Photo code:

The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America[109] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice which ruled in Nicaragua's favor, and found that the United States had violated international law. The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force", specifically that it was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" by direct acts of U.S. personnel and by the supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The ICJ ordered the U.S. to pay reparations. The US was not imputable for possible human rights violations done by the Contras. The case led to considerable debate concerning the issue of the extent to which state support of terrorists implicates the state itself.[117] A consensus among scholars of international law had not been reached by the mid-2000s.[117]

U.S. foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky argued that the U.S. was legally found guilty of international terrorism based on this verdict, which condemned the United States federal government for "unlawful use of force".[118][119]

The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism" — ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim.
—Noam Chomsky, interview on Pakistan Television[120]

The essence of this view of U.S. actions in Nicaruaga was supported by Oscar Schachter: "When a government provides weapons, technical advice, transportation, aid and encouragement to terrorists on a substantial scale it is not unreasonable to conclude that the armed attack is imputable to that government."

Following the rise to power of the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Ronald Reagan administration ordered the CIA to organize and train the Contras, a right wing guerrilla group. On December 1, 1981, President Reagan signed an initial, one-paragraph "Finding" authorizing the CIA's paramilitary war against Nicaragua.[

The main cause I hear for the USA's decline as an industrial power is just one. Those directly effected by WWII (actual harm to the economy or infrastructure from bombs, etc) rebuilt. China.. it changed from a 'communist' country to a mixed economy. Same with the old Soviet block.

Seems a mixed economy is the best.

Artful Dodger: You really do have no understanding of economics do you!! The banks were working via rules that were relaxed by federal law because the financial market wanted it so... A Republican government made it that the financial system could break reasonable laws on risk n' profit.

Your country spends about 40-50% of it's GDP on military related costs.

"Many companies can no longer afford the huge payouts to union workers. Reasonable pay is one thing. But unions force companies to fail with their huge demands and unwillingness to budge in their demands"

The German economy is one of the strongest in Europe.. it has worker representation on the board and vote in the hiring and firing of management.

"don't want fundamental changes to the country. "

... and what if those changes are needed despite what you want?

Übergeek 바둑이:

"failing to realize that the US is a country that cannot change."

Based on your assumptions and bias that America should change. The majority of Americans like the US and don't want fundamental changes to the country.

"Instead the US is more militarized than ever and the American government is constatnly trying to find enemies to justify the ever increasing militarization of the American economy. "

A mis-characterization. The US doesn't have to find enemies that don't exist. We live in a volatile world. The enemies are there. Look around.

"Rather than accept that the Capitalist system has some serious flaws and contradictions, the American government decided to intervene and save a failed financial system."

Nonsense. Capitalism is a successful system. The system didn't fail. The banks operated outside accepted rules in a capitalist system. The government violated another capitalist rule by intervening. The system would weed out the failures and the survivors would NOT make those same mistakes.

"Americans do not want to see that the current economic system is unsustainable."

It's sustained quite well for a long time. What has to happen is for the government to allow for big compainies to fail when their time is up. Nothing lasts forever.

Another serious problem in the US is Union thuggery. Many companies can no longer afford the huge payouts to union workers. Reasonable pay is one thing. But unions force companies to fail with their huge demands and unwillingness to budge in their demands. I've seen this sort of thing in huge businesses in Minnesota. The huge demands from the unions, topped off with huge taxes from the government.

"Maintaining the military system and the banks has come at a high price."

You have to have a strong military if your a country the size of the US and particularly because of our place in the world.

As for the governments involvement in the banks - a very bad idea. It's not the government's job and they should stay out of it.

"Funds that were meant to provide for social services and "entitlements" "

We need to decrease the social services and entitlements we provide at the federal level. We've created generations of lazy do-nothings as a result. Generational poverty is a product of entitlements.

The US system has proven over time to be a very effective system. The Progressives in this country have for years sought to make minor changes here and there and have succeeded in many ways. Bottom line: people need to get off their butts, work hard, find one or two jobs, do what you have to do, and quit relying on government handouts to get by. The government in the US wasn't created to babysit its citizens.

