Liberal/Labor: Whats The MAJOR difference? (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

No, its not.
But how about look it "this" way- in one incident, an America militant assaulted a town/village in Iraq because the Americans claimed to search for "terrorists". In the process, an Iraqi civilian was shot, and after, this Iraqi civilian was murdered by an American.
This was made public, and the US soldier who killed this civilian was pleaded "innocent" as he justified it was to "free him from pain".

So $8000 + is cheap to liberate one human life, what about $1 to eliminate a human life?
Remember an incident in America where a women is in a coma and is declared "brain dead", yet it created an "outcry" in America when her husband wanted her to be killed while her parents opposed?
So killing a brain dead women who's in a coma for decades would create an "outcry" in America, but murdering a shot man who is still alive would create a "no American gives a d@mn"?
So why the difference? Is it because that man is an Iraqi while that woman is an American?

Is that called discrimination, or should it be called hypocrisy?

Please Even though I'm personally conflicted on the idea of euthanasia, if this particular civilian had asked to be killed, or if the bullet had gone somewhere that would have rendered them a vegetable, it is not objectively wrong to terminate their life.

How is the reaction of American society relevant to my own personal view? It's not the societies fault anyway, it's the media, who I think we've already established are sensationalist when we were discussing the case of Schapelle Corby in relation to other Australians overseas. The media concentrates the outcry on a small amount of things because it serves them better to have people feeling very strongly for one cause than somewhat perturbed about many.

 

[berry580]

Looks like Mike Moore, only more amateurish.

EDIT: I've watched half of it, and I'm going to make this clear for the final time:

I did not support a war of disarmament, I supported a war of liberation, so shut the fuck up about WMD's, because I do not care.

"War of liberation"? Nice bullcrap, and looks like someone fell in it.

Whatever happened in Iraq has long been "rumored" to be happening in many 'Eastern" countries and Middle East countries. So why are the "world savers" only saving the Iraqis? What about the Palestines? What about all those childrens who's been tortured day and night in Saudi Arabia? What about the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?
Why aren't they "liberating" Israel, or "liberating" Russia?
Should this be called "hypocisy"?

"Shut the fuck up"? "I don't care"?
Is that all you know?

Someone might as well change his/her name to "withoutabrain", it probably suits this unnamed person more.

 

[withoutaface]

1. There needs to be a plausible reason of self defence to launch a war on anyone.
2. The US is working for peace between Israel and Palestine, and it is my belief that Clinton came very close until some radicals shot the Israeli leader of the time and threw the whole thing into chaos again.
3. Liberating Russia would result in nuclear winter for all involved.

 

[berry580]

1. There needs to be a plausible reason of self defence to launch a war on anyone.
2. The US is working for peace between Israel and Palestine, and it is my belief that Clinton came very close until some radicals shot the Israeli leader of the time and threw the whole thing into chaos again.
3. Liberating Russia would result in nuclear winter for all involved.

1. America has NO plausible reason to launch a war against Iraq, as it's true that Iraq pose no direct threat to US mainland whatsoever. But US officials "justified" by claiming they have "faulty" intelligence.

Ok, lets assume the US did have "faulty" intelligence. This will be followed up in "3."

2. The UK & US caused all this, why did the Israelis have to go to the "unclean" land conquerer by the British? Why did the US provide "unlimited" support in supplying weapons to the Israelis and prolong the conflict?
Whatever had the Americans did, it was simply not good enough as by any means, the minimum standard of a "pass" would be allowing the Palestinians to rule their own country and not by some "western terrorist controlled dogs", possess their own defence force and be recognised to be a sovereign state.
Now, when part of the Palestine land is returned, which is after 1/2 a century of suppession, mass murder, massacre, abuse, rape, etc by the Israelis to the Palestinians, with the Americans providing unlimited support to the Israelis in this sense.
You truly think the Americans are really "helping" the Palestines? If they wanted to help, they could of done so literally any second since 1948. Why wait 1/2 a century? So the Palestinians can be tortured mentally and physically for 1/2 a century? Is that American version of "human right", aye? Well I'm sure they've followed the strict guide lines in Guantanamo Bay.

