Osama Bin Laden has been killed

ToxSic

New Member
for example: GWB could have a pistol duel with OBL. I am sure GWB will win. that is far less costly than the two wars and however many killed.

brings back to mind the old wild west films...
 

jango

New Member
Registered Member
what is the story with the remains of the destroyed helicopter. Did China get the remains? I heard that they did.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
China benefits from Iraqi oil contracts because Western companies won't take the risks not because of corruption.

China had to go to places like Angola, Libya, and Iraq because there is no where else to go anymore.
Exxons and BPs and Shells of the world has pretty much sucked up anywhere there is easy oil.

brings back to mind the old wild west films...

The more civilized days.
 
The end result is still the same.
good intentions do not mean good results.

oh btw Food for Oil was established in 95. for the purpose to alleviate the effect of sanctions on civilians.
before that you still had the massive sanctions against Iraq.
Sanctions like these are based on the logic that one can make a regime change by make its people's life so miserable ( by depravation of civil goods )that they will rise up and revolt thus topple of regime.

This logic is almost same one strategic bombing is based on: that one can make a regime change by make its people's life so miserable ( by massive aerial bombardment of civilian population ) that they will rise up and revolt thus topple of regime.

This logic is also the same one terrorists use: that one can make a political change by make its people's life so miserable ( by acts of terror against a civilian population ) that they will rise up and demand a political change.

see the parallels?

I guess some acts of deprivation against civilians are more acceptable if one can label a regime "evil" and starve and bomb instead of using individual acts of terror.
and that it is the big and powerful that does it.

If one analyzes from a purely utilitarian view, then I would say what we call "terrorism" actually has more utility. because it actually kills far less people (instead of mass starvation and death by strategic bombing, which historically has had far far more victims than terrorist acts) to achieve a political change.

But some how one is more acceptable in international civility than the other.

for the record: I am against any acts of depravation against a civilian population: either with terror, aerial bombardment, or sanctions.

there is a far more effective way to settle differences: we can make the politicans having duels with each other, instead of try to make innocent people kill other innocent people.

for example: GWB could have a pistol duel with OBL. I am sure GWB will win. that is far less costly than the two wars and however many killed.

Actually sanctions and bombings are demonstrations of hard power tactics and punishments on states which violated the norms of the international community. (-IR minor)
 

i.e.

Senior Member
Actually sanctions and bombings are demonstrations of hard power tactics and punishments on states which violated the norms of the international community. (-IR minor)

yes, if you want to couch it in less troubling terms.

The legality may be different. But the mechanism is the similiar, i.e. causing pain and suffering on a civilian population (kill people) to affect a political change.

Terrorism, by definition, describes a mechanism which to affect political change.
 

Speeder

Junior Member
So world's the most powerful millitary force finally "blew the head off " a dying kidney-patient (that was 10 years ago) after what, 10 years and $ 3 trillion bonanza for its defence firms?

The whole fantacy sounds more realistic than Flying Pigs.

rofl. Sorry but if they have given me $ 0.001 trillion, I would have handed him over personally ( tell me how you want him, dead? alive? half dead? roasted? baked? ...) for the 1st anniversary gathering of 9/11. Hey, win-win! lol.
 
Top