Followers 0

148 posts in this topic

[quote name='d000hg' timestamp='1304355874' post='4805543']

Pictures like this do a great job of strengthening national stereotypes. Street-parties, waving flags and chanting "USA. USA. USA" because someone was assassinated. It's more weird than anything else.
[/quote]

Big difference between these celebrations and world wide celebrations when the WTC went down. While I do not think it was *right* or *smart* for these KIDS (who were probably about 10 years old when 9/11 happened) to be dancing and celebrating in the streets - they are celebrating the death of a mastermind terrorists. They are not burning flags, they are not celebrating the death of thousands of innocents. The specific event that they are celebrating is deserving of some acknowledgement.

My specific reaction was, "About time we got him. Wish it had been quicker and cheaper (in terms of \$ and lives). Well, in reality, I don't think it really *changes* anything. The same people that wanted to hurt us before - still want to hurt us. I don't think there are really many more because of his death that want to hurt us."

I think the acting of this kids is more likely to bring bad sentiments towards the US than the actions that the US took the other day.

Regardless, if we have been isolationists for the last 200 years - the same people that hate us for meddling in foreign affairs would hate us for ignoring their calls for help.

0

Share on other sites
[font="Arial"][size="2"]Yay we killed a man and his family! Lets party! Sure Osama bin Laden ordered the death of thousands of Americans but how is that any different than the president of the US ordering the death of thousands of Japanese, Iraqis or Libyans? If only the entire world could be as one nation people would finally see how wrong their way of thinking is...[/size][/font]
-1

Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304404158' post='4805823']
Life expectancy factors all of this into account, and the US may actually be leading there.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. But the point made above is key. [/quote]

It might be key if you hadn't trotted out things like cancer survivorship rates, or if that regression were more definitive. But it seems that we agree that health outcomes aren't the only significant factor, so we can probably move on.

[quote]
I don't know enough about Japan's system to comment any more. All I'll share is that in my limited experience, things are not necessarily as they may seem in Japan. The Japanese are especially shy about reporting things that reflect badly on their welfare state. And let's not forget their crushing debt burden. Maybe all is not well in Japan.
[/quote]

It's not a welfare system for health care that provides the flexibility. It's somewhat privatized, although insurance companies are legally required to be non-profit organizations, and the government does provide a single-payer plan. Hospitals are required to be non-profit as well, and must be run by physicians. Many people choose not to go with health insurance at all, in fact (though legally they are supposed to). The government aggressively regulates the price of medical procedures, which keeps the cost of most routine medical services extremely low, so while it's still a significant expenditure on the national level it's far less expense per patient than in the US (even with the government picking up ~70% of the tab in many situations).

Insurance is effective for catastrophic issues and so forth, but the non-profit structure removes the incentive to jack up rates. Not to mention that Japanese health insurance companies (like most health insurance companies worldwide) are far more efficient per dollar than US companies.

Japan does indeed have problems. As I noted above, doctors there are not pleased with their pay, especially because lower income makes it more difficult to offset the cost of medical school, as well as making going through that training less rewarding. Japan does have a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, but it's debatable how "crushing" that is for their economy.
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304393439' post='4805790']
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304389985' post='4805775']
Again, which resolution gave permission to carry out an invasion?
[/quote]

[i]Permission[/i] is not necessary to combat national security threats. War is the breakdown of law. No one can grant permission, by definition.
[/quote]
The problem was and still is that Iraq wasn't a national security threat and everyone knew that. Before and after. So pretending that the US upholding the law and enforcing a resolution because of [i]access[/i] is laughable at best. Even without the access, they knew Iraq wasn't a threat. Documentation and various organizations (such as the IAEA) provided evidence it wasn't a threat. So there was no reason to invade. Period.

The fight was in Afghanistan and in hindsight Pakistan. Not Iraq. If we had Iraq we wouldn't have a problem with Iran right now. US foreign policy and Iran go to together like sinners and hellfire.
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304365984' post='4805618']So maybe this should clue you in on the fact that this is about more than just the assassination of some criminal. Maybe, just maybe, this was a slightly more complicated moment.[/quote]I doubt it, they were Americans. They were just cheering that in their simple world view, "the good guy beat the bad guy". Americans' relationship with terrorists is like that with communism a few decades back.
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='Khaiy' timestamp='1304430337' post='4805944']
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304404158' post='4805823']
Life expectancy factors all of this into account, and the US may actually be leading there.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. But the point made above is key. [/quote]

It might be key if you hadn't trotted out things like cancer survivorship rates, or if that regression were more definitive. [/quote]

Survival rates are a different matter but nevertheless a very important contributor to the United States' overall excellent life expectancy. Another factor you may want to look into is the infant mortality rate, which is computed differently (and, arguably, more accurately) by the United States, seemingly inflating the number.