Übergeek 바둑이: It doesn't matter what that money was for. What matters is the larger point. Reckless spending. And even while there is no money to pay for it, and the public at large is against it, Obama and his lemmings pass the huge (and unread) Health Care Bill (for which there will not be enough money to pay for the monster).

Artful Dodger:

> That's what is meant by wanting him to fail. We want Obama's efforts to fundamentally
> change America to fail because we believe he is taking us in the WRONG direction.

I think that Obama's true failure is not in trying to change the US, but in failing to realize that the US is a country that cannot change. The American political, legal and economic systems have become such that the US can no longer see itself in a different way. The United States has an inertia to change, and Barack Obama fails to accept that. The US is very good at technical change (computers, cell phones, satellites, etc.) but it has become fossilized in its inability to change politically or socially.

Certain things point to the American failure to accept change. For example, the nuclear threat fo the Cold War and the thousands of soldiers killed in imperialist wars should have given Americans a distaste for war. Instead the US is more militarized than ever and the American government is constatnly trying to find enemies to justify the ever increasing militarization of the American economy. The situation is such that one of the main sustainers of the American economy is the congressional-industrial-military complex.

Another example of the American unwillingness to change is the bailouts to the banks. Rather than accept that the Capitalist system has some serious flaws and contradictions, the American government decided to intervene and save a failed financial system. In the past the cyclical collapse of the financial system pointed to the recurring crises in Capitalism. Rather than accept that there is a need for change in the economic system, the Us refuses change and decides to save banks in order to maintain the status quo.

Americans do not want to see that the current economic system is unsustainable. For a long time the largest companies in the World were American companies. General Motors used to be the biggest until it nearly collapsed. Now Toyota and Hyundai compete for the top spot in the automobile manufacturing sector. Exxon remains the biggest oil company in the World, but at its current rate of growth, Russian giant Gazprom will be the biggest energy company by 2020. The largest steel manufacturers in the world are now Arcelor Mittal (based in Luxembourg and India), Shanghai Baosteel (in China) and Posco (in South Korea). United States Steel Corp. is now ranked 11th in the World when 100 years ago it produced 60% of the World's steel and was the largest company in the world. At the current pace China will have the largest economy in the World by 2017.

Since light and heavy manufacturing have slowly shifted overseas, the US has sunk into a masive trade deficit that is eating away at the American economy. The response to this presented itself in banks taking more aggressive and more risky investment strategies that eventually led to the collapse of 2008. At the same time, the increasing militarization of the US has been used as a way to stimulate economic and technological development.

Maintaining the military system and the banks has come at a high price. Funds that were meant to provide for social services and "entitlements" were heavily diverted mostly to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. People have already forgotten George W. Bush going to congress to literally "beg" for more funds because the war effort in Iraq was constantly running out of money (or course, to the benefit of companies like Haliburton, who made hundreds of billions out of the War). Congress simply shifted funds that were "earmarked" for the pension system and reallocated them to the Pentagon. In doing so the War in Iraq was paid with the pensions of the Baby Boomer generation.

Alan Greenspan (former chair fo the Federal Reserve) warned that by 2017 the pension system could run out of funds. At the same time, as many of the poorer segments of American society retire, the stress on the healthcare system will increase.

Barack Obama tried to rectify some of this economic problems, but he failed to realize how reluctant to change the American public is. Americans want to have it all: the biggest economy, the most powerful military, the highest standard of living, AND the lowest taxes. Therein lies the contradiction. You can have a big military by taking from the poor and reallocating money to the pursuit of military might. You can have a high standard of living with good pensions and good healthcare, but only by having a higher rate of taxation. You can have the largest economy in the world if the manufacturing sector is strong, but all manufacturing is now done overseas. Something has to give: either a smaller military, a lower standard of living, or higher taxes.

