NationStates Jolt Archive

1 According to international law, when is it legal to invade another country?

2 Which country has most often lawfully invaded another country?

3 Which country has most often unlawfully invaded another country?

4 What is a terrorist state?

5 Now, answer truthfully, is this flamebait?

6 If so, why?

1 According to international law, when is it legal to invade another country?

2 Which country has most often lawfully invaded another country?

3 Which country has most often unlawfully invaded another country?

4 What is a terrorist state?

5 Now, answer truthfully, is this flamebait?

6 If so, why?
NEAR AS I KNOW...

Current international law suggests that it is legal to invade another country when they present an imminent threat to the invading country. No state is constrained to wait for the first shot, pre-emptive strikes are allowed, but "preventitive" strikes fall into a gray area, along with "punitive" actions.

Some definitions for you.
"Pre-emptive" destroy the army as it masses on the border.
"Preventitive" destroy the army before it can mass at all.
"Punitive" destroy the army after it does something you don't like.

I would characterize the US action in Iraq a falling deep inside the gray areas of preventitive and punitive actions, it was an a punitive stance after the first gulf war, the current US doctrine is preventitive/pre-emptive mixed.

An interesting comparison would be Pearl Harbor; To the Japanese Imperial Navy, it could easily be seen as a Pre-emptive strike. Japan was under a crippling embargo and knew it would have to act switfly or be crushed by superior US size and numbers. However, their decleration of war was mishandled and arrived AFTER Pearl Harbor was bombed. America thus described the attack as a "sneak attack" one more preventitive in nature, since America was not mobilizing. (Japan was seeking to prevent the US navy from interfering with their seizure of strategic reasources in the pacific)

2) I dunno, probably Mongolia or Rome perhaps? Or are we talking modern, and thus USA?

3) I dunno, probably Mongolia or Rome perhaps? Or are we talking modern, and thus USA? (Germany of WW2 era might qualify, ditto Japan...)

4) A state that is composed of, officially supports, or unnofficially supports, terrorists and terrorism. With the stipulation that it is not a current US ally nor a strong member of the greater international community.

I suppose this would be considered Realpolitik huh? The US has and will support/ignore terrorist regimes so long as they serve our larger strategic visions. Those that do not are usually ignored until they make themselves noticeable. They are then isolated from the international community and ignored again or crushed.

5) Not to me, though it could easily be seen as it by those with an ax to grind. My ax is sharp enough thanks.

Niccolo Medici - I think you're mixing up International law with American law, they actually don't match.

Under the UN charter pre-emptive war is forbidden unless they can show it's for self defense, in which case the USA failed to do in the case of Iraq, but did manage to do in the case of Afghanistan. According to International law the Iraq war was illegal.

Now of course the UN charter only counts as law if you're a signatory member, which of course the United States is.

Niccolo Medici - I think you're mixing up International law with American law, they actually don't match.

Under the UN charter pre-emptive war is forbidden unless they can show it's for self defense, in which case the USA failed to do in the case of Iraq, but did manage to do in the case of Afghanistan. According to International law the Iraq war was illegal.

Now of course the UN charter only counts as law if you're a signatory member, which of course the United States is.

That's of course at the heart of the matter, I was attempting to describe that very conflict of terminology you refer to.

Yes, pre-emptive war is forbidden unless you can show its for self-defense...but what would you call launching the first strike if not pre-emptive? If the army masses on the border, makes threatening statements, etc, and you launch a strike before they do, are you not striking first blow in self defense? Are you not Pre-empting their attack?

That is what I believe the International laws are describing. A strike launched first, but only launched because it to wait would prove fatal.

When I say "Preventitive"; I mean what the US ACTUALLY did in Iraq; strike before a state was a threat, (now argued) in order to prevent it from becoming a threat. The US administration believed it was pre-emptive, the US administration believed that an Iraqi strike was "imminent" and thus they were simply hitting Iraq first.

What they found later was that their pre-emptive strike was actually an invasion of an incapable foe; one with bad intentions but no capability to carry them out at the time. Thus the US said it prevented Iraq from becoming a threat by invading; "Preventitive strike" not "Pre-emptive"

Thus the Pearl Harbor analogy; Japan and the US both assumed that their quarry was preparing for military action, both struck, both found out later that they had made several mistakes. Japan "woke the sleeping dragon" and the US opened the door to a new den of terrorists.

