mpohl

No disagreement here. However, historically (incl. my country, Iraq), ppl always preferred being tortured/mutilated/killed by one of their own vs from members of an outside force. So, what's the "added value" of the USeless Army? Same deal, millions killed in your country, by your countries leadership, and it was a given to be occupied by somebody. Not being mean about it, just stating the facts.

I can honestly sympathize: my country (and continent) was also occupied by the US, and the US troops overstayed their welcome by about 50 yrs. With love, from Germany (and Europe).

Thank you. A PhD (chemistry)/MBA. While I am eligible for US Citizenship, haven't had time to pursue it yet. I need to file some paperwork prior to make sure that I keep my EU citizenship, the later being far more important to me. Nevertheless, thanks for a refreshing view.

How much do you really know about the RAF, Germany, Stadtguerilla, etc.? The theory behind it. Care to engage above the level of Fox News? Also, are you German or just another fucked-up American trying to meddle in everyone's business? I oppose this woman's parole, and think the court was wrong. Here's why: I have written before, explaining the multiple "justifications" of punishment: -retribution (society's revenge) - specific deterrence (protecting society from the offender herself by physically disabling her from committing more crimes) - general deterrence (making an example of the offender, to deter others from committing crimes) - rehabilitation (reforming the offender so she is no longer an anti-social person. This can be done in various ways, such as: (a) causing the person to understand that what she did was wrong, and to be truly remorseful, or (b) so "breaking" the person's spirit by the severity or length of the punishment that she simply no longer has it in her to commit crimes again. - restitution (specifically making the person re-pay the victim or society for the harm done, such as through fines, compelled labor or services, etc.) Let's ignore "retribution" for a moment just to facilitate the discussion. "Security risk" only addresses specific deterrence. But for something like cold-blooded murder (this was not a heat-of-the-moment killing), there (in my opinion) must be rehabilitation, also. I see no rehabilitation, as might be expressed through remorse. And the court is not saying that she's been rehabilitated by her years of imprisonment having "broken" her spirit. Therefore, the court's analysis is inadequate, for it ignores this important element. And as for "security risk", is she truly a changed person? This doesn't seem to be addressed. She's only age 57. That's still plenty young enough to remain radicalized, and to have the physical capacity to act it out. In the absence of true rehabilitation, I don't have any problem with her serving the rest of her life in prison. Or at least another 20 years or so, until she's so hobbled by age that she can no longer do much harm.

An "Eye for an Eye" will leave everybody blind! Thank God for societies more advanced than the US; let's talk again in about, shall we say, 2,000 years. Should give the Americans enough time to catch up w/ their European or Arab counterparts. Edited to add: Suffice it to say that per the German Supreme Court, an unlimited time of punishment is unconstitutional and in violation of HUMAN RIGHTS (a concept possibly unfamiliar to the US). Hence, a life-sentence in Germany now translates to 15 yrs, and a life-sentence w/ aggravated circumstances is 25 yrs.

So, why don't you tell us how much YOU are going to personally PROFIT from this war as contractor (mercenary)? Wouldn't peace be an economic nightmare for you and the likes of you? Ya know.........as I stood on a hill overlooking the Korean DMZ I contemplated this very question. Why does that guy in that tower right down there want to kill me? Why does he hate me so much? In fact I thought about it a lot for a long time. After spending almost 2 years in Iraq........I really don't give a rat's ass. Reminds me of something my attorney said about my ex-wife. My Mom kept asking "Why would someone do something like that?" His answer "Because she is evil."

You have an EPIPHANY there! Congrats! However, as I may add, who is worth $210M for doing his job? I have no probs w/ ppl making $1M or $5M per year. But that's about the limit. There is s.th wrong and imbalanced in America.

