It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by malachi777
Isn't is funny how all those anti-Americans are all speaking English!!!!!!!!!!! Guess we aren't so bad after all!
Originally posted by caf1550
currently the US 5th fleet presence in the middle east is the only thing stopping Iran from closing the straight of homuz and they still even might, having a force of Marines in not only south korea but also okinawa is probably one of the only things keep north korea from invading there neighbors to the south
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
The US had a Civil War in 1861.
What would the US look like today if a Foriegn Superpower came in to "save" the country, and Declared the South to win.
Of course it would be to save the people, But said Superpower also happened to be in the Slave Trade.
Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by staticarium
Umm, here in the US we speak English...a different dialect or pronunciation as our BROTHERS but it is still English. And I am American, not Americant.
Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
You tell him TiM3LoRd, malachi777 seems to think America spawned the English dilect for some reason or another. Would that not mean Amercans speak americanese?
edit on 21-1-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)edit on 21-1-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
The US had a Civil War in 1861.
What would the US look like today if a Foriegn Superpower came in to "save" the country, and Declared the South to win.
Of course it would be to save the people, But said Superpower also happened to be in the Slave Trade.
You mean like when the Soviets backed North Korea to attack and invade the South or when Red China came pouring across the border.
Your analogy stinks.edit on 21-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
There must be a just cause based on an injury received. "Fear with respect to a neighboring power is not a sufficient cause. For...self-defense to be lawful it must be necessary; and it is not necessary unless we are certain, not only regarding the power of our neighbor, but also regarding his intention; the degree of certainty which is required is that which is accepted in morals." Hugo Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Chap. 22, V, 1. "That the possibility of being attacked confers the right to attack is abhorrent to every principle of equity. Human life exists under such conditions that complete security is never guaranteed to us." Ibid. Bk. II, Chap. 1, XVII.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
First, like all other basic principles, the principle of protection of human rights cannot be invoked in a particular situation and disregarded in a similar one. To apply it selectively is to debase it. Governments can, and do, expose themselves to charges of deliberate bias; the United Nations cannot. Second, any international action for protecting human rights must be based on a decision taken in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It must not be a unilateral act. Third, and relatedly, the consideration of proportionality is of the utmost importance in this respect. Should the scale or manner of international action be out of proportion to the wrong that is reported to have been committed, it is bound to evoke a vehement reaction, which in the long run, would jeopardize the very rights that were sought to be defended.
Originally posted by staticarium
No, in the US you speak a language so far removed from our own, it is an insult to have it associated with ours. And I prefer to call you Ameri#s.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by staticarium
No, in the US you speak a language so far removed from our own, it is an insult to have it associated with ours. And I prefer to call you Ameri#s.
Yet...
You know who Madonna and Arnold Schwarzenegger are.
Have a Coke and a Smile