Aileron

*Platypus jumps up and bites Floweret in the pills*

Well, the terrorist leaders are pretty rich (relative to the rest of their populations). Now your average terrorist grunt is usually some poor farmboy. Its kinda like the old Prussian army. The vast majority of the soldiers were commoners, but the officer positions were reserved for the nobles. Also, while there are many different types of strength, I don't think terrorists have any save for a desire to be violent in a world that mostly desires peace.

[OOC- I knew that was spelled wrong, just didn't now the correct spelling.] *lets master platypus into Women's Locker Room*

No, it just shows how negative idiots can be.

Those of us who are laggy already are facing invisible bullets.

nah, its too old. I think it has been used with every President since Nixon.

*suddenly thinks he belongs to a platapus* (You said "platapus's", meaning "belonging to a platapus, as opposed to "platapuses" meaning plural of the word platapus.) Yes, master, I will destroy Floweret for your species of Australian vermin. *uses quivering palm on Floweret* *Floweret makes successfull save* -*BAD WORD*- *kicks Floweret in face, sending him flying accrossed the room* *casts electric jolt, doing 2 hp damage* *runs around the corner* *hides in shadows* *goes back to Women's Locker room*

Who knows what is going to happen. It looks like Spain is going to flat out pull out of Iraq without redeploying anywhere at the moment. This is a very bad policy, and Spain would be smart enough not to follow it 360 days a year. Unfortuneatly, the elections were held in one of the five other days. We frankly don't know what Spain is going to do. Right now, they are in the middle of grieving and not really all that capable of the proper action at the moment. We will simply have to wait a few weeks and see what they do.

*flies through concrete wall* *suddenly notices that I was just knocked into the Women's Locker Room* hehe

What is worst is that in this case, the terrorist act turned the results of Sunday's election. Bin Laden just figured out how to make these actions count politically. If terrorists continue to strike just before elections are held, they can shape the governments of larger powers the way they see fit. This just adds one new methods on to the list of ways that elections can be manipulated. The thing that is so bad about this method is that it is the first one in which the weak can push around the strong. This goes against the natural order of the universe.

This is no joking matter. It just proves that contrary to general European belief, Al Queda is after the entire western world.

*dodges magical bolts* *turns to exact sweet revenge on Naed, only to find he has already been teleported to mars* *teleports Naed back* *kicks Naed in shins* *casts "Power Word, Kill" on Naed*

Now that post I can agree with. I was merely argueing by textbook definitions. What I meant by the technicality (of occupied nations being territory) is that we can do whatever we want with Iraq at the moment. Certain actions would result in massive political fallout, but at the moment if the US gave an order, Iraq would have to comply. This is as opposed to the US giving France an order, in which France has the right to say "screw you". To be political, every country in history would call an occupied nation something else, but that is their status inside the textbooks. I'm talking from a theorhetical standpoint, you are talking from a real world one. We are both right. However, we digress from the point. Regardless, the US is undisputably sovereign. The fact that we were capable of not signing on to Kyoto is proof of this. This brings me back to my origional point. Regardless of weather Kyoto is right or wrong, critical for the planet or merely political, the US has no obligation to sign on. If the world were to incorporate Kyoto into "international law", there is still no guarentee we would sign on, for international law is merely a series of political agreements that give a false premise that there is order in geopolitics.

"Uh oh, a ghost. Who am I gonna call?" *calls Ghostbusters* *Ghostbusters arrive and lock Mysterious in a box* *Ghostbusters leave with box* *eats the apple pie*

What I mentioned is the widely accepted view held by virtually all political scientists. This isn't merely my opinion, it is regarded as a premise. It is a fundimental component of political science and is universally held to be true. I'm not going to sit here trying to prove that one plus one equals two to you. If you think 1+1=3, I can't disprove you, because both statements are !@#$%^&*umed premises. If you can't accept the basic premises of politics, there is no point in this discussion. Occupied nations are unique exceptions to the rule. Under technical defignitions, they are territory of the occupier until released, but usually they are released quickly enough that people still refer to them as nations.

Well, the victim countries shouldn't just forgive the US either. You keep putting words in my mouth, !@#$%^&*uming what my opinion is. I don't know why I am discussing this with you. You hardly read what I post, and respond to what you think that I think. The social contract goes way back to Thomas Aquinas. He wrote a theory on government that all people have a natural right to Life, Liberty, and Property. The purpose of government is to protect those rights. Since then, this theory has been expanded upon, but this is the core of it. Governments have a duty to protect the life of their citizens. Thus, terroristic acts shouldn't be interpreted as a sign of bad policy, but should be viewed as an act which warrants retaliation. By all means, Iraq shouldn't just forgive the US either. We violated some of their natural rights. If we are just, these violations are for a greater moral good, but that shouldn't help much from the Iraqi point of view. They should retaliate until it their actions don't help anymore. The only reason they should stop is that that point has been reached months ago. As for that last point, you are completely wrong about that. By and large, our actions are in Latin America. Latin Americans have to most reason to hate the US, Europeans in fact hate the US the most, and its the Middle Easterns who are bombing the US. Why would a Middle Eastern want to die for a European's hatred over an action that occured in Latin America? In order for your theory to work, one of these groups should be carrying all three, or all groups should be equally. It is really a part of the beliefs terrorists have. They don't hate the things they bomb; they bomb the things they hate. Hatred is secondary to getting themselves blown up for Allah. Yes, if the US was nicer to people, maybe we could get them to stop bombing us. Most likey though, terrorists will just find someone else to hate and suicide bomb them.