It strikes me that here, as a community, we have the *self-proclaimed* coolest, most open-minded daredevils on Planet Earth: "I jump out of airplanes. I must be the shit!". Every inch of the way they ascert themself as to how they are different and not your run-of-the-mill "Joe Blow". But then, some of them even lack the most rudimentary capabilities to accept different belief systems. Bizarre! The amount of bloodlust in this thread is very, very sad.

"We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view." Mao Tse-Tung P.S.: You still have not answered the initial question: do you believe that your President would die like a man? He cert. has no qualms of sending another 20,000 men to die. Lots of could's and maybe's on that first page. If your country finds trade with the US so reprehensible, why not take a moral stand and stop now? -

Not everything worthwhile in this world can be measured in American dollars. For example, what's the worth of a three-month old baby that has been killed in a US-driven air-raid or roadblock? As far as substitute markets go: there always are the BRIC countries (see Goldman-Sachs Economic Paper 99, http://www2.goldmansachs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf)

From all accounts, it seems that Saddam Hussein died upright and as a man. (No arguing that he deserved what he had coming.) See also, NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/world/middleeast/31gallows.html?hp&ex=1167541200&en=5db66dae7cb12d0e&ei=5094&partner=homepage There is at least one other President, that, should he ever be tried, will be found guilty of crimes against humanity. Anybody venture whether he would face the gallows like a man?

Maybe if Bush were to stand in front of the International Court of Justice, they could hang from the same tree at the same time? I fail to see the difference.

There are worlds of beauty, awe, and clarity of mind out there, that most people will never be able to visit. But in order to communicate w/ the natives, you need to move past "2+2"; see you on the other side. /M Yes my 2nd grader is already learning the beginnings of algebra. Im not good at learning from a book, never was able to read something then put it into use when it comes to math hence why this isnt the first time Ive been in this class, or the second... etc. I just do not have a mathmatical mind. Right now I barely know what 2+2 is with the headache this has given me today. Oh well, Ill get through the test, gonna see if THE Vinny is ample drunk, as he will need it to get me to grasp it...

That's the standard now that I just pulled off the on-line German curriculum. But still sounds about right relative to my experience in the late 70ies! In the late 70ies there wasn't an Internet or dropzone.com to fake stupid. There were just books to learn from. Of course, these things (and enthusiasm for it) tend to come easier at 14 than at 30. Hence, make your kids learn early; that's their job! /M P.S.: Did you know that i^2 = -1? Is that the standard now? Or was that the standard in the early 90s when I was 14? Either way I dropped out very early and just got my GED, never had algebra class. Im now around 30. since you mastered it at such a young age maybe you could offer some advice on why I am getting stuck besides the fact Im not smart, then maybe I can pass because at this point I on a practice test am only making about a 63ish

Where I am from (European Union), ppl are expected to have mastered quadratic equations by the time they are allowed to drink in public: which is at age 14. Will do, about what time?

W_o having read thru the driffle of all the posts that follow. As a certifiable agnostic, I still am getting tired of all the muslims feeling "violated" every inch of the way! If Western culture makes you sick to your stomach, please leave: the US, EU, Switzerland, all of the South American countries, South Africa, India and China, are probably not for you.

With skydivers like you, who needs enemies? Great job on the public relations part; you certainly showed the "biatch" what real skydivers are made of!