Do I make myself a little more clear? Its a difficult topic to clearly define, and perhaps I'm not using words as skillfully as I should. I've been up for about 20 hours though, so forgive me if I am incoherant in my ramblings.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; schoolbook example of unlawfulness allright. The retaliation, was it not agreed by sec. counsel? If it was, then lawful.

Self defence is considered an 'inherent right' according to that Charter, but only against an armed attack. Can it be imminent? If it can, then first strike can be legal. Which would open a Pandora's box. Especally in the case of those countries that feel threatened by, i.e. the U.S.

It sure is fun to watch the law develope!

1 According to international law, when is it legal to invade another country?

There is no international law, there are only treaties.

However, there is a pretty well developed theory of just war (http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm, http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$595). It consists of justice of war (the reason for it) and justice in war (the way it is waged).

Justice of war consists of: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.

Justice in war consists of: discrimination and proportionality.

Each of these requires a lengthy explanation, but suffice it to say that in my interpretation invading a totalitarian country for the purpose of regime change has just cause and right intention, at a minimum.

My source above has the following to say: "Self-defense against physical aggression, therefore, is putatively the only sufficient reason for just cause. Nonetheless, the principle of self-defense can be extrapolated to anticipate probable acts of aggression, as well as in assisting others against an oppressive government or from another external threat."

2 Which country has most often lawfully invaded another country?

For this and the next question, it's easier to think of "on the largest scale" rather than "most often" because "most often" raises the question of what constitutes a separate invasion, which is actually pretty hard to answer (e.g. the Indo-China wars, one invasion or a dozen?). Scale here means the size of and population of invaded territories. Also I will restrict this to history since 1900 (i.e. the 20th and 21st centuries only).

The US has lawfully invaded other countries on the greatest scale since 1900. The UK is probably in second place.

3 Which country has most often unlawfully invaded another country?

Germany, Japan or Russia have unlawfully invaded other countries on the greatest scale since 1900. I am not sure which one is in the lead, but it is probably Germany. China is a runner-up.

4 What is a terrorist state?

A state that engages in terrorist acts, or which sponsors or harbors terrorists.

A terrorist is someone who breaks the laws of war (i.e. the jusitce in war principle). Most commonly, it is someone who deliberately targets civilians, or someone who pretends to be a civilian (both of which violate the principle of discrimination). It may also be someone who commits acts of perfidy (executing hostages, attacking under a flag of truce, etc), or someone who uses grossly disproportionate force.

5 Now, answer truthfully, is this flamebait?

Yes.

6 If so, why?

Because people will start arguing about Iraq. I can feel the heat of the flames already ;)

It is incorrect and pretty inane to argue what America did in Iraq (this time) could be justified in an international court. Furthermore, it is probably not a good idea for America to suggest that what they did in Iraq was right.

If America (citizens) were to view itself in the same light that it views its "enemies," we might have a drastic shift in the way things operate.

Could you imagine North Korea's, Iran's and many other states response to this? If this is how THE SUPERPOWER deals with issues why can't everyone else? "Preventitive" war sets a dangerous precedent. One because it demonstrated the Admins willingness to attack without due cause, and secondly it showed the world and specifically weaker parties that disagree with America / feel threatened by them that they are justified in attacking -under the admins own logic. The administration "thought"(this can even be debated) Iraq had WMD. North Korea and Iran KNOW America has WMD.

This thread reminds me of something totally unrelated...
Some friends of mine invaded Canada.
They went and stood in some town square and said that they were the new rulers.
They put up a tiny American flag on a stick, then decided that was stupid and burned it. They then put up a blank flag and said "Okay, we're taking suggestions for a flag..."
And left.
At least that's what they told me.
It might be totally apocryphal, but it's funny either way.

I hope I didn't just kill the thread...

It is incorrect and pretty inane to argue what America did in Iraq could be justified in an international court.

There is no international court that has, or could have, jurisdiction. The real question is whether it can be justified in good conscience, not in a court.

Furthermore, it is probably not a good idea for America to suggest that what they did in Iraq was right.

Perhaps you would like to argue why it was not right, then? Please refer to the theory (theories) of just war that I have summarized in my previous post.

