> sKoE )= wrote:

> > Heh. Destroying the Taliban is easy. Drop explosives
> with bio-chemical properties to eliminate all life in the
> Pakistani mountains.

This wouldn't work for 3 reasons:

1) The U.S. would need effective bio weapons.
2) This would piss Pakistan off.
3) This would re-arm, intensify, and increase the size of _MANY_ more terrorist organisations.

Sure, the Taliban could be wiped out -- but at cost far greater then the reward. In the
end the Taliban would be irrelevant because they would be replaced by numerous organisations
of the same size -- but with a much deeper hatred of the U.S. (and with more allies to boot).>

I don't think the Taliban have any honor anyway, and any act of ruthlessness would be expected from them. They are as intense as practical limits allow them to be. While acts of ruthless aggression would not eliminate the causes for people to be motivated to join terrorist organizations, it would reduce their numbers and those willing to support them.

As Caligula said

"Let them hate us as long as they fear us."

We are doing a very bad job at creating fear. We did it very effectively in WW2, but today the West has wussified. You can say that ruthlessness only makes people more intense in their convictions, but Machiavelli and a wealth of historical examples say otherwise. Machiavelli outright says you ruin people in some instances, which has applications that can extend here. That's what we did to the fanatics in Germany in WW2, and it's what Saddam did to the Kurds. A better example is the Mongol Empire, which had a rather small army compared to the empire it ruled. While they won battles thanks to strategic and tactical superiority, their adversaries were very very afraid of them. That fear was essential to their success.

> ☠ARFeh☠ wrote:

> I would put it in Cindy McCain.>

20 years ago sure, but today? I hope you are in your 50s

While every country is controlled or heavily influenced by an elite, to imply that a Jewish super elite is plotting to cause an end-goal for humanity that involves unseen exploitation and slavery is asinine. Most of the most powerful elites are from Western countries and most aren't Jewish even though Jews make up an unrepresentative number of them. Second, membership in the elite is fluid. People enter and leave their ranks frequently. This isn't the middle ages where class is rigid and the elite are guaranteed their position. Third, the elite have competing goals. It is outrageous to think that a fluid group with competing interests would be able to coordinate a cooperative effort on that level.

free-market ftw!

Heh. Destroying the Taliban is easy. Drop explosives with bio-chemical properties to eliminate all life in the Pakistani mountains. But nooo, instead we limit our options because we want to satisfy our asinine morals, and so now we end up wanting to negotiate with insignificant terrorists because we're too wussy to do what's necessary. It's no wonder why the world no longer fears America, rofl. It's the empire that could rule, but it's too wussy to do it.

Seriously, I would gift the queen with New York City. She can rule those liberals personally... monarchist style!

Nolio,

Did you know that no one has been documented of dying from AIDS or HIV either?

BW,

Lol, the Germans lost all their fight willing men in WW1, WW2, and during the Soviet occupation.

They're coming out with a new Stargate series apparently.

DPS,

It's true that Iran would have to be stupid to launch a nuclear strike, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that their fanaticism is exaggerated. But America will do what is in its best interest as all countries will, and it's not in America's best interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons because it would shift the balance of power in the world. America's ability (and the Western world for that matter) would have less ability to project power in the middle east to the benefit of Russia and China, and we can't let that happen at a practical view point.

Ofc, it's not like the n00bs in Washington didn't have a part to play in the mess. Extending a military presence in Russia's periphery in Eastern Europe is just plain dumb. Now they are extending their influence in America's periphery in both the Middle East and South America, lol.

Well given that NZ women on average have 20 sexual partners over their life times, I would be visiting NZ lots if I exercised political power. It would be my vacation destination. No way I'd nuke it.