3. Refering to "1.", I assumed US did have "faulty" intelligence, so as a result, US officials would believe Iraq possess biological/chemical weapon and if worst comes to worst-even nuclear weapons.

You claimed that "liberating" Russia would result in nuclear winter for all involved, and that's the reason why they didn't "liberate" Russia. Correct?

If US officials believed Iraq possess biological/chemical weapon and possibly even nuclear weapons, then why would they still attack Iraq and jeapodise mankind altogether and/or atleast the safety of US troops in Kuwait threatened by biological/chemical weapon? Considering Iraq didn't threaten to launch any attack on anyone.

Withoutadoubt, only some people withoutabrain would believe withoutaface's latter post to not be an example of an oxymoron.

From that, it doesn't seem very crediable that the US had "faulty" intelligence, more like they want others to think they have had "faulty" intelligence and use that as an excuse.



To put it simple-
1. US IS the heart of a military aggressive empire.
2. US made no more help to the Palestinians than to torture them in all aspects via another government until recent, which is after 1/2 century of damage directly and unconditionally supported by the US.
3. US didn't liberate Russia is because they can't bully Russia just like how they bullied Iraq, evident from Vietnam/Korean War that they can't even bully China.
From that, we can see the Americans ARE liars and invaded Iraq simply because they have the capability to.

A last note- some people just withoutadoubt thinks withoutabrain, but withan@$$, and obviously it's a very clean @$$ considering how high have some people thought of the Americans, possibly due to brainwashes.

Sorry for the bad grammar, as I'm not sure when to leave a space and when not to. But withoutadoubt, I'll do my best

 

[withoutaface]

1. America has NO plausible reason to launch a war against Iraq, as it's true that Iraq pose no direct threat to US mainland whatsoever. But US officials "justified" by claiming they have "faulty" intelligence.

Ok, lets assume the US did have "faulty" intelligence. This will be followed up in "3."

The US were fairly sure in 2003 that the Iraqis had WMD's, but that they didn't have the systems to launch them. No such weapons would not be a current threat to the mainland, but in the near future, if long range balistic missiles were developed or obtained by Saddam they could have.

2. The UK & US caused all this, why did the Israelis have to go to the "unclean" land conquerer by the British? Why did the US provide "unlimited" support in supplying weapons to the Israelis and prolong the conflict?
Whatever had the Americans did, it was simply not good enough as by any means, the minimum standard of a "pass" would be allowing the Palestinians to rule their own country and not by some "western terrorist controlled dogs", possess their own defence force and be recognised to be a sovereign state.
Now, when part of the Palestine land is returned, which is after 1/2 a century of suppession, mass murder, massacre, abuse, rape, etc by the Israelis to the Palestinians, with the Americans providing unlimited support to the Israelis in this sense.
You truly think the Americans are really "helping" the Palestines? If they wanted to help, they could of done so literally any second since 1948. Why wait 1/2 a century? So the Palestinians can be tortured mentally and physically for 1/2 a century? Is that American version of "human right", aye? Well I'm sure they've followed the strict guide lines in Guantanamo Bay.

The land is as much the Isrealis as it is the Palestininians, so don't give me that bullshit. Tell me berry, what was sitting where the Dome of the Rock presently is before it was constructed? Why I believe it was the Jewish temple, which was razed by the Palestinians to build their own, but that's another argument for another time. Suffice to say that the land is not "dirty land" in the eyes of the Israelis, it's their Holy Land too, and I'm sure if the Palestinians were in the same position as the Israelis are presently they would do the same thing to anyone trying to take over their Holy Land.
Also all this talk on Guantanamo seems to be based on pure conjecture, which is what those opposed to the war wanted the US to avoid (see: OMG THEY WERENT 100% SURE THERE WERE WMD'S), so if you're going to make such claims please support them with solid evidence rather than conjecture.