[quote]The government aggressively regulates the price of medical procedures, which keeps the cost of most routine medical services extremely low, so while it's still a significant expenditure on the national level it's far less expense per patient than in the US (even with the government picking up ~70% of the tab in many situations).
[/quote]

Reducing costs is never as simple as dictating price. Either quality is being sacrificed, or providers are finding ways to recoup the money elsewhere.

[quote]Japan does indeed have problems. As I noted above, doctors there are not pleased with their pay, especially because lower income makes it more difficult to offset the cost of medical school, as well as making going through that training less rewarding. Japan does have a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, but it's debatable how "crushing" that is for their economy.
[/quote]

Time will tell but presently, Japan's lethargic economy is costing the younger generation income and opportunity. It can't go on forever.
-1

Share on other sites
All good and well! But I feel this may get worst for those who really hate American and those who are deployed... getting rocketed more! I've been out there before this news, it will be a matter of time before something will escalate! Stay safe out there!
0

Share on other sites
This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.[quote]Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

Bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead, nor are there indications that he directly threatened his attackers.

A SEAL squad moved in darkness on the guest house, one of two dwellings inside the walls of bin Laden's compound. They were met with hostile fire. As they moved in, they shot a man who was in the guest house who turned out to be Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, an al Qaeda courier.

After shooting al-Kuwaiti U.S. commandos moved onto the compound's three-story main residence. As they entered the house, they saw a man with his hands behind his back. Fearing that the man might be holding a weapon behind him, the commandos shot him dead.

After killing the second courier, commandos started climbing the stairs to the house's upper floors. As they climbed, a man charged down the stairs at them, and was shot dead. U.S. authorities now believe that he was Osama bin Laden's son.

As commandos proceeded up the stairs, they saw a person they believed was bin Laden either poke his head out of a door or over a balcony. The attackers took at least one shot at the person, who then retreated back inside the room he had come from.

The U.S. commandos proceeded to the top floor and into the room where the man had retreated. While entering the room, they were rushed by a woman. The woman, now believed to be one of bin Laden's wives, was shot in the leg.

After shooting her, the commandos pushed her to the side. The attackers did not wait for a reaction and immediately shot the al Qaeda leader dead.[/quote][quote]Senior Pakistani security officials told Reuters that U.S. accounts had been misleading in describing a long gunbattle at the compound where bin Laden and four others were killed by an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALs.

U.S. officials originally spoke of a 40-minute firefight. The White House has blamed the "fog of war" for the changing accounts.[/quote]They're not even denying that they killed him in cold blood -- they're calling it "national self-defence", not even self-defence on the part of the commandos.[quote]"It was justified as an act of national self-defense," Holder said. "If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate."[/quote]
1

Share on other sites
I just dreamed my family had adopted a <i>mini</i> (bald) Bin Laden. But I saw his real intentions so I handled him to the police. I think I broke his heart though.
Then, all of a sudden, I was adopted and I was doing my (blonde) step-mom and step-sister at the park, with the police watching. And my performance was quite poor.

W. T. F.? I woke-up kind of disgusted I must admit. *lights a cig*
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='owl' timestamp='1304669673' post='4807276']
I just dreamed my family had adopted a <i>mini</i> (bald) Bin Laden. But I saw his real intentions so I handled him to the police. I think I broke his heart though.
Then, all of a sudden, I was adopted and I was doing my (blonde) step-mom and step-sister at the park, with the police watching. And my performance was quite poor.

W. T. F.? I woke-up kind of disgusted I must admit. *lights a cig*
[/quote]

0

Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304664627' post='4807263']
This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.[quote]Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

Bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead, nor are there indications that he directly threatened his attackers.

A SEAL squad moved in darkness on the guest house, one of two dwellings inside the walls of bin Laden's compound. They were met with hostile fire. As they moved in, they shot a man who was in the guest house who turned out to be Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, an al Qaeda courier.

After shooting al-Kuwaiti U.S. commandos moved onto the compound's three-story main residence. As they entered the house, they saw a man with his hands behind his back. Fearing that the man might be holding a weapon behind him, the commandos shot him dead.

