US versus China for world position

@LHoffman:

It may be construed as political, but at this point it is more historical comedy.

“Political satire” would be a good characterization.  The US Navy only rarely names ships after living persons; Reagan was an exception, but Clinton wasn’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._military_vessels_named_after_living_Americans

The NFL will attempt an overseas adventure with an team, i can’t say it will work or not. Worth a try, better than a small U.S market city. The London game should have been better teams, first class teams like a Dallas Cowboy and Oakland Raider match up.

My History of the World Map draws the line down the middle of the Pacific; prfectly suitble for AAR the way it usually plays out…

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/19372/Map2.gif

@whoman69:

I wouldn’t at all say stomped.  In fact he was not defeated, merely not able to further advance due to the logistics.

Logistically, beginning the overland journey from Boston to Quebec City in September was a dumb idea to begin with, but Arnold then lost the part of his army that hadn’t died from disease or exposure in his attack on the city itself. The city was held with the loss of only 5 of its defenders. Arnold should get credit, however, for having his men going into the attack on Dec 31st knowing that their enlistment was up the following day…

How far away is your tomorrow?  Cause the landfills of yesterday are the homes of today!

Well, most everyone was riveted to the World Cup.  I have friends in India who were staying up well into the night to watch games, and they said pretty much everyone was doing the same time.  And Africa - are you kidding?  You should have seen the crowds in Abidan over the Cote d’Ivoire team.  :-)

And oh you poor uninitiated soccer wannabe/newbie.  Do you not know the joys of watching coordinated offense and stunning feats of athletic ability?  Here just watch this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tD-h_BDmQ6w&search=zidane volley

:-D

Sorry, but I don’t know. I heard it on a local radio station. If I remember correctly the talk show host(who chats about the days news that he thinks is important) didn’t say. That is one thing that pisses me off about a lot of talk show hosts! From Limbaugh to the local guys, they seem to give us news without a source. A newspaper might be mentioned once, but when you are not from that town or country, and you don’t recognize/recall it(unless it is the New York Times/Washington Post.) A survey is quoted but no organization or website to folow-up.

GRRRRR!!!

@BigBlocky:

I’m a great fan of the UN but…… It has lately been a disaster… Germany in my opinion has taken herself entirely out of the equation, it is her choice. …Anybody who says “No matter what happens, I won’t do a thing” loses their right to consultation.

True, i am not happy with that too firm position as well. But to be honest: In my memory the US started similar in the opposite position, not really accepting any “evidence” against their point.

If the UN is hell bent on being useless as it was in Bosnia at Srebrencia … useless as it was in Rwanda …

The UN is not the world government. It can only be as strong as it members want it to be, especially as the strongest member wants it to be.
It’s not the worlds policeman, and it doesn’t have an own army to command. You can say it is weak, and i wouldn’t object. But: do you want it stronger or shattered?

No, I’m sorry. The US has shown enough evidence. Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction there is no argument that I have heard that convinces me it’s better to let this mass murderer stay in control and hold hostage a country of 22 million.

You are right in the second part of that caption, but i would not say at all that the US has shown enough evidence. It is more that the US defies what ever Hans Blix is saying: For the US, the Iraq is in a lose-lose situation. Whatever he does, the US won’t be satisfied and claim it’s further proof.

If you don’t want to left a finger to help these people then fine. But get the hell out of my way because I am coming through……

If your government had argued like that in the start, the situation would be totally different. To change the position now would lokk extremely silly and would hint that there is some hidden interest by the US that they don’t want to say alound.
For you coming through and me getting out of your way: If you always prefer action without thinking, then it might be better for you if i trip you while you pass me. Then we can sit together and make up a strategy that has more chances of success.
Assume you are right, and Saddam has WMD. Hoe many of his people do you think will survive being freed?