Send the USA the bill
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: peat moss
All tho tonge in cheek , its a feel good story ! Scary thought thou .
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=50900&id=2005042912240002861073
Posted by: Samurai
Wow.
Agreed though. If it was a US bomb that caused the injury they should pay. Same goes for if it was UK ordinance.
Posted by: zedaxax
and if the us don't pay after 10 days then send it to incasso with added rent
if they dont pay after 3 incassos send it to the world bank
Posted by: SideSwiped
You know, it's funny. Every little misdoing the US does is instant world criticism, but the Chinese communist government ratifies a law(how since no one outside the party has a say so)that gives China the right to use any and all force to prevent Taiwan from seeking it's freedom from China, but it seems that that kind of oppression is okay. You all also seem to think that Hussein's gasing of thousands of people was okay. And, what of the way Russians handle terrorists and civil unrest?
I'm sorry for the girl, that she lost a brother and suffered injuries, but, be realistic. The US does not provide healthcare for it's own citizens, and no matter what some outdated agreement says, I seriously doubt that this medical bill will be paid. She should have been sent to a US hospital if payment for services was so important.
Posted by: lynx
You know, it's funny. Every little misdoing the US does is instant world criticism, but the Chinese communist government ratifies a law(how since no one outside the party has a say so)that gives China the right to use any and all force to prevent Taiwan from seeking it's freedom from China, but it seems that that kind of oppression is okay.These governments also come in for criticism, but you seem to think we should not criticise western governments for their misdoings.You all also seem to think that Hussein's gasing of thousands of people was okay.No, it wasn't ok. Obviously, blowing them to pieces with bombs is so much better. And, what of the way Russians handle terrorists and civil unrest?WacoI'm sorry for the girl, that she lost a brother and suffered injuries, but, be realistic. The US does not provide healthcare for it's own citizens, and no matter what some outdated agreement says, I seriously doubt that this medical bill will be paid. She should have been sent to a US hospital if payment for services was so important.No, we wont hold our breath waiting for the US to respect international law.
Posted by: Samurai
well said lynx :)
Posted by: Biggles
Re: Taiwan, would a state be allowed to leave the Union? The last lot that tried triggered off a civil war.
Personally, I believe that Taiwan and California and anywhere else that wants to secede from a larger entity should be allowed to *cough Scotland cough*
Posted by: bigboab
These governments also come in for criticism, but you seem to think we should not criticise western governments for their misdoings.No, it wasn't ok. Obviously, blowing them to pieces with bombs is so much better.WacoNo, we wont hold our breath waiting for the US to respect international law.
There is an International Law? Does Tony Blair know? :unsure:
Posted by: JPaul
*cough Scotland cough*
One would have thought that if the majority of Scots felt this way then they would do better in the elections to the Scottish Executive.
Posted by: Busyman
You all also seem to think that Hussein's gasing of thousands of people was okay.
Who thinks it was okay? I personally think Saddam was scum but justifying going over there with the WMD thingie and then preaching "well he gassed thousands of people" was bullshit. I don't why you even bothered in this thread. The US has paid reparations to entire groups of people for similar displacements and injuries.
She should have been sent to a US hospital if payment for services was so important.
I can only partly agree with you there since I don't know the logistics of the situation.
Posted by: Biggles
One would have thought that if the majority of Scots felt this way then they would do better in the elections to the Scottish Executive.
True, although I was only talking about the principle, not whether it was desired at this moment in time.
Posted by: JPaul
True, although I was only talking about the principle, not whether it was desired at this moment in time.
Ah, sorry, thought you were making a party political interwebcast. I half expected to hear seen canary, speaking from the Carribean.
Posted by: GepperRankins
if you want independence you gotta have your politicians back
Posted by: JPaul
if you want independence you gotta have your politicians back
Indeed.
If we were independent why would we need elected representatives in a parliament which was no longer ours.
Posted by: Rat Faced
.....should be allowed to *cough Scotland cough*
I've told you... only if you move the borders back to those the Romans enjoyed.
Your not leaving us alone with those snobby bastards.
btw JPaul... who's Seen Connery lately?
Posted by: JPaul
I've told you... only if you move the borders back to those the Romans enjoyed.
Your not leaving us alone with those snobby bastards.
btw JPaul... who's Seen Connery lately?
:lol:
He hasn't bean sean in these parts recently.
Posted by: Tikibonbon
You know, it's funny. Every little misdoing the US does is instant world criticism, but the Chinese communist government ratifies a law(how since no one outside the party has a say so)that gives China the right to use any and all force to prevent Taiwan from seeking it's freedom from China, but it seems that that kind of oppression is okay. You all also seem to think that Hussein's gasing of thousands of people was okay. And, what of the way Russians handle terrorists and civil unrest?
I'm sorry for the girl, that she lost a brother and suffered injuries, but, be realistic. The US does not provide healthcare for it's own citizens, and no matter what some outdated agreement says, I seriously doubt that this medical bill will be paid. She should have been sent to a US hospital if payment for services was so important.
