I’d assumed your post about the DRC was in response to my question about South Africa. I didn’t mention any country other than South Africa. I’m not asking you about the Congo.
Hang on…
I’m done. Have fun.
There’s a huge difference between yesterday and 30 years ago.
Also, what you’re you saying is, a nation has to wait 100 years or so before it deserves forgiveness? That’s pretty freakin harsh.
If there was guy who was in his 50’s, who 30 years ago was a wife beater, but since then, had changed his ways, it would not be right to say he’s a bad person, by judging him by what he did when he was in his 20’s. Now, granted, if it had only been, about 5 years or less, it would be right to be suspicious about him, but it would be wrong to say that as he is now, he’s a bad person. He was a bad person, but that was 30 years ago.
Same with America. We did targeted civilians 3 decades ago or more. Yes, many of the people who were there may still be alive, and they have a right to be mad at the way we use to be, but…oh hell, I’m just repeating myself. Anyway, I think I made my point.
No, but we were talking about the diamond trade. Your comment about South Africa is like saying that oil stealing is OK because Mexico hasn’t attacked us yet (we do import oil from Mexico). For that record, you may want to break out your Amnesty International Report 2003 on South Africa and take a peek at their spotless human rights record.
UGH! You GOT ME! I sure feel bad, and I’m certainly in my place.
yawn
Unless that guy (or government) could make a very convincing case that he’d changed his ways, yeah, I’d still be suspicious. And I don’t believe that simply not doing bad things today makes one a good person. Guess that makes me harsh. I think this is more a matter of personal opinion; you say that 5 years is too short a time to simply dismiss past actions as irrelevant, I say 30 years is too short.
What would you say if 50% of US supported Abu Ghraib abusers? Would you have a problem with that?
Bin Ladin would turn off the taps? hehehehe! It is to laugh! He’d have starving people in the street looking to remove his head shortly. No, he’d sell oil, and lots of it, to pay for the army that would subdue the populace just like any other despot does.
I’m not sure why he expected you to care about being wrong. :rolleyes:
“Hee-hee-hee” my aching piles.
One winter without petroleum, & our goose is cooked.
I can see why you’d think that given articles like this:
Saudi importance
But, while that may be partly true at this point in time it may not be true in the future:World Oil Reserves (Note Canada)
Alberta, at this time, has the second highest reserves in the world. This is because the technology has developed sufficiently for these reserves to recognized.
Total reserves in Alberta is listed as between 1.7 and 2.5 Trillion barrels of oil. Which dwarfs the middle east by a long shot.
Alberta Reserves
So, if Osama was able to get ahold of Saudi (probably not going to happen tomorrow) and decides to throw the switch to stop the oil (not bloody likely as oil is the Saudis only significant export and they’d all starve if it stopped), then depending on when this happened it might not have the effect he was hoping for.
Also, looking at this link and if I interpret it correctly, it looks like Japan and Europe would be the most effected by such an action, not the US.Persian Gulf Fact Sheet