After killing the second courier, commandos started climbing the stairs to the house's upper floors. As they climbed, a man charged down the stairs at them, and was shot dead. U.S. authorities now believe that he was Osama bin Laden's son.

As commandos proceeded up the stairs, they saw a person they believed was bin Laden either poke his head out of a door or over a balcony. The attackers took at least one shot at the person, who then retreated back inside the room he had come from.

The U.S. commandos proceeded to the top floor and into the room where the man had retreated. While entering the room, they were rushed by a woman. The woman, now believed to be one of bin Laden's wives, was shot in the leg.

After shooting her, the commandos pushed her to the side. The attackers did not wait for a reaction and immediately shot the al Qaeda leader dead.[/quote][quote]Senior Pakistani security officials told Reuters that U.S. accounts had been misleading in describing a long gunbattle at the compound where bin Laden and four others were killed by an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALs.[/quote]
[/quote]
At least I know they have 6 Jason Bournes on their team. Geez. Scary efficiency.
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304664627' post='4807263']
This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.
[/quote]
He's had a public price on his head dead or alive for 10 years and as far as I can tell they ran in the front door guns blazing. That's not really an assassination.
-1

Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304664627' post='4807263']
This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.[quote]Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

Bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead, nor are there indications that he directly threatened his attackers.

A SEAL squad moved in darkness on the guest house, one of two dwellings inside the walls of bin Laden's compound. They were met with hostile fire. As they moved in, they shot a man who was in the guest house who turned out to be Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, an al Qaeda courier.

After shooting al-Kuwaiti U.S. commandos moved onto the compound's three-story main residence. As they entered the house, they saw a man with his hands behind his back. Fearing that the man might be holding a weapon behind him, the commandos shot him dead.

After killing the second courier, commandos started climbing the stairs to the house's upper floors. As they climbed, a man charged down the stairs at them, and was shot dead. U.S. authorities now believe that he was Osama bin Laden's son.

As commandos proceeded up the stairs, they saw a person they believed was bin Laden either poke his head out of a door or over a balcony. The attackers took at least one shot at the person, who then retreated back inside the room he had come from.

The U.S. commandos proceeded to the top floor and into the room where the man had retreated. While entering the room, they were rushed by a woman. The woman, now believed to be one of bin Laden's wives, was shot in the leg.

After shooting her, the commandos pushed her to the side. The attackers did not wait for a reaction and immediately shot the al Qaeda leader dead.[/quote][quote]Senior Pakistani security officials told Reuters that U.S. accounts had been misleading in describing a long gunbattle at the compound where bin Laden and four others were killed by an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALs.

U.S. officials originally spoke of a 40-minute firefight. The White House has blamed the "fog of war" for the changing accounts.[/quote]They're not even denying that they killed him in cold blood -- they're calling it "national self-defence", not even self-defence on the part of the commandos.[quote]"It was justified as an act of national self-defense," Holder said. "If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate."[/quote]
[/quote]

While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general, The only other option would have been to allow him to escape and hope to kill him in a "fair" fight later (Not a compelling option i think)
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1304708515' post='4807458']
While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general, The only other option would have been to allow him to escape and hope to kill him in a "fair" fight later (Not a compelling option i think)
[/quote]

Words like "illegal" become difficult when it comes to war. As been pointed out by many people over this thread and others, wars and military conflict are beyond the normal bounds of law; they are when civility and civil law has failed.

The rules of war (which evolved from the Geneva Convention) cover it. They are international treaties that describe violations of human rights beyond what is considered reasonable even during a war. They are no longer just the Geneva Convention, but have evolved into a body of "Customary international humanitarian law". Many nations have signed on to the treaties, or a subset of the treaties, that constitute Customary IHL.

Specific human targets, including leaders, scientists, and popular figures can be targeted as part of military operations. Usama bin Ladin was very clearly a valid and legal military target under those rules.

A target can be captured or killed unless they become a non-combatant described in Customary IHL:
[i]"Rule 47. Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combatis:(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or© anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape."
[/i]
If the target clearly offers to surrender AND can be captured safely, then killing the target would be eligible as a potential international war crime. However, if they do not clearly offer to surrender, or if they do offer but cannot be safely captured, killing them is not considered a war crime. The ICRC describes the rule with: "[color="#484848"][font="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]a party which “takes” surrender is not required to go out to receive surrender; instead, the party offering surrender has to come forward and submit to the control of the enemy forces."[/size][/font][/color]

[color="#484848"][font="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif"][/font][/color]Acts like simply laying down your guns while across a battlefield or running from your own unit toward the enemy with hands up are not enough by themselves. It is a blurry line that is ultimately decided by a group of judges in a war crimes trial.