Bacchus, I never said Iraq had terrorists. I as a matter of fact agree that they pretty much were not in there, and referred to the war in Iraq as a seperate conflict from the War on Terror. But Iraq not having terrorists has nothing to do with my point. Please quit putting words in my mouth, and please focus on the purpose of my discussion so that you stop making irrelevent statements. Monte, yes nations ARE by defignition sovereign. A nation requires four things under basic political scientific principles - land, population, culture, and sovereignty. A nation that isn't sovereign is a province. Also, Bacchus, these rights cannot be taken away by anyone. They may be overridden by some greater purpose, as in the case of a just war. They may also be violated, as in the case of simple conquest. Taking away a nations sovereignty and taking away their RIGHT to sovereignty are two entirely different things. My point is that never in the course of history has it been properly held that the victim nation was arrogant in wishing to conduct their own policy. Their policy may have been morally reprehensible in every way possible, but it is still their right to conduct. The only thing the rest of the world can do about it is force a policy on such nation. That can be done in a just way by saying that there is some greater moral purpose that overrides the nation's sovereignty rights. Even if this is done, those rights still exist, they are merely overidden. Note that I did not say the US was right in not signing on to Kyoto, I was merely saying that we have a right to not sign on if we don't want to. Thus, you would need some overriding moral purpose, which Monte has already instictively tried to form. I will admit that were pollution such a dire problem that sea levels were rising over small islands, that would be proper grounds. However, at the moment the problem isn't near those levels. Global warming occurs at a rate about one degree every ten years. This rate is slow enough that diplomacy should be tried first. This brings me back to what I said in my last post. The reason why the rest of the world should support these conflicts (btw, I will agree that the world has the right to not support it if they don't want to) is to be diplomatic. Such an agreement would bring political profit to both sides, and you have a moral duty to explore such possibilities before you go around acting like we are wrong in acting upon our own rights.

Not quite... *takes out doomsday device* *sets doomsday device to "change Newton's Gravitational Constant"* *sets G to some really high value* *Mr. Ious starts falling again* *Mr. Ious falls outside of meat grinder* *tries to run up to Mr. Ious* *can't move - too much gravity* *sets G back to G* *throws Mr. Ious in meat grinder* *makes sloppy joe* *starts handing sloppy joe sandwiches to everyone*

see sig. I know C++, but have no experience with bots. More importantly, I'm thinking about making my own zone and may not have time. I *might* be able to make bots for you as practice, although they will probably be crappy.

That lag is nothing! And how did you get specced for that. I used to get worse lad in another zone and didn't get specced.

I think we need to keep the impact a little lighter on the graphics for those of us who's machines cannot perform that well.

*watches Mr. Ious fallng off of building* *calculates path of descent* *paints big red X on the ground where he will impact.* *puts giant meat grinder on top of big red X* Sloppy Joe is ready in 5 minutes! Who wants some?

Monte, you don't understand. What we are discussing here is US domestic policy. As a sovreign nation, we have a right to set our domestic policy to whatever we feel like, and the rest of the world has a right to set their policy the way they feel like. While sometimes the domestic policy of a country may have been compromised throughout history for one reason or another, it was never held that the country was arrogant for wanting to set their own policy for themselves. Nations are by defignition sovreign, and thus have a right to their own policy. It is in no way arrogant for any nation to want to control their own policy. If the US is arrogant, this is not an example of it, because we are discussing US policy which the US has sovreign right to control. (BTW, before you reply to this, take a CLOSE look at the first paragraph. I think I already replyed to what I think you are going to say next.) Don't get me wrong, I agree Kyoto is probably what is best for the world. I also see how better air quality would benefit the US. However, the US can get better air quality by changing our policy by ourselves, especially if we are producing most of the pollution as you claim. The rest of the world can be excluded from the decision making process, their importance is proportional to the amount of pollution they produce. That isn't an arrogant opinion either, because fate has given us the power to make that decision. I think what should have happened was what Tony Blair's policy before going into Iraq. He thought he could exchange British support in Iraq for American support in Kyoto. If the US gave support in Kyoto, and Europe gave passive support in Iraq and active support in the War on Terror, that would have been a well-balanced policy. Both the US and Europe would have given something and taken something, and the world would have been rid of both pollution and terrorists. However, Blair dropped the ball. He didn't put enough political force upon the decision makers, and for that his policy collapsed into the joke it is today.

*attaches another rocket to the sun, so that both objects are traveling at the same relative speed* *sneaks up on Paine and secretly replaces all of his sun tan lotion with Honey BBQ sauce* *watchs Pain roast himself*

The Leviathon, although mythical, swims. Maybe call it a "York", then somebody can make up a War of the Roses event.