Gooneybird wrote:



Just out of curiosity, which of the following nations, all of whom have a
desperate need for a free and democratic government, is on our list of
sacrifices to be made?

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Syria
Lebanon
Pakistan
North Korea
China
Cuba
Egypt
Libya
plus half or more of the African continent

Is it really our national function in life to sacrifice American lives in order
to dish up free and democratic governments all over the world, sometimes to
people who don't even want it or wouldn't know what to do with it if they had
it?

If that's what Iraq was really about, we'd be wise to invest our money in
mortuary stocks because there's going to be an endless and ongoing supply of
business for them from our sacrificial lambs.

George Z.


****General Comment
In the late 50s and the 60s there was a lot of discussion
about the US as a World Policeman. As far as I remember the
discussion was almost always in terms of whether the US
COULD be policeman, not whether it SHOULD be policeman.

Any one else remember these discussions?
If that was the nature of the discussions then,
when did it change?


***Comment on which countries are on our list.
Someone (Kissinger?) said that US foreign policy is
most effective when it serves both our national interest
and our moral mission. That is both oil and regime change.

Given that

Saudi Arabia - No: too much hard geography
Iran ditto
Syria Yes: zero oil score but huge democracy score
Lebanon ditto
Pakistan No: too much geography and population
North Korea No: too close to S Korea, can do too much damage
China No: too much geography and population
Cuba No: not worth it
Egypt No: Too much geography and population
Libya Yes: Just right size and population
plus half or more of the African continent


--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures,
will the right answers come out?'
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of
ideas that could provoke such a question.