Obviously they haven't released recordings of their operation, but based on what has been said the man did not "offer surrender" in a way even closely resembling what is required by international humanitarian law.
-1

Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304713880' post='4807481']
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1304708515' post='4807458']
While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general, The only other option would have been to allow him to escape and hope to kill him in a "fair" fight later (Not a compelling option i think)
[/quote]
Specific human targets, including leaders, scientists, and popular figures can be targeted as part of military operations. Usama bin Ladin was very clearly a valid and legal military target under those rules.
[/quote]

This isn't quite true scientists and popular figures are generally civilians, not combatants and can't be individually targeted(Targeting important facilities is allowed though), leaders have varying status depending on their position (If the US and Canada were at war and the canadians assassinated the New York mayor it would be a war crime, assassinating the US president however would not (as he is effectivly a part of the military command structure).

Assuming Usama qualified as an enemy combatant it was indeed legal to assassinate him though. (Prior to 2001 terrorists were generally considered to be criminals, not enemy combatants so its debatable, but i guess its an acceptable interpretation given how they operate (its not quite comparable to the more restricted scope of domestic terrorism afterall).

Ofcourse this also assumes that pakistan gave their permission for the operation (If not it would have been a violation of their sovereignity, but given the rather good US-Pakistan relations since 2001 I assume they did allow it.
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304713880' post='4807481']The rules of war (which evolved from the Geneva Convention) cover it.[/quote]As far as I know, the US isn't in a state of war with Pakistan. A 'war' in this definition requires there to be two nations involved. Hunting international criminals inside another sovereign state is not a war.
Which nations has America declared war against at the moment?

This also means it can't be a "war crime". Instead it's just a violation of Pakistani law (crossing the border without permission, weapons possession, use of explosives, trespass, break-and-enter, GBH, quadruple murder...). Pakistan sure as hell isn't going to do anything about this violation of their sovereignty though, because like you were saying, words like "illegal" become difficult when dealing with a rogue state armed to the teeth with WMDs.

Also, isn't it US policy that terrorists are "unlawful combatants" and aren't covered by the laws of war? i.e. They are not enemy soldiers captured during war, which instead, according to convention, places them under the jurisdiction of the detaining state's domestic law ([i]which in practice means an American military tribunal[/i])?[size="2"][quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1304708515' post='4807458']While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general[/quote]The [/size]European[size="2"] international courts would've been happy to give him a trial -- in fact it would've been seen as a [/size]ridiculous[size="2"] show-trial if the Americans had done it themselves.[/size][quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1304722370' post='4807518']Ofcourse this also assumes that pakistan gave their permission for the operation (If not it would have been a violation of their sovereignity, but given the rather good US-Pakistan relations since 2001 I assume they did allow it.[/quote]They've publicly said that they did not give permission for the operation, and weren't even informed until afterwards. I wouldn't call them "good relations" either - cooperating with the US is a very tense and harmful necessary evil for them.[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1304704531' post='4807436']He's had a public price on his head dead or alive for 10 years and as far as I can tell they ran in the front door guns blazing. That's not really an assassination.[/quote]They ran in guns blazing, so it's [b]not[/b] an assassination? They offered a cash reward in an effort to incite someone to kill him, so it's not an assassination? What???
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304776761' post='4807670']
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304713880' post='4807481']The rules of war (which evolved from the Geneva Convention) cover it.[/quote]As far as I know, the US isn't in a state of war with Pakistan. A 'war' in this definition requires there to be two nations involved. Hunting international criminals inside another sovereign state is not a war.
Which nations has America declared war against at the moment?
[/quote]

War does not and never has required two nations. Since after World War II, the United States military establishment has pursued an interventionalist policy allowing them to retain all options to influence foreign affairs, which means that declarations of war are obsolete. I also wonder whether most non-Western nations and groups would subscribe to the old-fashioned and distinctly Western notion of "civilized" war. I think there are two reasons why traditional wars between nations are increasingly less frequent: 1) the world is more economically and politically integrated and the sources of conflict are frequently internal matters or objections to the way maps have been drawn by disadvantaged minority groups and 2) nuclear weapons, the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police, and the aforementioned economic interdependency make conventional war exceedingly costly and risky. Therefore, states are more likely to use asymmetric methods -- terrorist groups, for example, as Iran and Pakistan have been doing to promote their interests in the middle east and south Asia.