3. Refering to "1.", I assumed US did have "faulty" intelligence, so as a result, US officials would believe Iraq possess biological/chemical weapon and if worst comes to worst-even nuclear weapons.

You claimed that "liberating" Russia would result in nuclear winter for all involved, and that's the reason why they didn't "liberate" Russia. Correct?

If US officials believed Iraq possess biological/chemical weapon and possibly even nuclear weapons, then why would they still attack Iraq and jeapodise mankind altogether and/or atleast the safety of US troops in Kuwait threatened by biological/chemical weapon? Considering Iraq didn't threaten to launch any attack on anyone.

Again, the overall decision was that it was better for a small amount of weapons to be launched in the short term at only nearby, secondary targets, than a large number to be accumulated over the long term and launched at places all over the world.

Withoutadoubt, only some people withoutabrain would believe withoutaface's latter post to not be an example of an oxymoron.

Again with the incredibly clever play on my username Newsflash: with Zahid gone you now inherit the throne of second biggest tool on this forum, and considering the number of morons who pass through here, that's a pretty big tool.

From that, it doesn't seem very crediable that the US had "faulty" intelligence, more like they want others to think they have had "faulty" intelligence and use that as an excuse.

It would seem to me that somebody with the combined IQ of 3 flies and a piece of fruit should be the last one commenting on anybody's lack of intelligence.

To put it simple-
1. US IS the heart of a military aggressive empire.
2. US made no more help to the Palestinians than to torture them in all aspects via another government until recent, which is after 1/2 century of damage directly and unconditionally supported by the US.
3. US didn't liberate Russia is because they can't bully Russia just like how they bullied Iraq, evident from Vietnam/Korean War that they can't even bully China.
From that, we can see the Americans ARE liars and invaded Iraq simply because they have the capability to.

You do know that the US won the Korean War, don't you?

A last note- some people just withoutadoubt thinks withoutabrain, but withan@$$, and obviously it's a very clean @$$ considering how high have some people thought of the Americans, possibly due to brainwashes.

Yes, they beamed me up to their spaceship and robbed me of any ability to form an independent thought, and they gang probed me until I begged them to stop.
OH THE HUMANITY!

PS Your mummy's not reading this forum, you can say arse, nobody will care.
PPS It seems rather ironic that someone who despises America so much would adopt the American spelling of "ass".

Sorry for the bad grammar, as I'm not sure when to leave a space and when not to. But withoutadoubt, I'll do my best

You should do standup. No, really.

Why is Australia not very internationally competitive in the world market? Withoutadoubt, you got to ask Withoutaface.

How exactly is a nation which has a per capita GDP which is three times the world average not internationally competitive?

 

[loquasagacious]

Not wanting to muddy the waters (further) by introducing an israel/palestine debate, I believe waf to be only partially correct. There are deeper issues to do with whether all jews constitute semites, etc etc etc.

 

[berry580]

The US were fairly sure in 2003 that the Iraqis had WMD's, but that they didn't have the systems to launch them. No such weapons would not be a current threat to the mainland, but in the near future, if long range balistic missiles were developed or obtained by Saddam they could have.

Saddam has disarmed his WMD arsenal, and UN inspectors have confirmed it for numerous times, hence US troops can invade Iraq without threatening US mainland.

The land is as much the Isrealis as it is the Palestininians, so don't give me that bullshit. Tell me berry, what was sitting where the Dome of the Rock presently is before it was constructed? Why I believe it was the Jewish temple, which was razed by the Palestinians to build their own, but that's another argument for another time. Suffice to say that the land is not "dirty land" in the eyes of the Israelis, it's their Holy Land too, and I'm sure if the Palestinians were in the same position as the Israelis are presently they would do the same thing to anyone trying to take over their Holy Land.

How long ago was this land last owned by the Israelis? How many centuries? And the Israelis have been given the right to reclaim the land.

