Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (161243)	4/29/2005 6:00:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

fleets of B52s laying down acres of explosions was deliberate policy too The "fleets of B52s" were trying to kill enemy combatants, and often they did so. That's why civilian casualties where not deliberate but where rather "collateral damage". I say the USA should take over Africa too. That would be a massive undertaking. Its not like any of their armies could defeat us but patrolling and controlling that much land and that many people wouldn't be feasible. Also the attempt would cause a lot of death and destruction, and would be even less popular around the world than Iraq (as well as having less justification than Iraq). Even if we didn't have to deal with Iraq now the attempt would be a bad idea. The world is less ready to accept colonialism right now and Americans aren't willing to support the effort either. When the British controlled parts of Africa they could play off local factions against each other. Nationalism wasn't as strong in many places as it is today. Africa wasn't as populated as it is today, and the locals had less access to modern firearms. Morally the attempt would be questionable. Politically and practically it would probably be a disaster. Tim