If America (citizens) were to view itself in the same light that it views its "enemies," we might have a drastic shift in the way things operate. Could you imagine North Korea's, Iran's and many other states response to this? If this is how THE SUPERPOWER deals with issues why can't everyone else?

Because they have no just cause or right intention.

One because it demonstrated the Admins willingness to attack without due cause ...

What is your idea of due cause?

and secondly it showed the world and specifically weaker parties that disagree with America / feel threatened by them that they are justified in attacking -under the admins own logic.

No, they are not. Unless they'd like to overthrow tyrants and spread democracy? ...didn't think so.

There is no international law, there are only treaties.

This requires some explanation... there may be international justice, but there is no international law per se. The supposed sources of international law are treaties, custom, and general principles. Treaties are voluntary and may be repealed at will. Custom is one big gray area. A particularly strong form of customary law are peremptory norms, or customs which apply to everyone, but those are poorly defined as well. General principles come from various countries' legal systems and may be in disagreement, to say the least.

Now the interesting point is what happens if there is a dispute or disagreement. There is no court having jurisdiction over such disputes in general. The International Court of Justice and other bodies set up by the UN have jurisdiction only over those disputes in which the parties consent to give them jurisdiction. What about unwilling parties? Well, there is simply no way to adjudicate disputes in that case.

So, to sum up, we have
a) treaties, which may be repealed at will
b) customary law, which is undefined
c) peremproty norms, which are poorly defined
d) general principles, which conflict
e) no courts having jurisdiction

That doesn't sound like much of a legal system, does it?

That's why I say "only treaties"... as long as each country involved wants to follow their treaty obligations, things work more or less smoothly, but the moment they don't, and if they don't want to submit to the jurisdiction of any court, there's damn all you can do, legally. What they do may be unjust, but it won't be illegal.

Sooo, noone wants to reply?

Let me toss a couple more tidbits...

In the US a general principle is that sovereignity comes from the "just consent of the governed". So-called "Countries" in which that is not true are not sovereign, they are simply territories without a government, therefore we are not waging war on a sovereign, we are simply assisting in establishing a sovereign government.

Not engaging in genocide is a peremptory norm, therefore any nation has a legal duty to take any actions necessary to stop genocide. There was genocide in Iraq, therefore we were required to go in regardless of, and even contrary to, any UN resolution on the subject (since peremptory norms override treaties).

Well, anyone still want to explain why it was an "illegal" war?

Sooo, noone wants to reply?

Let me toss a couple more tidbits...

In the US a general principle is that sovereignity comes from the "just consent of the governed". So-called "Countries" in which that is not true are not sovereign, they are simply territories without a government, therefore we are not waging war on a sovereign, we are simply assisting in establishing a sovereign government.

Not engaging in genocide is a peremptory norm, therefore any nation has a legal duty to take any actions necessary to stop genocide. There was genocide in Iraq, therefore we were required to go in regardless of, and even contrary to, any UN resolution on the subject (since peremptory norms override treaties).

Well, anyone still want to explain why it was an "illegal" war?


USA joined the UN, agreed to abide to its rules (the US actually helped write them).

- The last UN resolution on iraq prior to the war said something like "If the UN inspectors say that Iraq is showing reduced cooperation, then bombs away". The thing is, Hans blix and is team of dogs screamed like hell that iraq was slowly cooperating, and no proof of WMD had been found. Despite this, the USA attacked, claiming that their own sources told them that Iraq had WMD's, and other stuff that only a wacko could think off (Any chemical engineer will tell you that storing dangerous volatile chemicals in "mobile labs" is insane). The US never bothered even checking the info of its allies, or of the UN itself. It just wanted to bomb, bomb, bomb.

- The US does not have the right to impose its concept of sovereignty on any other country. Well, you can try, but then dont be surprised to be hated. And old friend of my father, a semi-comunist, that fought our fascist regime, once told me that if any country, the USA or the USSR had invaded my country, he would stop fighting the fascists and help fight the invaders. Other people, in other countries, are patriots too. There are other values than those of the western democracies.

- There wasnt genocide in Iraq. But there was (and is) in Darfur, why not invade darfur?


And about righteous war.. For a communist, "freeing" the people from "capitalist opression blablabla" may be righteous cause. They can justify it. Offcourse, the invaded would disagree, but they would still claim righteousness. Like someone said, the US opened a pandora's box.