How long has whitemen conquerered Australia and the US for? And how come I don't see black people to be given their land back? And how come whitemen ain't being tortured for 1/2 a century too?

Also all this talk on Guantanamo seems to be based on pure conjecture, which is what those opposed to the war wanted the US to avoid (see: OMG THEY WERENT 100% SURE THERE WERE WMD'S), so if you're going to make such claims please support them with solid evidence rather than conjecture.

Solid evidence shows that people in Guantanamo Bay has been tortured day & night by US forces in oppose to what was advertised in US mainland and worldwide.
Solid evidence shows that UN inspectors have confirmed Iraq to be disarmed and solid evidence shows that US troops invades Iraq after the announcement by UN inspectors that Iraq is disarmed..
Solid evidence shows that Iraq has large amounts of oil.
Solid evidence shows that Americans wants cheap oil.

Again, the overall decision was that it was better for a small amount of weapons to be launched in the short term at only nearby, secondary targets, than a large number to be accumulated over the long term and launched at places all over the world.

What a HYPOCRITE.
Talk about conjecture........

Again with the incredibly clever play on my username Newsflash: with Zahid gone you now inherit the throne of second biggest tool on this forum, and considering the number of morons who pass through here, that's a pretty big tool.

Solid evidence shows that you post oxymorons and now, solid evidence shows that you're going off topic.
solid evidence shows that your not being very considerate, or your eye simply has a "hole" and somehow missed-"Sorry for the bad grammar, as I'm not sure when to leave a space and when not to."

It would seem to me that somebody with the combined IQ of 3 flies and a piece of fruit should be the last one commenting on anybody's lack of intelligence.

It would seem to me that somebody with a "single digit IQ" should really understand the word "intelligence" in the name CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).

You do know that the US won the Korean War, don't you?

You know Bush is still worrying about nuclear weapons in North Korea's arsenal, right?

Yes, they beamed me up to their spaceship and robbed me of any ability to form an independent thought, and they gang probed me until I begged them to stop.
OH THE HUMANITY!

PS Your mummy's not reading this forum, you can say arse, nobody will care.
PPS It seems rather ironic that someone who despises America so much would adopt the American spelling of "ass".

An example of a "single digit IQ" 's production.

Please be aware that "single digit IQ" is a NAME regarding to one's intelligence at an unspecified level, not a phrase.

You should do standup. No, really.

You should get some face.

How exactly is a nation which has a per capita GDP which is three times the world average not internationally competitive?

And how many of that was from sales of commodities? e.g Coal, minerals, etc These sales are like sales of assets (i.e not products), so is almost irrelevant. Also, services for domestic demand account for the bulk of the GDP.
So in conclusion, GDP per capita doesn't truly reflect a country's international competitiveness.

Another example would be China, with a GDP per capita of about $5000 compared to Australia's $28,900, does that mean China is EXTREMELY internationally uncompetitive?
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=ch&v=67

Originally Posted by Berry580
After some research, I realised that Beazley was never a PM.

I became interested in politics after the 9/11 attack, so not "too" surprising that I don't know Beazley had never been Australia's prime minister.

But solid evidence shows that many things are contagious, I've been taken advantage of not knowing history too well, just like how America took advantage of Iraq's weak military force.

 

[withoutaface]

Solid evidence shows that people in Guantanamo Bay has been tortured day & night by US forces in oppose to what was advertised in US mainland and worldwide.

You've stated that it exists, now find me the evidence itself please.

 

[zahid]

You've stated that it exists, now find me the evidence itself please.

oh come of waf....you can show your greatness by conceding defeat.

 

[withoutaface]

oh come of waf....you can show your greatness by conceding defeat.

Why would I concede defeat when my opponent's getting owned?

 

[berry580]

Solid evidence shows that people in Guantanamo Bay has been tortured day & night by US forces

You've stated that it exists, now find me the evidence itself please.

oh come of waf....you can show your greatness by conceding defeat.

Why would I concede defeat when my opponent's getting owned?