SPIEGEL Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski "Victory Would be a Fata Morgana" Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a global uprising against inequality. Zbigniew Brzezinski, 78, served as National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. Today he is Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and an advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, DC. SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric? Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours. No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous exaggerations and distortions of reality. SPIEGEL: What are these distortions? Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people - on the contrary. With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy. SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural? Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable. SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing. Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority. SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response? Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends. SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin? Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality - notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement. SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years? Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken. Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism. SPIEGEL: Is complete victory, as demanded by the president, actually possible? Brzezinski: That depends on your definition of victory. If we act intelligently and form the necessary coalitions, the appeal of terrorism may diminish and limit its capacity to find sympathizers or even would-be martyrs. Then it will probably gradually fade away. If, however, we envision victory as the equivalent of a Hitler shooting himself in the bunker, that will not happen. This is precisely why the whole analogy with the war is so misleading. It is not helpful for making the public understand that we are dealing with a long-term problem in a very volatile region, the solution of which depends on mobilizing moderate forces and isolating fanatics. SPIEGEL: What advantages does President Bush see in his war rhetoric? Brzezinski: First of all it helped him get reelected - a nation at war does not dismiss its commander in chief. Secondly it enhances his ability to exercise his executive powers on a scale no other president before him has done. This of course brings risks with it, such as the infringement of civil rights. And, it gives him the claim that he can use the U.S. Armed Forces as he wishes, even without congressional sanction involving a declaration of war. SPIEGEL: Is there an inherent danger for democracy? Brzezinski: In the long run, yes. However, democracy is ingrained so deeply in the psyche and fabric of American society that such a threat could only arise if such a president were able to implement such policies over a prolonged period of time. But Bush cannot be reelected. Therefore it will all be over in two and a half years. SPIEGEL: European politicians have never accepted the concept of a war on terror. Furthermore, there are fierce differences concerning interrogation techniques or prison camps such as Guantanamo. Given such diverse opinions, how can the United States and Europe cooperate at all? Brzezinski: This is exactly what makes it so difficult to deal with the problem collectively. However, realistically one also has to take into consideration that there is, in a quiet way, extensive cooperation, especially among our police forces. But precisely this cooperation reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an operation against criminal behavior. Although I share Europe's criticism about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the mistreatment and even torture of prisoners, Europeans should in their indignation not lose sight of their own past - not the Germans, but also not the French, who have had extensive experience in the Algerian war. SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States extricate itself from its own trap? Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don't go, are probably the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have. SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind? Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves, it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East. SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway. Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor. SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more violent than it is already. Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated violence in their country much better than Americans from several thousand kilometers away. SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there is an initial escalation of violence? Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial tutelage to resolve their problems. SPIEGEL: In reality, isn't the president worried that Iraq will fail to become the model democracy he envisages after the Americans have left? Brzezinski: That's for sure, and therefore any attempt to seek his definition of victory is pure fantasy. Still, there will be a government dominated by Kurds and Shiites, and some Sunni elements. That in itself is already an improvement compared to the regime of Saddam Hussein and therefore at least a partial success. SPIEGEL: Are you sure that a religious civil war can still be prevented? Brzezinski: Of course I cannot be sure. But was de Gaulle sure when he decided that it would be fine for France to end the Algerian war? Everybody around him warned him of the terrible consequences of his decision. SPIEGEL: Are you not afraid that such a religious conflict could ignite the whole region? Brzezinski: Quite the contrary. The longer we stay the more likely it will ignite. The fact is that we have been there for three years and the situation today is a lot worse than it was then. At least logically, there is some evidence to support my proposition. SPIEGEL: Bush presented the "axis of evil" to the world. Did he not make it all too easy for himself by simply attacking the least dangerous part of this axis? Brzezinski: Yes, Iraq was not dangerous. North Korea and Iran seem to presently be very calculating. However, Iran is a genuinely historic nation that has to play an important role in the region. My guess is that Iran will find some form of accommodation with the rest of the world, at least easier to achieve than for North Korea. SPIEGEL: If negotiations with Iran fail, will America intervene militarily? Brzezinski: There are some members of the administration who favor that. However, in view of the experiences in Iraq I consider it more likely that the government, together with its allies, will impose significant sanctions, which then have to be given a few years to show effects, which makes it highly unlikely that Bush will be the one to undertake such a dangerous course of action. SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of such an attack? Brzezinski: The Iranians have a number of options open to them. Among them is the destabilization of Iraq and the western part of Afghanistan as well as the everpresent option of activating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They could cut down oil production, damage the Saudi oil production and threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz - with all the devastating consequences for the world economy. They could of course also accelerate the production of weapons of mass destruction, which then quite possibly would lead to renewed and more comprehensive military attacks - a vicious circle. SPIEGEL: You said that the United States needs solid European counsel to avoid an unrealistic view of the world. Is Europe even in the position to give such counsel? Brzezinski: In the Middle East, the United States is unintentionally slipping into the role of a colonial power, repetitive of extensive European experiences. A combination of self-interest, a sense of mission and an arrogant ignorance resulted in Americans doing what they do right now. Because Britain and France have had the same experiences in the past, they have a better sense for the fact that the American course in the Middle East is a political mistake and, in the long run, also dangerous for America. In the short run, it damages America's principles and its international legitimacy. SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that this is the kind of advice the British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivers to Bush? Brzezinski: It is what he should deliver. But I think the British made a decision after the Suez crisis in 1956 to never again collide with the United States and to achieve an alternative source of global influence by becoming America's closest partner. SPIEGEL: There is fear in Europe that Bush could return to unilateralism should he regain his freedom of action in foreign policy. Brzezinski: For that, he would miraculously have to achieve his phantom-like victory. But that recedes ever farther. It is exactly like it was with the Soviets, who used to insist that the victory of socialism was just over the horizon, overlooking the fact that the horizon is an imaginary line which recedes farther as you walk towards it. Moreover, in two and a half years he will no longer be president, and no successor will want to embrace the slogans and demagoguery of the past three years. SPIEGEL: Are there any conditions under which America could lose its current political supremacy? Brzezinski: One would only have to continue the current policies and, also, in future not give a serious response to increasingly louder complaints of global inequality. We are now dealing with a far more politically active mankind that demands a collective response to their grievances from the West. SPIEGEL: Is your demand to eradicate global inequality not as illusionary as Bush's demand that America free the world from evil? Brzezinski: Achieving equality would indeed be an illusionary goal. Reducing inequality in the age of television and Internet may well become a political necessity. We are entering a historic stage in which people in China and India, but also in Nepal, in Bolivia or Venezuela will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition. That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the next decades. SPIEGEL: You call it a "global political awakening." Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world. SPIEGEL: The Islamic countries as well? Brzezinski: Not really in the same way. It is a turbulent, multi-directional process which, however, is a challenge to global stability. If the United States, Europe and Japan, but also China, Russia and India cannot find a mechanism for effective global collaboration, we will slide into a growing global chaos, which will be fatal to American leadership. Therefore I consider the American leadership role vulnerable, but irreplaceable in the foreseeable future. SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you for speaking with us.

