Stephann
Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006 From: Portland, OR Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Stephann, Now that you've covered this ground how about discussing the potential downside? Honestly, a couple points here: first, about 70% of the people in the countries that would be reduced to glass have no say in their leaders. Women and children have zero say under Islamic law about their future. They are, for all purposes, property. Second, again, if a country wants to destroy itself, fine. But what sort of nuclear fallout do you think that would result in? Depending on weather, it could be children in Greece being born with two heads. But again, why apply Islamic prejudice? Are you saying that these people are any different than the leaders and citizens of the USA/USSR or India/Pakistan? No, not different! I think with someone, such as George Bush, the possibility for a retaliatory nuclear strike against a country such as Iran, for no other reason other than he felt it was 'a reasonable response' to a terrorist attack. Won't they be able to take on the responsibility that comes along with the ability? That's not only prejudicial but down right bigoted! I'm willing to embrace the title of prejudiced, if it means the vast majority of people of a country aren't slaughtered because their elite leadership simply don't value their lives highly enough. Concerning the "bystander" countries such as our good friends in Saudi Arabia, this would enable them to take a more active role in their region with people 'fundamentally' similar. Who better to help smooth out the rough spots, and what better incentive for them to do so. Granted, it may cut back on their purchases of customized Airbus quote:
Prince Al-Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia has ordered a $300 million Airbus A380 to be custom-fitted as a flying palace. Source:http://royals-gone-wild.blogspot.com/2007/11/prince-buys-palatial-jumbo-jet.html but some sacrifices will have to be expected. Now you're right, this certainly cuts both ways. S. A. has been playing both sides of the fence for quite a while now. I heard yesterday that they weren't planning to increase oil production, because "the market doesn't warrant it." Duh. With oil over $100, they're seeing record profits. They're not going to increase their oil production, unless the US enters into full blown economic depression. The most foolish thing here, is the US relying on allies. Why is it so god damned important for us to be loved and protected from the 'evil' in the world? Ron Paul's kooky, but he's the only guy saying "lets pack ALL of our troops up, and bring them home to... (drumroll) actually defend our country." That's right, rest of the world; wanna blow each other up? Fine, we're not going to sell you any more microchips or bombs to do it with. Ahhh no wonder that doesn't go over well in the Republican party.... Stephan
_____________________________
Nosce Te Ipsum "The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer Men: Find a Woman here
|