This is a really dumb point for several reasons, but I will stick to two sane points that shred your point. 1) The government doesn't go around aborting babies at random, nor does it force mother's to abort babies. I guess you might argue something crazy like the government has outsourced the baby murder game to mothers or something. 2) You are arguing the same government that is public and open about being cool with the murdering of millions of babies would go through the process of creating some convoluted plot to kill a few thousand adults? Hey crazy guy, have you not read the dozens of point where your stupid question has been answered? Stop being so dishonest. You know what the evidence is. You just cannot get a grip on reality.
The Chinese started their saber rattling once the US crossed the 38th parallel. Using your analogy, the guy climbing your fence is an actual act of aggression. You can perceive an act of aggression by the guy if he's standing next to your fence, but he hasn't violated your "territory". If you shoot the guy climbing over your fence, I got it. But if you shoot a guy standing on the opposite side of your fence because you think he's going to do something, you'd have a hard time convincing a judge you weren't the aggressor.
China did not defend its border. China crossed the border and invaded Korea, then being defended by the United States, a nuclear power. You impugn your own intelligence with an insult such as this. Pot . . . kettle . . . black.
I understand what fla is saying. He is saying that a non nuclear country actually attacking the nuclear power's actual country not a far off territorial pocession. As in England being attacked instead of the falkland islands. In his defense , I believe if an invading army actually landed troops on a nuclear armed country's shore that before that country was overran they would completely destroy the invaders home country with nuclear weapons. Now with that said, there is no way in hell that the 911 attack was done by the CIA. That is stupid to think that something like that would happen. First you would have to find the people that would carry out the job. Second you would have to keep it secret. As wikki leaks has shown, there can be very few long term secrets in Washington. Someone would leak it in this day of hyper partisan politics.
As is proper. No one wants to go back to the back-alley illegal abortions that existed before Roe v. Wade. This does not constitute evidence. The main problem here is that you expect rational people to believe your imagination like it was fact. Eyewitnesses. DNA evidence. Photographic evidence. Video evidence. Documents. Al Qaeda's admission that bin Laden is dead. The body is there at the bottom of the Indian Ocean for your inspection.
The US had no intentions of invading China and China knew this. They crossed the border because their client state was losing and they wanted it as a buffer between them and us. They took a gamble that the US was not interested in another World War in Asia 5 years after WWII. They took a gamble that the nuclear-armed Soviets would inhibit the US from attacking China with nuclear weapons. They took a gamble that they could defeat the US with massive infantry assaults. They guessed right about the US not wanting to bring in the Soviets, they guessed wrong about the US not being able to stop them conventionally. And they lucked out on not being attacked with nuclear weapons because MacArthur wanted to do exactly that and had to be removed by Truman when he refused to follow US policy. Bottom line. Countries DO take gambles and attack nuclear-armed countries for one reason . . . only the US has ever actually used nuclear weapons and they only used the first two ever produced. Nobody wants to let the genie out of the bottle again.
I know what he's saying, too. But countries defend their territorial possessions vociferously, especially if they are populated by their own people. The Falklands is not a overseas British colony where territory was stolen from local people who were then oppressed and occupied. Argentina did not exist. No one lived on the Falklands, they were uninhabited when claimed by Britain. Argentina just thought that the proximity to the Falklands gave it some kind of perceived right to conquer, occupy, and annex it. It took a gamble that Britain was too overextended, too poor, and too uninterested in a million sheep to do anything about it. They were wrong and they lost miserably.
Argentina was using outdated weapons and vastly inferior tatics. The crusier that was sunk was bought from surplus ww2 ships from the united states. The airforce wasn't taught how to use the planes they had. In an interview with a British pilot he said they didn't even know to turn when the subsonic harrier jump jets were on their tail. After the argentine crusier was sunk by a British sub , the argentine navy pulled out of the fight and left their soilders stranded. They were completely out classed by the British.
The Argentine army and navy were mostly conscripts who didn't want to be there and didn't fight very hard for sure. But the Argentine air force and the naval aviation pilots were the only part of the Argentinian military that performed professionally. They had zero combat experience and it showed. But they had big brass balls and bored right in with little A-4 attack jets and sank several British naval vessels with iron bombs as well as with Exocet missiles.