Barack Obama pretends to want to change things, but does nothing to change the nature of the system. That is why Barack Obama is failing and the public, unable to see what the true nature of the problem is, will simply hand both houses to Republicans, thus making sure that the US is politically, economically and socially stuck for several more years. Republicans behave as if everything is fine with this political and economic inertia. The question is, what will the US do when China becomes the largest economy in the World in 2017? That is only 7 years from now and the way things are looking it is quite likely that Sarah Palin will be in office by then!

Artful Dodger:

> Obama has borrowed 3.5 Trillion in just 19 months.

Enlighten me. How much of that was for the bailouts for the banks? And who came up with the bailouts in the first place?

Artful Dodger: No people stated that it was a foolish policy, it was illegal, it was ill planned, Blair lied, Bush lied. That is not the same as wanting to fail, that is honest opinion.. Many people did not want to send our troops into a war that did not need to be.

As for waterboarding.... IT IS TORTURE. If you support torture by the USA then you cannot condone when other regime's do it. It is considered a crime by most if not all normal people and courts in the whole world.. it is considered a war crime by just about every court in the world.

Tuesday: It does seem to have gotten worse since Obama got into office.

Artful Dodger: !!!!!!

If you were to do the math PROPERLY... then you'd understand that this statement is as accurate as the old idea the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

$1,000,000 234 years ago is not the same as $1,000,000 now. For things like inflation the actual value of something bought, sold or borrowed, has to adjusted to allow for time. The dollar today (same with any currency) just ain't worth what it was back in da old days.

I used an online inflation calculator and it came up .....

... If you bought something in 1940 for $1000 it would cost, due to inflation.... $15,572.21 in 2010...... a rate of inflation change of 1457.2%

http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/

Snoopy: ROFL....@ the video

A blogger has opined:

We have come a long way in the last twenty months. The President of the United States, his Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader in the United States Senate have done for the Republican Party what no Republican could have accomplished. Just as rigor mortis was about to set in, they brought the old corpse back to life. For their efforts on our behalf, we should be forever grateful.

--it's not well understood by Democrats that what has taken place, the demise of their power, was due to their own unpopular policies and arrogant elitist attitudes. The people responded (unlike in the way one uninformed poster here tried to portray it) from the average man up. It is a grassroots movement and it's going to unseat a huge majority of Democrats. It's also targeted Republicans who also, "don't get it."

You would do well to pay attention because your party can never regain power in the same way, unless it makes some serious changes. Republicans can never hold power unless they make some serious changes. It's a double edge sword.

Tuesday: You wanted Bush to fail in his Iraq policy. You didn't support his administration's policy on waterboarding. You wanted him to fail.

Saying you wanted him to succeed and then acting otherwise. I'll take your actions before your words.

As for me, YES, I want Obama to fail. I want his Health Care bill to fail. I want Cap and Trade to fail. I want his Foreign Policy to fail. I want MOST of his attempts at changing the US to fail.

Do you not understand that the reason Obama is so unpopular and that the Democrats stand to lose the House and the Senate is that people want them to fail. They don't want the Democratic vision for America. They are rejecting it.

That's what is meant by wanting him to fail. We want Obama's efforts to fundamentally change America to fail because we believe he is taking us in the WRONG direction.

Tuesday: He's not done well for the Country. He's hurting us. He's a horrible president and more and more people (liberals and independents - those that voted for him) are coming to this same decision.

rod03801: That's certainly true on this board. I can own that. I'd gladly debate the issues with people here but honestly, there are few here that actually understand what a cogent argument looks like. You get only anecdotal evidence or the usual, "Well what about Bush?" Even Obama plays the "What about Bush?" card.

There are some serious issues with the way Obama is running this country. And even more serious concerns with the way the Democrats have ramrodded through their unpopular policies. When they are unseated, they won't understand that the US people are rejecting their ideas. They are the party of the arrogant.

The Republicans lost the last election for the same reason. And if they don't get back to what the people want, they will be voted out of office in the next go around.

