RE: Iraq : who’s in?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-09-02 AT 07:23 PM (GMT)]im not even convenced that blair’s in. although he seemed to support bush, but he did leave himself plenty of room to back out of it is he wants.

imo, this is just a political game he is playing. by being the first to ‘support’ the US, he is bound to get alot of gratitude and help back in return. he is gambaling that more countries will follow suit after the US war waggon gets another member, if so then they would have a ‘coalition’ and have a very good chance of making this work to their advantage. if not, he can always back down by saying sth like, ‘there’s not enough evidence’ or ‘britain’s military is in no shape to get invalved, best of luck now.’ 😉

heres a rule that works 100% of the time, no politition will put his carair on the line for another politition’s pet project.

as for afagan, well who knows, maybe the US wants things to slightly get out of hand a little. that might trick a few al quiada or taliban into coming back. that’ll make it easier to find and kill them then waiting on the pakistan boarder hoping a few of them will wonder too far from ‘home’.

RE: GLOBAL DEVELOPING POWERS-2003!!!

also, i think that SA doesnt need to invest too much in it military as it pretty much can insure no agression is shown to them by means of political and economical deterents.

for example, SA provides zimbabway with its electricity, if zimbabway attacks SA, then it would be like attacking themselves. also SA has a strong enough economy nd industrial infastructure to make sure it can produce a very large and well equiped armed forces in a very short time. much like the way japan is. it doesnt have a very large standing army, but it can quickly make itself into one of the more potent armed forces in the reagon when needed.

RE: WORLDS MOST POWERFUL NATIONS – 2003!!!

i think u have been watching too much US news squasher. yes china might not be as open or ‘free’ as some other countries, but the situation is nowhere near as bad as u make it out to be.

as for the chinese armed forces, well they may not be armed with top of the range weapons, but what they got is more then adequite for doing their tasks.

china doesnt have many enemies near our borders, so hight tech weapons will only just sit in wearhouses and become obsolete in a few years time. the only real threat of an actual armed conflict comes form the taiwan strait, but the few select unites that r armed with advanced weapons will be enough to take out taiwan’s defences. the real problem is if the us gets involved, thats y china is still pouring so much into defence.

india on the other hand, does have very well armed and experienced armed forces, but they rely too much upon forgine equipment and r small in numbers,and so may not have the ability to win a large scale, high attribution conflict.

also, india’s illiteracy rate and number of ppl under the poverty line is much higher then that of china’s. this, together with the unstable internal religous climate and the inheritent disadvantages of a democratic govenment will somewhat compramise its national strength in times of war, and so i disagree with u putting india above china on the list.

i dont know much abt the french, but they do have a very good defence infrastructure(the only euopean country to develop a 4th/4and a half gen fight by itself. also good missile and warship developments), so i would question but not argue abt its position.

japan has the money and tech to make itself into a very strong military power, but based on the political climate both inside and out of japan, it is very unlikely that they will become a real military ‘superpower’ any time soon, so i do not think that they should be ranked 3rd.

RE: Trade War

i say its abt time. now that america-the worlds only superpower, has been penalised for breaking the rules, maybe everyone else will start to follow the rules set out by the WTO for once.