How the US won the war
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Noddy on 12 Aug 2010 06:43 "Jordan" <jprincic(a)yooha.com.au> wrote in message news:rlO8o.3370$Yv.504(a)viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com... > A case of: What have you done for me lately? To some extent. > What about bankrolling the vanquished? In my opinion, the last great thing the Americans did was help rebuild war torn Europe after WWII, but if you look into it in detail it was as much about helping themselves as it was about helping anyone else. That's the thing with the Americans. They're often very reluctant to do anything for anyone unless there's something in it for them. > Saving half of Korea? Setting up NATO? Winning the Cold War? Just think of how much better this world could have been if the *trillions* of dollars the Americans wasted in the arms race with the Soviets was put into things like helping the homeless, medical research or giving aid to third world countries? > Rock & Roll? You can thank Chuck Berry and his poor racially segregated black relatives for that :) -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Jordan on 12 Aug 2010 08:17 Noddy wrote: > > That's the > thing with the Americans. They're often very reluctant to do anything for > anyone unless there's something in it for them. > What was in Somalia that was so attractive? There must have been something in it for them, but it's hard to see what. USA continues to be the world's biggest aid donor by far - must be an example of enlightened selfishness. Who does anything for anyone, ever, unless there's something in it for them? Examples! Put another way, what is your model, from anywhere in history, of a major power that has been less pernicious than USA? I wonder why we seem to particularly expect America to hold the highest moral standards. They do what they think they need to stay on top, and on the whole the side effects have been pretty good for a lot of people - certainly us. Why would we want to argue in such a way, that the logical extension is to wish for a weakening if not destruction of this nation. Do we really think that is going to be good for us? I don't buy it! Jordan
From: D Walford on 12 Aug 2010 08:39 On 12/08/2010 8:43 PM, Noddy wrote: > "Jordan"<jprincic(a)yooha.com.au> wrote in message > news:rlO8o.3370$Yv.504(a)viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com... > >> A case of: What have you done for me lately? > > To some extent. > >> What about bankrolling the vanquished? > > In my opinion, the last great thing the Americans did was help rebuild war > torn Europe after WWII, but if you look into it in detail it was as much > about helping themselves as it was about helping anyone else. That's the > thing with the Americans. They're often very reluctant to do anything for > anyone unless there's something in it for them. No doubt that's true about the Yanks but its also true about almost every other country but other countries are a bit more subtle. Daryl
From: Clocky on 12 Aug 2010 13:39 "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message news:4c63d010$0$56728$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... > > "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message > news:4c639d9f$0$11117$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> Not true, Fallujah was exposed to the same or more nuclear "fallout" >> then Hiroshima through the use of depleted Uranium weapons during >> operation Phantom Fury and causing all sorts of health problems with a 4x >> increase in all cancers and a 12x increase in childhood cancers since >> 2004. I think the Yanks needed a testing ground for their nastiest of >> weapons on people and found (manufactured?) an excuse to do it. > > The use of depleted uranium in "convention weapons" isn't generally > considered a nuclear attack. I'm not sure what you would call 1000-2000 tonnes of nuclear armanents dumped in one area, but it's largely irrelevant what it is called when the net result is the same as dropping an A-bomb. > >> Yeah, it didn't turn out as bad as expected but ofcourse it was nothing >> like a nuclear warhead going off either so it doesn't really prove much. > > It's exactly like a warhead going off in terms of radioactive damage. No it isn't, ground burst and air burst explosions are quite different. > > Fallout is fallout, whether it comes by way of a massive intentional > explosion or an accidental release. Nope. The only difference between an atomic > weapon and the accident at Chernobyl was that the area around the power > plant wasn't flattened by a huge explosive force. You should really read up on the different kind of explosions and the dynamics of fallout, volatility, half-lifes and their long term and short term effects etc. > >> The long term effects may be quite insidious in that they may not show >> for quite some time yet, and there is evidence that there were spikes in >> certain medical conditions in bordering countries. People may be moving >> back, but are they safe in the long term? > > Well, I'll put it this way: *I* wouldn't be living there :) They weren't exactly told, in fact the use of the weapons was denied until after they moved back - bastards. > > I don't have any doubt that there will be elevated levels of radiation > related illnesses in people living close to the danger zone, but the point > is that as bad as it was it wasn't anywhere near the disaster that many > predicted it would be. > >> In that instance, but nuclear meltdowns are not that predictable to say >> the next one won't be any worse. > > It's hard to imagine one that could be worse, and I think the only was one > could be was if they weren't able to cap it and it burned indefinitely. > The Chernobyl core explosion was not that big, it could have been much worse if the other cores had gone into meltdown and exploded also, or they had contaminated the ground water. > Another point worth mentioning is that in some bizarre ways it was > actually lucky that it happened in Soviet territory. Not because they were > well equipped to deal with such a problem, but because they were ignorant > peasants who were happy to throw people into the area to try to fix it. At > one stage they had hundreds of men protected by little more than a mask > and a lead apron running onto the roof of the power plant with a shovel to > push the bits and pieces over the edge onto the ground below where they > could be collected by remote controlled tractors. Each man was limited to > spending 30 seconds or so in the area as a "safe period of exposure", but > almost every single one of them died shortly after from radiation related > illnesses. > > Had such an accident happened in America for example, there is no way > American workers would have allowed themselves to be sacrificed in such a > way. > There was a team of scientists that sacrificed themselves also, I remember there was a doco about it and they sent in remote control robots vehicles to look at the core. They all dropped off one by one too but I can't find that doco. I did find this 60 minutes report from a few years back that is quite interesting (to me at least ;-). http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/return-to-chernobyl/xf09iii?tab=m163&from=39
From: atec77 on 12 Aug 2010 16:59
On 12/08/2010 6:33 PM, Jordan wrote: > Noddy wrote: >> >> >> WWII was about the last time they had any real success on that score. >> Since then it's been a tale of incredible woe. >> > > A case of: What have you done for me lately? > > What about bankrolling the vanquished? Saving half of Korea? Setting up > NATO? Winning the Cold War? Rock & Roll? > > Jordan Nothing there of any merit and rock is very questionable -- X-No-Archive: Yes |