On 10/11/05, Souvik <souvik1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's get some things straight here. The revenues of some of the larger US
companies dwarf the combined revenues of many nations. Any such company on
its own is technically capable of putting together an army that could wipe
out the military forces of smaller nations in a matter of weeks. An
individual like Bill Gates has sufficient funds to, on his own, put together
a military operation that could successfully take out the military forces of
many countries, without the need for any national army.
 The reason why small countries are rarely invaded is NOT because those
countries have put up such a formidable defense. The reason why this doesn't
happen is NOT because those other countries were so capable in finding your
"thin line of military deterence and diplomacy". The defense of even larger
nations can be taken out in a matter of weeks, as shown twice in the case of
Iraq, without any need for nuclear missiles and with minimal human
casualties. While Saddam Hussein was able to put up some missile threat in
the first Iraq war, all missiles were intercepted and destroyed in the air
during the second Iraq war. The Star Wars missile defense program can now
intercept and destroy ballistic missiles aimed at the US mainland from a
nation such as North Korea, while the US could take out north Korea in a
matter of minutes, in an all-out nuclear war. There are only two nations
with the stamina to withstand a war with the US for more than a few weeks,
i.e. Russia and China, and neither of them have any interest in invading the
US mainland.
 The main reason for military intervention by the US has been concern for
the rights of people in other countries. The US has stepped in many times,
not with the intention to colonize or occupy such countries, but to protect
the rights of the people there. Most countries don't need to be concerned
about invasions from abroad, NOT because they have such a formidable
defence, but because they count on the US (rather than the UN) to step in.
The fact that you fail to understand this shows you lack of respect for
human rights and consequently your failure to understand the importance of
the human rights argument. That's you loss. Hopefully, in time, you will
become more mature and competent in engaging in epistemological debate.
 Sam