Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Where did you learn English?
What if china calls upon america debt?
- Thread starter jojorah
- Start date
Disgustipated
Deity
You could argue George W. Bush was a terrorist.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
We tell them that the majority of the bonds we have issued to them are of 5-, 10-, and 30-year vintage, and that they may call in those bonds when they have matured. And not before.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Presidents of the United States cannot ever be criminals, terrorists or likewise. The thought is treason and makes you a dirty terrorist.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
Ummmmm....... They (China) wouldn't ?????????? 
madviking
north american scum
If you don't know about something, then don't pretend to know something about it.
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
NO!!!
Don't you understand how bonds work? They're like poker chips. China holds on to them and whenever China wants, they can go to Tim Geithner's house and say "我鍾意喺互聯網買嘢!!!"
Does China really only (mainly) hold long-term debt paper? I think that about ~40% of the US gov't (fed) debt is due in less than 5 years
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Nope. You are wrong.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
What US president has been proven as a war criminal? Name one.
Disgustipated
Deity
Bush came close, but in truth, it is impossible because the U.S. has never lost a war (and no, we didn't lose Vietnam). The winning side cannot be guilty of war crimes.
By some standerds toturing people on an island called guatomino can be considered a war crime. in Vetnam nepalm gas was used, that can be considered a war crime. Andrew jacksons attacking the indians can be consiedered a war crime. also killing 9 afgan children can be considered a war crime, I geuss i should word it like this american leaders have approved war crimes
Napalm wasn't barred till after the Vietnam war
Andrew Jackson was dead before there even was treaty on what is and isn't war crime
Torturing of prisoners (POW or not) is illegal but thats a can of worms am not going to open.
Civilians die while in warzone all the time its only war crime when its did on purpose (per my understanding)
Also use spell check, half of your post that I quoted is spelled wrong.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
I agree with all the above.
You are so right.
And it can come way worse anytime. Tokyo has a huge real estate value compared to U.S. metropoleis. If it ever suffers significant damage from an earthquake the rest of the world will have some business on their hands fighting deflation.
Suez crisis?
It's not that simple.
There are various arguments that can be made to the end that Germany as a society, civilisation, whatever actually peaked in the 20s.
Not in terms of military power of course, but i fail to see why that should be the parameter for "power" when it has failed so often.
You could argue that he is guilty of planning a war of aggression. Which is way worse.
It doesn't matter that much anyway. If they made it an announced policy to reduce their bonds as quickly as possible that would have severe consequences even if it takes decades to actually do it, i suppose.
I am confident they won't do that anyway for the reasons allready stated.
War crimes were largely defined with the Nürnberg Trials in mind.
So anything that touches on bombing civilians is pretty vague - for obvious reasons.
I suppose your argument refers to Protocol 3 of the CCW anyway. I remind you that a lot of nations have never signed that, including Turkey, Israel and South Korea.
So today you may consider the use of Napalm a war crime. You could just call it terrorism anyway.
Guantanamo on the other hand can very well qualify as the "war crime" of mistreating POWs or - if you consider them civilians - deportation of civilians and persecution of political groups in an occupied territory.
Torturing anybody really.
Article 5 of the UDHR applies to Manning as well.
If only rednecks were that creative while interpreting Leviticus...UDHR said:
And than there is that small group of heretic societies that consider capital punishment as "degrading" by definition...
I am fairly certain that there are no metrics for 'being a superpower' that do not include, uh, power. It might've been nicer and more interesting to live in Germany during the Weimar period than before or after, but that doesn't make it a superpower.
It get's kind of tricky with the term "superpower", but generally "power" doesn't go as naturally with military means as ZeletDude suggested. Actually that's the basis of the OP's concern (with which he isn't exactly alone).
If you are still not fine with that i can cut the wording into some thinner slices for you. If you feel this being a history forum and fun conversation being your profession makes that necessary.
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
Economists, can someone tell me if I'm right? Doesn't Japan issue government bonds at a lower interest rate than the U.S. and would thus be better off issuing more debt (which I believe the Japanese government itself buys) than trying to dump U.S. bonds?
Similar threads