USA joined the UN, agreed to abide to its rules.

Well, treaties (and the UN is basically one very big system of treaties) are voluntary, a country can withdraw from them whenever it wants. I think the reason you are bringing the UN up is because you think that the US broke UN rules in invading Iraq. Seems to me it actually didn't break any rules, because peremptory norms override treaties.

The last UN resolution on iraq prior to the war said something like "If the UN inspectors say that Iraq is showing reduced cooperation, then bombs away". The thing is, Hans blix and is team of dogs screamed like hell that iraq was slowly cooperating, and no proof of WMD had been found.

Iraq had been cooperating for a decade, and there were still areas that inspectors could not go to.

Despite this, the USA attacked, claiming that their own sources told them that Iraq had WMD's, and other stuff that only a wacko could think off (Any chemical engineer will tell you that storing dangerous volatile chemicals in "mobile labs" is insane).

A lot of people said that. Storing chemicals? Nobody claimed that. Producing them? Well, that's a bit different. Also for binary agents each component is almost harmless.

The US never bothered even checking the info of its allies, or of the UN itself.

Hmm, let's see, who told us they had WMDs and/or terror ties: Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Czechoslovakia, the UK... never bothered, right.

The US does not have the right to impose its concept of sovereignty on any other country.

Well, the damnedest thing is that, if you're arguing legality rather than justice, it does have that right... or at least has a reasonable claim to it, and there is no court which is competent to rule on that claim.

Well, you can try, but then dont be surprised to be hated. And old friend of my father, a semi-comunist, that fought our fascist regime, once told me that if any country, the USA or the USSR had invaded my country, he would stop fighting the fascists and help fight the invaders.

That's just great... good thing most of Europe (Belgium , France, etc etc) had better sense than that.

There are other values than those of the western democracies.

Does Saddam represent those values or is he just a thug staing in power by force of arms?

There wasnt genocide in Iraq.

300,000 to 500,000 dead people is genocide.

But there was (and is) in Darfur, why not invade darfur?

Yes, there is, and I think we should. Well, start by issuing an ultimatum of course.

And about righteous war.

I didn't say "righteous", I said just war. The concept I describe dates way back, to Thomas Aquinas, but was developed in its present form in the mid-1600's.

Like someone said, the US opened a pandora's box.

It's never been closed. Clashes of ideas get settled by clashes of arms.

I don't particularly care what anyone else thinks is just... I have eyes, a brain, and a bit of common sense, and I can decide for myself, thank you. A communist may think whatever they want, but I may think their philosophy is responsible for 100 million deaths, and treat what they think accordingly.

Well, treaties (and the UN is basically one very big system of treaties) are voluntary, a country can withdraw from them whenever it wants. I think the reason you are bringing the UN up is because you think that the US broke UN rules in invading Iraq. Seems to me it actually didn't break any rules, because peremptory norms override treaties.



Iraq had been cooperating for a decade, and there were still areas that inspectors could not go to.



A lot of people said that. Storing chemicals? Nobody claimed that. Producing them? Well, that's a bit different. Also for binary agents each component is almost harmless.



Hmm, let's see, who told us they had WMDs and/or terror ties: Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Czechoslovakia, the UK... never bothered, right.



Well, the damnedest thing is that, if you're arguing legality rather than justice, it does have that right... or at least has a reasonable claim to it, and there is no court which is competent to rule on that claim.



That's just great... good thing most of Europe (Belgium , France, etc etc) had better sense than that.



Does Saddam represent those values or is he just a thug staing in power by force of arms?



300,000 to 500,000 dead people is genocide.



Yes, there is, and I think we should. Well, start by issuing an ultimatum of course.



I didn't say "righteous", I said just war. The concept I describe dates way back, to Thomas Aquinas, but was developed in its present form in the mid-1600's.



It's never been closed. Clashes of ideas get settled by clashes of arms.

I don't particularly care what anyone else thinks is just... I have eyes, a brain, and a bit of common sense, and I can decide for myself, thank you. A communist may think whatever they want, but I may think their philosophy is responsible for 100 million deaths, and treat what they think accordingly.