Should I add that to my signature?
Too bad there's limited space, or I definately will. My campaign to show American's ugly face to Australians is more important than to embarrass someone withoutabrain.

waf vs. berry = good intellectual debate.

Seems apparent that this is no longer valid, or atleast not in this case.

You've stated that it exists, now find me the evidence itself please.

Here, the tip of an iceberg:-
"Three British prisoners, released in 2004 without charge, have alleged ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by US forces at Guantanamo Bay."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay

Why would I concede defeat when my opponent's getting owned?

Please refer to appropriate quote/s from my signature accordingly.

You're no longer worth my time.

 

[withoutaface]

Obviously your grasp of the English language isn't the best, but I'll now post a definition of

alleged.
al·leged (ə-lĕjd', ə-lĕj'*d) pronunciation
adj.

Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.

I ask for proof, you give me unsubstantiated claims, good work.

 

[berry580]

Obviously your grasp of the English language isn't the best, but I'll now post a definition of

I ask for proof, you give me unsubstantiated claims, good work.

This is a legal matter, hence we should use legal terms.

"Prove" can be defined as:- To provide sufficient proof of or that (proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)
http://www.answers.com/prove&r=67

If only 3 people claims to have been tortured by the Americans, then you can say "Americans have been accused of torturing", but not enough to prove "Americans have been torturing people".
If you would notice, I said "...the tip of an iceberg:-" which implies there's more example of cases like that. If there's one incident, then you can say its a "coincident" and it cannot "prove" much in a convincing way. But if there's a numerous level of "coincidences", then chances are this "coincidence" is "deliberate".
Hence, if there are numerous reports of people being torture, it has been proven that Americans ARE torturers.

You're just playing on words AND wasting people's time. It's obvious what's been happening in Guantanamo Bay, if you're still not convinced, then I have one solution for you- find a hole and cry in there if you want.

If you like to put quotes on your signature, remember to add the "Shut the fuck up, I don't care" bit, like a little child having a tantrum.
So who's that quote from? withoutaface should be the last one to ask.......

 

[berry580]

Obviously your grasp of the English language isn't the best, but I'll now post a definition of ...

So is your level of English better than "isn't the best"?

If you are, then what does the term "rest" mean?
Please explain that in one sentence.

After you answer. My answer would be- "WRONG!!".
I WILL have a convincing answer if you want to argue I cannot say that.

We were talking about legal matters, hence we should use legal terms.

Next time went you have come backs, please transfer those informations to your brain for processing in whether it's in the same "frequency" with our topic before posting it to the forum, and preferably not straight from arse-to-forum.
Firstly, it'll reduce wastage of bandwidths for this forum;
secondly, to save me time, so I don't need to read your junk;
and lastly, but not least, so you won't embarrass yourself.

Now goodnight.

 

[neo o]

How long has whitemen conquerered Australia and the US for? And how come I don't see black people to be given their land back? And how come whitemen ain't being tortured for 1/2 a century too?

Sorry to disrupt the mudslinging but I just thought that I should intrude and point out that AFRICAN-AMERICANS are not native Americans. Mentions native title. Mentions collective property ownership and how Aboriginals didn't own land per se.

Solid evidence shows that people in Guantanamo Bay has been tortured day & night by US forces in oppose to what was advertised in US mainland and worldwide.
Solid evidence shows that UN inspectors have confirmed Iraq to be disarmed and solid evidence shows that US troops invades Iraq after the announcement by UN inspectors that Iraq is disarmed..
Solid evidence shows that Iraq has large amounts of oil.
Solid evidence shows that Americans wants cheap oil.
What a HYPOCRITE.
Talk about conjecture........

I see no solid evidence. Got link?

And how many of that was from sales of commodities? e.g Coal, minerals,

around 30% of total GDP.

etc These sales are like sales of assets (i.e not products), so is almost irrelevant.

Also, services for domestic demand account for the bulk of the GDP.

Got stats? Got stats compared to other economies?