I think it's time for term limits and some serious restrictions on how much money one can use in a campaign.

Lawmakers should have the same insurance and retirement programs as their other public servant counterparts. They get too many perks.

Anyone in public service at the highest levels, if they break the law, they should have all their money earned as public servants forfeited. And they should do double or triple jail time.

Artful Dodger: both sides only seem to be able to whine about each other, and throw insults back and forth. And both act innocent about it, and both act like the other side is worse..

It's crazy to me.

Both sides are equally bad.

Tuesday: And all you ever did was bad mouth his decisions. YOu called the tea party derogatory names, Republican's vultures, and a host of other names. on and on and on

rod03801:

Tuesday: "On the human scale Bush and Cheney are just as bad as the terrorists."

"It's human nature to want to retaliate against barbarians....which Bush and Cheney are."

If you say you wanted Bush to succeed, you meant succeed at YOUR ideas not his.

Frankly I don't care about Bush any longer as he's NOT the prez. Obama is and Obama's record is worse than any recent President INCLUDING Carter.

Tuesday: You NEVER said that.

I want Obama to fail. And so far, he's doing just that.

Übergeek 바둑이: Bush isn't the President.

Please do the math. In 234 years, we borrowed 9 trillion dollars. That's 12168 months. That's a Trillion every 152 months or every 12.6 years.

Obama has borrowed 3.5 Trillion in just 19 months. That's 2241.5 TRILLION over the 234 years. It's NOT just a little more than Bush, it's significantly more. It's insane. It's more than ALL other past presidents COMBINED.

Tuesday: Think again.

Tuesday: No more biased than you are about Bush and republicans. I definitely can't be bothered to waste my time searching for the posts where you have stooped below the level that "V" was mentioning in his post that I responded to. I don't care enough, and your opinion doesn't affect me in the slightest bit, as mine doesn't affect you. Get over it.

Bernice:

**poof**

The Col: We are the Conser's here what about the nutty repubs we already no the Libs are nutty Col chickin man

Ferris Bueller: Or them using some old 'new deal' law that allows them to have a their cattle businesses graze free on federal land without the tax payers seeing a penny.

Ferris Bueller: I read about them.... going on about not letting people tread on you then getting compulsory sale orders on where they wanted a pipeline.

Nice... not.

rod03801: To a certain respect I can disagree. Our UK law though respecting freedom of speech also respects that people can go over the top. In that.. you are right ALL sides do it. Yet here in the UK .. criminal prosecution can follow.

The Col: if i where you i would be here Col chickin & if you ever find the time i sent you messages in private please reply to them Pal this goes back to where i first post to you here Pal & met you bud

(V): Um, maybe YOU personally didn't.
"We "libs" (as you call us) did not go to the lengths to disrespect Bush as you do Obama. We had a go at policy, mistakes as you'd expect."

But plenty of "libs" have gone to even greater lengths. Including a few posters on this board. Don't get me wrong, I have JUST AS LITTLE respect for George Bush as I do for Obama.
My point is that your statement is not accurate at all.

Plus, it's all just foolishness anyway. Both sides do the exact same thing. Regardless of if "2 wrongs, don't make a right".
Until the end of time, Dem's will insult republicans, and republicans will insult dem's. It's just silly for either side to whine about the other side doing it. Both sides are just as good at being nasty.

Tuesday: ...... that is not a good sign. It also blows to high heaven this board's conservative element and them forever them harking on about how they have so little mediaon 'their' side.. guess for them radio and newspapers don't count.. or that of some strange new invention called "the in-ter-net"

Tuesday: What did happen?

Tuesday: Our last government bailed out the banks as did Obama even though Bush knew it was coming..

.. If they had failed, the entire financial system would have collapsed. Anyone wishing that to happen is either nuts, ignorant, stupid or a combination of all three.

Tuesday: Well if that is the case then the right does not deserve to be in power. Any party that gloats on the failure of it's government when such failure causes suffering to it's own fellow citizens is not worthy of being elected. Locked up in an asylum more like!!