1) The USA has not withdrawn itself of the UN, therefore it must abide to its rules. And as you said, "peremtory norms" are very vague, too vague, and are too weak to be used as justification for wars. They are not, can not be catalogued, they are wayyy to subjective.

2) Whatever you like it or not, the UNMOVIC inspector teams were reporting acceptance and cooperation by the Iraqui authorities. Do not teach the mass to the priest. The USA just wanted war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3469821.stm

3) Well, he wasnt producing them either.

4) Germany told you that they had WMD? Data please.

5) That is the old catch 22, is just what is legal, or legal what is just blablabla.

6) Most of Europe had better sense on what? Do you even know what i was talking about?

7) In my book, he was a pig. He stood there because of his weapons, and because his people, in the end, allowed him too.

8) Funny thing how the vast majority of such casualties happened when Saddam was in the graces of the west. All our hands have kurd blood on them (since if genocide was ever commited in iraq, was against the kurds in the 80's)

9) Good. But this time plan things, and ask the world for permission. And it will help. You are not the police of the world.

10) I am aware of the concept, mixed the words, my bad.

11) Pathetic that after 30.000 years we must first resort to sticks and stones to solve our problems. I do not believe that such ways are the most elegant and efficient.

And i wouldnt tolerate a communist dictating how i should live, i agree with you. But now, how do you expect do dictate an arab how they should live? They have eyes too, and they see the USA as a very evil foe. You never wondered why?

Before I start, I will note that you are correct. I did miss speak when I said that it would not hold up in international court. What I meant was merely that it did not live up to treaties / UN declarations.
OK, so here we go.

First I will address the definition of just war that you gave. (although I disagree with it)
1. Having just cause. Well, since the administrations initial purpose for going to war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they needed to prove it BEFORE they went to war. Furthermore, once they prove that Iraq has WMD, they need to prove that Iraq is a threat. Merely saying this does not make it true. It was clear by the data from before the war that was not proven to the world community.

2. Being declared by a proper authority. Who has this authority? If we wish to have a peaceful (and for that matter democratic) world, it is important that we do not act against the wish of the world community & the majority of citizens. Sure America can declare war, but that doesn't mean that the actual invasion is just or for that matter proper.

3. Possessing right intention. Well, if you believe that the Admin cares about human rights / democracy you might argue this. I would argue that the people behind Bush have too horrendous of a track record for this to work. For instance, shaking the hands of Saddam while he was committing his worst crimes. Or, if that is not to your liking, they were willing to leave the Taliban in power as long as it handed over Bin Laden. Hardly sounds like they gave a damn about the people of Afghanistan. (There is a much longer list. I just don't think it is worth while to enter each case here).

4. Having a reasonable chance of success. This is Inane and imperialistic reasoning. Only those with power have the right to protect themselves?
Sounds good when your on top; sounds like a rational for terrorism when you are on the bottom.

5. The end being proportional to the means used. Now, this is ALMOST complete. But, wouldn't it make more sense if we judge the action by its POSSIBLE outcomes. In the case of Iraq this was estimated by many people in the world community to be too high a danger.

Lastly,
"In the US a general principle is that sovereignity comes from the "just consent of the governed". So-called "Countries" in which that is not true are not sovereign, they are simply territories without a government, therefore we are not waging war on a sovereign, we are simply assisting in establishing a sovereign government."
- 1 That is extremely imperialistic, and something America DOES NOT have the right to do.
- 2 It just doesn't hold to reality. America had no problem viewing Hussein as a sovereign ruler when he was their little dictator. Heck, the same people are standing behind the President again today.

1. Having just cause. Well, since the administrations initial purpose for going to war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

That was *one of the reasons* by no means the only one. Look up what people actually said back then and you will see that is so.

2. Being declared by a proper authority.

Any sovereign (or someone who has a reasonable claim to being a sovereign) is a proper authority in this sense.

3. Possessing right intention. Well, if you believe that the Admin cares about human rights / democracy you might argue this.

I suspect it is one of their motivations, although not the only one. I am not prepared to speculate how high it rates in their priorities; it rates high in mine. However this question is not about *reasons*, it is about *intentions*. As demonstrated in Afghanistan, which is has become a much more decent place to live, there's nothing wrong with the intentions.

I would argue that the people behind Bush have too horrendous of a track record for this to work. For instance, shaking the hands of Saddam while he was committing his worst crimes.