So in conclusion, GDP per capita doesn't truly reflect a country's international competitiveness.

So you're saying that if you exclude over half of a countries produce a country appears to be uncompetitive? Great argument!

Another example would be China, with a GDP per capita of about $5000 compared to Australia's $28,900, does that mean China is EXTREMELY internationally uncompetitive?
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=ch&v=67

They aren't really. The Chinese flog off their shoddy goods by devaluing their currency. Try and argue that the Chinese have higher living standards than Australians btw

I became interested in politics after the 9/11 attack, so not "too" surprising that I don't know Beazley had never been Australia's prime minister.

I was born in 1986 but I know that Whitlam, Fraser and Holt were all former Prime Ministers and that Michael Moore wasn't.

 

[withoutaface]

If only 3 people claims to have been tortured by the Americans, then you can say "Americans have been accused of torturing", but not enough to prove "Americans have been torturing people".
If you would notice, I said "...the tip of an iceberg:-" which implies there's more example of cases like that. If there's one incident, then you can say its a "coincident" and it cannot "prove" much in a convincing way. But if there's a numerous level of "coincidences", then chances are this "coincidence" is "deliberate".
Hence, if there are numerous reports of people being torture, it has been proven that Americans ARE torturers.

1. Probabilities are not definites, also the fact that someone had been locked up anywhere for an extended period of time they would naturally be predisposed to portray the place they were imprisoned in in the worst possible light.
2. Iraq on several different occassions had weapons of mass destruction, so using the same logic you can't criticise the Americans for following such intelligence, can you?

You're just playing on words AND wasting people's time. It's obvious what's been happening in Guantanamo Bay, if you're still not convinced, then I have one solution for you- find a hole and cry in there if you want.

I'm playing on words and wasting people's time? Which one of us is the immature fuck who feels the need to fill their posts with various moronic insults based on my username? They weren't funny the first time, and they sure as hell aren't going to make anyone laugh the 15th time around.

If you like to put quotes on your signature, remember to add the "Shut the fuck up, I don't care" bit, like a little child having a tantrum.
So who's that quote from? withoutaface should be the last one to ask.......

That was hardly a tantrum, and if you feel it's so hilarious I give you complete freedom to add it to your sig.

If you are, then what does the term "rest" mean?

There are many meanings of the word "rest", please give me a context.

We were talking about legal matters, hence we should use legal terms.

Alleged in a legal context has the following definition:
"Accused but not yet proven or convicted".

Allegations aren't proof, better luck next time.

Next time went you have come backs, please transfer those informations to your brain for processing in whether it's in the same "frequency" with our topic before posting it to the forum, and preferably not straight from arse-to-forum.
Firstly, it'll reduce wastage of bandwidths for this forum;
secondly, to save me time, so I don't need to read your junk;
and lastly, but not least, so you won't embarrass yourself.

Hahahahahahahhaha

 

[loquasagacious]

Waf deserves to be buried in rep.

Berry placing things in bold doesn't make them true. You still have yet to produce anything substantive or even mention the fact that maybe three ex-detainees might have an axe to grind so-to-speak and thus an incentive to exaggerate.

One thing in bold that is fact: You suck. Your arguments are weak, they rely on unsubstantiated assertions. What we are looking for is essay or debate what you have given us is empty polemic.

 

[berry580]

Sorry to disrupt the mudslinging but I just thought that I should intrude and point out that AFRICAN-AMERICANS are not native Americans. Mentions native title. Mentions collective property ownership and how Aboriginals didn't own land per se.

Whether a certain group "owns" a land or not, it has always been defined by the whitemen. So what makes you think it'll prevent them from defining something which is in favor of them?
What gives them the right to define something and not the black people?

I see no solid evidence. Got link?

What sort of "solid source" do you want?
Americans claiming "yes we torture people day & night in guantanamo Bay?"

If you regard that as "solid source", then chances are Hitler have never tortured any Jewishs and the Japanese have never tortured anyone should they win WWII.

