> tavius wrote:

> People in those UHC countries get access to top class health services. It's not like they have to miss out on MRIs or complicated surgeries under their healthcare systems.

top class healthcare in the US isnt the people that get MRI's or complicated surgeries; thats pretty basic.

> Undeath wrote:

> theoretically, thats impossible

dont challenge them, they'll find a way.

the US pays alot for healthcare because the US is wealthy, and the wealthy are willing to pay more for better healthcare; they literally buy the best healthcare in the world, and that is a large amount of the money spent on healthcare in the US.

Lions are gonna do worse then last year!

"First off, thank you for your sensible reply which is a nice breath of fresh air."

"so suicide bombing is okay as long as u take out the suicide part and rather just place a bomb and kill civilians?"

why couldnt you have replied the favor? i said both were wrong, one was more wrong. and now you're claiming i said one was ok. you are not interested in sensible replies, you're full of bullshit.

"And yes he did save the lives of many of his men who would have died if the war prolonged"

that wasnt what i was referring to; hundreds of thousands of asians were dieing from starvation because of the war. a quick resolution was needed to save millions of civilian lives.

"What difference does it make whether he killed himself or not?"

i already explained it, to accept the repercussions of your actions.

"So bombers who die for their country in hopes that it will save more of their own men, women, and children also made a good decision."

no, i didnt say truman made a good decision, and im not saying the suicide bombers made a good decision. im saying both of them made morally bad decisions, one is morally worse then the other.

"Exactly... your enemy targets civilians so why not you? What difference does it make if targetting of civilians was or was not accepted in that time period? All that matters is the two sides of the conflict today. If one side does not care for these rules that are "widely accepted" then what?"

"why not you?" because the morallity of the world condemns it. the reason why it matters what was accepted at the time is the same reason why some behavior is acceptable for a 2 year old that isnt acceptable for an adult. our culture has made such things unacceptable,  you cannot claim the innocence of the past.  if one side of the conflict does not care for these morals, then they will alienate themselves from the world and will eventually fall.  look at korea. the two sides adheared to different values, one is supported by the west, one is way better off then the other.

btw, i've been at the beach for a week, if you're wondering why it took me so long to respond.

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> as far as I know, pussy and vagina are allowed words.. :\

apparently its only against the rules for me to type p*ssy.

theres a difference between killing civilians and targeting them. if both sides are targeting civilians. one is dressing up as civilians, thats one worse for them. if they're suicide bombing thats another lvl of worse. targeting civilians bad. disguising civilians bad. escaping all responsibility for your actions by blowing yourself up also bad.

> Red_Rooster wrote:

> I would agree that targetting civilians is wrong... if both sides of a conflict agree to the rules and adhere to them. But it would simply be unfair to put that burden of not targetting civilians on one side only and not punishing the side that violates the agreement.

Since suicide bombing itself is not wrong, I don't believe it can be said that targetting civilians with suicide bombing is wrong either if your enemy does not care for civilian lives either. Granted that your cause is a just cause.... like fighting so that the lives of your children and grandchildren dont have to be oppressed

define a just cause. what makes a cause just? everyone thinks their cause is just. does that mean some liberal fresh out of college is morally right to kill Rush Limbaugh? ofcoarse not. oppression is subjective; what is just is subjective, what is morally right is subjective. however, something that is universally discouraged on earth, is the targeting of civilians; whoever does it is gonna lose support for their cause. there is no excuse to target them. also, disguising yourself as civilian is also discouraged internationally, because disguising as civilians endangers civilians.  yes, you are free to think targeting civilians isnt wrong and you're free to think slavery isnt wrong; and there is no logical way to disprove you; because morals arent logical. but most countries will not support you.

nah man, life isnt over once you get some grey hairs. thats the time when you go for some barely legal [ ]. there are tons of teenage girls thinking all the guys their age are immature, and they're looking to [ ]older guys, and you can be one of those guys.

they listed like 4 or 5 countries, they werent going largest to smallest... ofcoarse they're going to include the US as one of them, its an American show...

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> > "the two highest IQs ever recorded (on a standard test) both belong to women."

Proof please X(.

they probably just slept with their test giver

actually i bet its because woman are so competitive. professors have called me a genius, but i dont feel the need to take an iq test and prove it. on the other hand, a woman would because they're so competitive against other women, they'd be like, "oh yeah bitch? well look at my IQ test, i'm a genius you dumb [duck]!"