As long as the U.S. is one of, if not the most powerful countries in the world, it will be open to critizism. Just the way things have always been. If Italy currently enjoyed it's position it once held in Europe, but on a worldwide stage, you would see the same critizism the you see directed at the U.S. directed at the Italians.
It is almost in a way similiar to a retail establishment. After a bad experience in a shop, a person will tell an average of 10 people about it, but only about 2 or 3 people about a good experience. Hence, all you hear about now is the invasion, but never about the Americans, English, and whatnot who are against the war, but are in fact there trying to help people.
Of course, there will always be those that think a country is wholly evil, and label all citizens of a country as murders. But it is easy to ignore this sort of idiodicy. A truely informed person will be aware of the good things as well as the bad things. While they may never mention citizens of this "evil" country who are in places like Iraq trying to help instead of destroy, you can let them wallow in their pessimism and look to the good things in the world for inspiration.
Posted by: JPaul
If the USA and it's allies are willing to set up and fund hospitals in Iraq. If they are keen to treat civilians who were / are injured as a direct result of actions they have taken. Then surely it makes sense to pay for this treatment. One assumes that she was moved because the treatment was not available in Iraq. However that does not really change the responsibility for taking care of injured civilians.
Indeed, If we are supposed to be helping the new regime to get up and running, then surely medical care must be one of the main areas.
Having said that, I do not know the stance which the Belgian authorities took. If they supported the action, then it would make sense for them to cover the bill themselves.
Bear in mind this is not an action like the previous World war, where the allies bombed Germany, Japan etc as a direct response of attacks which they themselves had carried out. That being the case I see no moral responsibility in relation to injuries.
I personally think it behoves the allies to cover these costs. Even if it's just for the PR, if you disagree that there is a moral responsibility.
Posted by: Busyman
The only part I have a problem with is the fact that this was in Belgium and so sets a weird precedent.
Posted by: GepperRankins
The only part I have a problem with is the fact that this was in Belgium and so sets a weird precedent.
what do you have against belgium?
Posted by: JPaul
The only part I have a problem with is the fact that this was in Belgium and so sets a weird precedent.
Sorry, like GR I don't really know hat you mean by that. How does the Belgian element set a weird precedent.
Posted by: Busyman
Sorry, like GR I don't really know hat you mean by that. How does the Belgian element set a weird precedent.
Why was she treated there and what gives them the right to bill when she could have been sent to a different hospital?
I don't some of aspects of the situation (besides of course the US being the fault of it).
The US has before and probably will continue to pay for injuries and displacements of those hurt by collateral damage. The thing is, we send our own medical staff out there to help. Why was she sent to Belgium?
I mean for all I know, The US has paid for something like this before and this isn;t orecedent setting at all. I'm just curious.
If you look in bold, I don't know what that means.
He wonders what I have against Belgium.
You say you don't hat I'm saying.
Two different things. :huh:
Posted by: GepperRankins
Why was she treated there and what gives them the right to bill when she could have been sent to a different hospital?
I don't some of aspects of the situation (besides of course the US being the fault of it).
The US has before and probably will continue to pay for injuries and displacements of those hurt by collateral damage. The thing is, we send our own medical staff out there to help. Why was she sent to Belgium?
I mean for all I know, The US has paid for something like this before and this isn;t orecedent setting at all. I'm just curious.
If you look in bold, I don't know what that means.
He wonders what I have against Belgium.
You say you don't hat I'm saying.
Two different things. :huh:
the operation was probably not availible in iraq, so she got airlifted to the best, quickest hospital that she could before it was too late
Posted by: JPaul
I mean for all I know, The US has paid for something like this before and this isn;t orecedent setting at all. I'm just curious.
If you look in bold, I don't know what that means.
Oh don't you, really. I strongly suspect that you do.
Please to be removing the plank from your eye, prior to removing the splinter from mine.
One assumes that the medical people sent her to the best place available, given time restraints and other factors.
One also assumes that the USA is being held accountable on the basis that it was ordnance used by the USA which caused the damage.
Posted by: JPaul
I don't some of aspects of the situation
Good point, I assume.
Probably better with a verb, but hey ho.
Posted by: JPaul
(besides of course the US being the fault of it).
I am willing to wager that you say things like "you're not the boss of me".
Posted by: JPaul
He wonders what I have against Belgium.
You say you don't hat I'm saying.
Two different things. :huh:
I actually said "I don't really know hat you mean by that".
Both a mis-quote and the word "know" missing. Yet you take me to task on one letter.
Again with the plank / splinter.
Game on methinks, may the better man win. Know hat I mean.
Posted by: Busyman
I actually said "I don't really know hat you mean by that".
Both a mis-quote and the word "know" missing. Yet you take me to task on one letter.
Again with the plank / splinter.
Game on methinks, may the better man win. Know hat I mean.
I wasn't taking you to task on a letter ya nutjob.
Gep says what do I have against Belgium.
You express something different (hence, you don't know what I mean, he thinks he knows what I mean).
Posted by: GepperRankins
we both understand what you said. we were just toying with the fact that you don't