Reports of people being tortured are widespread, so there should be no doubt it happens.
It's a fact that US troops formally started the invasion on Iraq after several UN inspectors confirming there's no WMD.

About whether there's oil or not in Iraq, I'll keep quiet.
And about whether Americans wants cheap oil, I'll keep quiet on this too.
If someone insists for an answer for these two, look at my signature for the appropriate quote.

around 30% of total GDP.
Got stats? Got stats compared to other economies?

As in most developed countries, the services sector generates the bulk of GDP—nearly 80% in fiscal year 2002/03
http://www.economist.com/countries/Australia/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Structure
agriculture: 0.9%
industry: 19.7%
services: 79.4% (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

As you can see, most of a country’s GDP is in the service sector, which is mostly consumed domestically in Australia's case, so effectively, how can you determine if a country is “internationally competitive” or not from its GDP?

So you're saying that if you exclude over half of a countries produce a country appears to be uncompetitive? Great argument!

It’s VERY apparent that you’re not an economist and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you even know what “international competitiveness” is for a start?
Ok, assuming you know everything about it. So what makes Australia so “international competitive”?
What are they specialized in that makes them “international competitive”? In what areas do they have …….... advantage in to give them the edge?

.

They aren't really. The Chinese flog off their shoddy goods by devaluing their currency. Try and argue that the Chinese have higher living standards than Australians btw

So you’re saying the Chinese isn’t internationally competitive, but they’re merely controlling their currency to take advantage of others?

Australia’s living standards are amongst the top5 in terms of HDI.
That’s mainly due to the combination of a small population, high level of natural resource, geographically large country factor.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_9_1_1.html

In fact, even America’s HDI is lower than Australia’s. Does that mean they’re less “internationally competitive” than Australia?

I was born in 1986 but I know that Whitlam, Fraser and Holt were all former Prime Ministers and that Michael Moore wasn't.

So?
You know it so everyone should know it too?
I knew Einstein's Special Relativity theory from a TV show when I was not even 10 years old and I understood it, so should I expect everyone to know the theory before it's taught in yr12 physics in NSW?

 

[Xayma]

So?
You know it so everyone should know it too?
I knew Einstein's Special Relativity theory from a TV show when I was not even 10 years old and I understood it, so should I expect everyone to know the theory before it's taught in yr12 physics in NSW?

No you didn't. You might have remembered what they told you but understanding it requires you to be able to formulate it.

HSC Physics doesn't give an understanding of it, it simply gives some more facts to memorise.

 

[berry580]

1. Probabilities are not definites, also the fact that someone had been locked up anywhere for an extended period of time they would naturally be predisposed to portray the place they were imprisoned in in the worst possible light.
2. Iraq on several different occassions had weapons of mass destruction, so using the same logic you can't criticise the Americans for following such intelligence, can you?.

1. Nothing is definate.
But as long as it's been proven that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then it has been effectively "proven".
2. Iraq disarmed her WMD arsenal, and that is what US demanded, but they invaded Iraq anyway.

I'm playing on words and wasting people's time? Which one of us is the immature fuck who feels the need to fill their posts with various moronic insults based on my username? They weren't funny the first time, and they sure as hell aren't going to make anyone laugh the 15th time around.

Talking about insults.....

That was hardly a tantrum, and if you feel it's so hilarious I give you complete freedom to add it to your sig.

I don't plan to be an "immature fuck".

There are many meanings of the word "rest", please give me a context.

Same with the word "prove", and you deliberately chose a meaning in a context different to our discussion.

Alleged in a legal context has the following definition:
"Accused but not yet proven or convicted".

Allegations aren't proof, better luck next time.

LOL.

So who will "convict" the Americans?

Invading another country was illegal before the 2nd Iraq War, but that was until it somehow became "legal" after the 2nd Iraq War. It's a "mystery" in how it changed........

Should international law be "changable" in favor of some country, it indicates how influential this country is, and should you have power, then what you say is "law".
Hence "some" can only be "accused" and never "convicted".