he has been using them at every chance he has.

Of course. Only complete idiot could beleive that human being could survive a temperature of say +5000C created during explosion
Do you think efects of radiation weren't known to humans before August 6 1945? That no one died because of radiation before boms were droped?
Those bombs were created by scientist, one of the most genious scientis of that time, not by school seniors who have no idea WTF they are doing.

I am talking about the long-term effects of radiation. It probably seems strange now, the fact that they had no idea what the radiation would do, but it had never happened before. No radioactive leaks, no nukes dropped, nothing.

I didn't say that Imperial Japan was a nice country, but USA acted like player of the same league. With only exception- after they done it, they start to exuse that it was for World's sake and for Japanese own sake. Very nice.

I was just saying that it probably wasn't an appriopriate argument for me to have brought up. And quite frankly, would you rather die in an A-Bomb explosion (which will kill VERY quickly), or in a Japanese POW camp?

Can you accept my words as evidence?
Not so long ago I saw a historical programm about Manheten progect. One of the scientist who participated in this programm said smt like this- "We have a great progress in our work and made a little party. The cheif of project was drunk and said to us- "listen guys, do you think we create bombs for Japanese? No, for Soviets, only for Soviets. With Japanese we can handle without nukes." After such words this scientist left this project. Don't remember names, sorry.

I will see if I can find anything about this. And you are probably right that the Americans were worried about the Soviets, but are you telling em that in their position you wouldn't have been?

btw, about this history program, can you remember any details about it? What language was it in?

EDIT: btw, of course the americans could handle the Japanese without nukes. It would just have cost far more blood.

[Lemmy]

I am talking about the long-term effects of radiation.

So the initial destruction of the bomb was acceptable?
An entire city destroyed with only one bomb, this has never before happened, and they could've known it would happen while testing it.

EDIT: btw, of course the americans could handle the Japanese without nukes. It would just have cost far more blood.

any evidence for that?
I would say different blood, not more.

[GeneralTacticus]

any evidence for that?
I would say different blood, not more.

I don't have an exact source, but I believe that American estimates of casualties in an invasion of Japan were about a million on their side, along with many more Japanese civilians.

So the initial destruction of the bomb was acceptable?
An entire city destroyed with only one bomb, this has never before happened, and they could've known it would happen while testing it.

Of course they knew that the bomb would cause vast destruction, that was why they used it. But they thought the same about mass air raids, which they considered to be not too dissimilar to the A-bomb.

[Lemmy]

I don't have an exact source, but I believe that American estimates of casualties in an invasion of Japan were about a million on their side, along with many more Japanese civilians.

i heard that right after the war, the estimates were around 100,000 casualties, and the estimates were adjusted higher and higher after time progressed.