Any US support for Saddam is grossly exagerated, and your idea of its timing I think is off. Perhaps you can provide some sources?

4. Having a reasonable chance of success. This is Inane and imperialistic reasoning. Only those with power have the right to protect themselves?

Well, I think defense is always assmed to have a reasonable chance. This applies more to aggressive actions that meet the other criteria.

1 That is extremely imperialistic, and something America DOES NOT have the right to do.

Well, why not? It is true, is it not, that most Iraqis would have gladly overthrown Saddam if they could? Why can't we do it for them?

2 It just doesn't hold to reality. America had no problem viewing Hussein as a sovereign ruler when he was their little dictator. Heck, the same people are standing behind the President again today.

As I said US support for Saddam is overrated. We were, for a short time, courting him away from the Soviet block. It didn't work, and that was that. Welcome to the way things were done in the Cold War. Unsavory alliances are always a feature of international politics, heck we were allies with Stalin at one time (who was much worse than Saddam) we shipped him thousands of planes, tank, etc but nobody seems to mind somehow.

1) The USA has not withdrawn itself of the UN, therefore it must abide to its rules. And as you said, "peremtory norms" are very vague, too vague, and are too weak to be used as justification for wars. They are not, can not be catalogued, they are wayyy to subjective.

Peremptory norms are vague, in terms of lacking precise definition. However they are not *weak* as justifications... they refer to things about which civilized people feel very strongly about, that's why they *preempt* treaty obligations.

Curiously enough, the UN recognizes them explicitly, for example:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."

4) Germany told you that they had WMD? Data please.

No, UK and Russia did. Germany told us he had links to Al-Qaeda.

5) That is the old catch 22, is just what is legal, or legal what is just blablabla.

Well, it's not a catch-22, legal and just have little to do with each other. What is just should be what is legal, but in practice it may not be.

6) Most of Europe had better sense on what? Do you even know what i was talking about?

When we invaded Europe in order to kick out the fascists (both the German and the homegrown ones), they didn't all start fighting us like you suggested.

9) Good. But this time plan things, and ask the world for permission. And it will help. You are not the police of the world.

Well it seems to me we are. The world is doing absolutely nothing about this, in fact we are the only ones pushing to do something. We don't need permission, Portu. Being right is all the permission we need. By the way let me quote the UN here:

"Genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world"

This fine document is stating the obvious, and it is all the permission we could possibly need. Now the world may not want to uphold this, but that is their problem, and we should in no way let that tie our hands.

11) Pathetic that after 30.000 years we must first resort to sticks and stones to solve our problems. I do not believe that such ways are the most elegant and efficient.

Elegant? Efficient? Of course not. Necessary? Hell yes.

Most of the world has no concept of rule of law - it is the rule of the strongest. We recognize laws, but the only way to make some people recognize them is indeed sticks and stones. Or, we can just sit around and talk and pass fine resolutions and do absolutely nothing.

But now, how do you expect do dictate an arab how they should live? They have eyes too, and they see the USA as a very evil foe. You never wondered why?

First, we have no intention of dictating to them how they should live; but we feel pretty strongly about preventing a handful of them from dictating how all the rest of them should live. It's this bizzarre thing called "elections".

Those few of them that see the USA as a very evil foe have been quite vocal in telling us why. In their view, democracy is inherently antithetical to religion and religious government, and therefore we as promoters of democracy are enemies of the faith. ("infidels", "Great Satan" and so on) You'll excuse me if I don't respect that line of reasoning.

This thread reminds me of something totally unrelated...
Some friends of mine invaded Canada.
They went and stood in some town square and said that they were the new rulers.
They put up a tiny American flag on a stick, then decided that was stupid and burned it. They then put up a blank flag and said "Okay, we're taking suggestions for a flag..."
And left.
At least that's what they told me.
It might be totally apocryphal, but it's funny either way.

I hope I didn't just kill the thread...


I think that sounds like something me and my friends would do. That makes me smile. Hahahaha. :D

I think that sounds like something me and my friends would do. That makes me smile. Hahahaha. :D
Yay! Somebody read my post!
I feel all warm and fuzzy inside...

On an entirely unrelated note, I've just realized that your name reminds me of an in-joke.