While on the one hand, the global community is becoming ever more integrated, political commonality is ever more elusive. The international order envisioned by Woodrow Wilson and his intellectual descendants is a distinctly Western vision not shared by today's rising powers.

Unconventional warfare is going to be an uncomfortable reality for a long while. Let's hope it doesn't lead to large, conventional wars any time soon! Let's also hope we don't bankrupt ourselves trying to manage the threat.

[quote][size="2"]The [/size]European[size="2"] international courts would've been happy to give him a trial -- in fact it would've been seen as a [/size]ridiculous[size="2"] show-trial if the Americans had done it themselves.[/size][/quote]

Bin Laden would have likely died of old age before the European courts reached a verdict. Also, the United States does not want to be subject to international tribunals. We call the shots because might makes right.

[quote]They ran in guns blazing, so it's [b]not[/b] an assassination? They offered a cash reward in an effort to incite someone to kill him, so it's not an assassination? What???
[/quote]

True, it definitely was an assassination. All males in the compound were killed, but not the women, which makes the claim that the SEALs were fearful of suicide vests and booby traps dubious (the women would have just as likely triggered them). There are probably a lot of practical reasons why the US did not want the dramatic spectacle of putting Bin Laden on trial. But one also has to wonder whether they were hoping to protect the Pakistanis from embarrassing revelations about cooperation between Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the ISI. The US clearly wants to make its dissatisfaction well known to check Pakistani behavior, but it cannot afford to sever the relationship altogether, as officials have stated recently. Pakistan is a massive country that is on track to be the fifth most populous nation on Earth, after the US itself, possesses nuclear weapons, and is dangerously unstable.
-2

Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']

the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police

We call the shots because might makes right.[/quote]

I really do not understand why some people have hatred for Americans.
What about Interpol? Are they not the world's police force whilst American is the world's current biggest bully and warmonger.
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='magic_man' timestamp='1304800658' post='4807794']
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']
the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police

We call the shots because might makes right.[/quote]

I really do not understand why some people have hatred for Americans.
What about Interpol? Are they not the world's police force whilst American is the world's current biggest bully and warmonger.
[/quote]

Interpol? LOL!

America is an empire and the world prospers under Pax Americana. The Washington-New York axis runs the world.
-1

Share on other sites
[quote name='magic_man' timestamp='1304800658' post='4807794']
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']
the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police

We call the shots because might makes right.[/quote]

I really do not understand why some people have hatred for Americans.
What about Interpol? Are they not the world's police force whilst American is the world's current biggest bully and warmonger.
[/quote]

Interpol catches criminals; it does not conduct military affairs. It's like comparing the New York police force with the US army.

People hate the US for a lot of reasons, some rationally deducible and others less so. The US has the power to choose what happens to a large degree in many situations. If the United States chose not to intervene in some foreign issue, that would be the United States deciding that what is right to do is not intervene under those circumstances. Might does not make right from a moral or ethical standpoint. But because the US does indeed have sufficient might, it also has the capacity to establish the framework for many practical matters, and inaction shapes such things as much as action does.
2

Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']
All males in the compound were killed, but not the women, which makes the claim that the SEALs were fearful of suicide vests and booby traps dubious (the women would have just as likely triggered them).
[/quote]
Can't tell if serious. Only 5 people were killed, osama, 3 men, and a women (I think. Maybe that was changed?). That's not enough data to speculate off of. I'm sure it was a very fast 40 minute operation.

Also:
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']We call the shots because might makes right.

America is an empire and the world prospers under Pax Americana.[/quote]...and that nonsense marks the end of the thread.
0

Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304825348' post='4807926']
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']We call the shots because might makes right.

America is an empire and the world prospers under Pax Americana.[/quote]...and that nonsense marks the end of the thread.
[/quote]

Whatever. Your country benefits enormously from it. Easy for you to be a critic.
-2

Share on other sites
awesome video lol
0

Share on other sites
What the likelihood of those schmucks actually acting on their latest threats ( blood turning to tears and all that )?

One thing that worries me is that 9/11 is closing again and those idiots really don't know when to quit. It's "perfect" for them... Ten years anniversary, 9/11, dead Osama, new target?
0

Create an account

Register a new account