12th Feb 2002, 15:39
We hear and see many bad things both on the televised news and radio, plus with the sensational photo's taken with prying lense's, many ill-informed badly educated people blame their ills and bad luck on the lack of help from richer countrys, I dont think the richer countrys lack the will to help, what I do feel is that these countrys dont want to pump many millions of dollars into a situation where it (the money) will disappear into some secret Swiss account belonging to the current chief warlord, be it Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan or indeed any of the current bad boy countrys. . . Therefore would the legal, or state sponsered assasination of any chief bad guy be an acceptable way of altering a situation prior to big bucks being put into that countrys economy, rather than bombing the crap out of the entire country, thereby creating a greater need to spend even more money by rebuilding assets destroyed from 40K Ft. In other words instead of sending in Tomahawks to blast Bagdad(for example), why not send some elite individuals who we all know are a fact of life, to blast Uncle Saddam and possibly a few BGs, that would free Iraq of their dictator and allow freedom for the people there to persue their own destiny or ask the rich countrys for help.. . We have, as the western civilised( are we) countrys grown too soft in our treatment of bad guys, and the namby pamby chicken hearted politico's, have really, by their total lack of strength given us all a problem which needs severely addressing, with the uttmost urgency.
What do you guys feel out there?
12th Feb 2002, 15:44
-----------------------------. .Asassination, would it work?. .-----------------------------
I've heard it's usually fatal <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Who has control?
12th Feb 2002, 15:46
You can't eliminate the Head of State without having a more acceptable government waiting in the wings. If you zonked Saddam H, who would be the next cock to scramble to the top of the dung-heap? It would probably be better to state a coup-d'etat than just an asSASination.
Sometimes, its better the Devil you know.
12th Feb 2002, 15:58
The good ole US of A followed this philosophy for a number of years before opting for the "round 'em up and bomb 'em" approach of late.. .A number of small central and southern american countries 'benefitted' from the US's attention to their political situations, normally in the name of anti-communist beliefs.
As far as I remember the US were put in a tricky situation early on in the Falklands conflict. The US congress had banned any direct involvement by US personnel in the training of forces to overthrow unpopular dictators / governments. This gave the CIA a problem when they wanted to get rid of Norejega from Nicaragua. They intended using the Contra rebels but couldn't train them using US personnel. Instead they contracted officers and men from the Argentine Army to do the training for them. Whilst this training was going on the Falklands conflict blew up which put the Reagan administration in a bit of a spot.
12th Feb 2002, 16:34
You display a breathtakingly patronising attitude to "ill-informed badly educated people", yet your post has perhaps a record number of grammatical and spelling errors. I refer to:-
Use of apostrophes for the plural (lense's instead of lenses, politico's i/o politicos). .Lack of apostrophes for the possessive (countrys i/o country's). .Misspelt plurals (countrys i/o countries). .Lack of the correct punctuation (a question mark) at the end of questions. .Use of commas to separate sentences instead of full stops (or periods for our cousins from the New World). .Excess use of commas inside subordinate phrases. .Other spelling errors:-. .sponsered i/o sponsored. .uttmost i/o utmost. .Bagdad i/o Baghdad. .persue i/o pursue
I suggest you refrain from sneering at any "lack of education" of other countries' nationals until you check your own.
Now to the general theme of your post.
Many former colonial countries actually blame many of their ills on the fact that their former colonial powers became rich from raping the mineral assets out of the colonies, then abandoned them, and that payback time has come. I appreciate that some may be less-deserving, but do you really condone an "I'm alright Jack" mentality among members of the "civilised" nations?
Further, do you really think it is acceptable to give aid to these countries with one hand whilst crippling them with debt with the other? This latter method is preferable to the neo-imperialists because to pay back such debt their governments are almost forced to buy western-manufactured goods, accept Monsanto's genetically-modified sterile seeds, and grow cash crops for western mouths instead of their own (former) subsistence crops.
As for assassination, "state-sponsored" does not make it legal, despite your obvious desire to so assume.
You may or may not have noticed that considerable efforts went into avoiding unnecessary collateral damage and innocent civilian deaths during the Gulf War, in the Balkans and Afghanistan. We did not simply "bomb the crap" out of them willy-nilly. If you really think that war is conducted on such a gung-ho basis, you are probably a Sun or Daily Mail reader.
I am not sure exactly how you feel the "politicos" have been chicken-hearted or namby-pamby about recent world events. Most of the criticism I have seen is that they have been rather too aggressive in their attitudes. . .Your dismissal of everything that is not western as not civilised betrays you. Even leaving aside the not inconsiderable argument that simply slotting the chief bad guy (as you put it) at best merely leaves a vacuum into which the strongest Ba'ath party member (in the case of Iraq) steps, and at worst disrupts the country totally resulting probably in yet more suffering of innocents, your post is a masterpiece of the sort of blimpish, blinkered pig ignorance we have come to expect of you.
[ 12 February 2002: Message edited by: tHUDddd ]</p>