[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

I think in the end we can permute our arguments and agree that a more mixed economy would be better, that is, if we can agree that adding more socialist aspects to current notions of capitalism, like used in the US, to help fix uneven class distribution and the impact of profit on morality, would be a good thing. I always try and find a good closing to each debate where we can agree on a compromise, to prevent the debate from dragging on forever and getting repetitive.

Yup, we can agree on that.

It's not a lot of money when you look at how much we actually have. Money is nothing unless you have something to compare it to, and when you compare the amount we give to the amount we have, it is much lower than most industrialized countries.

Just because the US could do more isn't reason to minimalize the contribution that is made. In a society purely motivated by greed and self interest, even that wouldn't be spent.

We don't sell weapons to Iran right now because it is illegal. I'm sure if there wasn't an embargo some US arms companies would be selling them weapons if the price was right.

Absolutely someone would. However, it's illegal because the US puts political issues ahead of profit.

As I stated before the US sold arms to 8 of 9 groups involved in the wars in the Congo. We have supplied both India and Pakistan with weapons, which, although not at war, have had tensions brewing in the past. Other examples include Greece and Turkey, sales to both Iran and Iraq during their war, and other examples in Africa.

All but 1 of which were considered allies at the time of the sales, and who were not at war at the time. Greece and Turkey, both being members of NATO especially.

The 1 that wasn't an ally, Iran, people got jail time for. Of course they didn't get the guy in charge.

As for the groups in the Congo, the US supported them because they were, or at least claimed to be anti-communist.

It would absolutely shatter US-China relations to all hell. They wouldn't even speak to us over key issues like North Korea, economic relations, or anything else. Come on, you seriously think the US would go in and take over their oil industry, and dangle it in front of China's face as an incentive to be nice? They would be extremely pissed off, and there would be severe backlash, maybe dump a nice bundle of our bonds to show us who is boss.



Cut all diplomatic relations on issues across the board, and economic sanctions would be almost a guarantee. The fact that we would have their oil wouldn't mean shit because it isn't all of their oil, just a portion of it, but not enough to hold them in a death grip. If you seriously think China would just whine and cry if we invaded and took over their infrastructure in another country, you are dead wrong. It is almost a guarantee that they would use their economic "nuclear option" of dropping US bonds, and quickly realize that the US might start screwing with international interests and develop long range military capabilities.

The problem with that is the US could only do it if we managed to push through a resolution at the UN authorizing use of force, with China not using their veto for some reason. At this point, it's not just the US China has an issue with. The US is supposedly only intervening to stop a genocide, and the other major powers approved action. China can't take any action in this situation, the international political climate won't allow it. If they try, they risk being completely isolated for supporting a genocide. Yes China will be pissed, but they've proven themselves very pragmatic in the past. They'll be able to put that aside for now and try to get a favorable deal.


Of course this is quite farfetched, since there's no way China would let a resolution get approved, and there's no way the US is going in without one.