US versus China for world position

Amazing story.

True, there is no hell in Judaism (its from pagan Norse mythology), though the Aryan Jesus talks of throwing liars into a lake of fire to burn for ever and ever. Nice chap, even if he didn’t care for gentiles. Not that he was a real person, natch.

I have no faith, I’m not a moron.

I’m just interested to know why people who do think they can influence God’s plan for them by praying.

We will not send in our Guys into a conflict, wich asian guys better solve them selfs…

…ah what was his name again?!?.. 8-)

Some companies have also been taken private, gone bankrupt, or merged.  This reduces stock supply.

Banks, insurors, and college endowments will continue to invest in stocks.  In or out of the US would be the right question to ask.

My current and prior co’s 401K plans all offered an international fund.

I started allocating 60% of my paycheck contributions to it last year.

Mr. Ghoul, I think the Japanese started in China as far back as 1933. You are right as to why the US cut off her fuel supplies. You’re right that didn’t give the Japanese the right to attack in the minds of the US and according to their law. And that is probably the right position legally. However, how would the US react if her oil supply was threatened. Ahhhhh yes, if radical Islam swept across all the oil in the middle east and the world decided to shut of the oil to the US. How would the US react.

The only difference is the degree to which their arguments are valid. Both Japan in 1940 and the US in the last 5 years of done some bad stuff, broken internation law etc. Of course the rape of Nanking is orders of magnitude worse then anything the US has done since perhaps the Indian wars, even then it was spread out over centuries not weeks.

I believe the US had and has laws on her books not to sell weapons to countries at war that don’t involve the US. The US was not at war during WWII until Dec 8, 1941. Therefore it was illegal for the US to supply ANY weapons or war materials to any country at war during the period preceding Dec, 8 1941. The US doesn’t like syria selling weapons to Iraq now, why should they expect war time Germany to like the US selling weapons to England.

In fact, Germany had a legal right to stop and sink any ships entering the british home waters found to be carring war materials. But I digress on this law and history lesson.

BB

@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?

I’m not sure you know what I mean