You guys are so out-of-touch w/ reality. Heck, I'd be offended if two skydivers insisted on bouncing in my front yard w/ my four-year old watching. Now try to explain that to a kid! And yes, I did a few tandems as POC myself.

"War is the terror of the rich, and terror is the war of the poor" Peter Ustinov

Responding to Clay's initial post and all the "manly" posts that followed: On the plus-side, at least these days American males no longer compare the size and lengths of their dicks to establish supremacy. It's more like guns, and military ensignia that now serve as a surrogate. The US is not a bad place per se; just a lot of dickheads.

The Highest Calling for a Woman is to Beautify Herself in Pursuit of Men! Who cares about your intellect and intellectual accomplishments. It's not a mind-fuck, after all. Get pretty. :)

You can't! And that is that! P.S.: Understand though that the US criminal justice system (not that there is any justice in Guantanomo), is based on revenge, not on re-integration into society,as, for example, in Europe. Isn't it scary that people have actually made the argument that 'We shouldn't release anyone because after the way we've treated them if they weren't terrorists before they sure will be now.' How can you answer logic like that?

Greece Shocks U.S. Basketball Team By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 5:01 p.m. ET SAITAMA, Japan (AP) -- As they warmed up before Friday's semifinal against Greece, the U.S. players put on a jam session for the fans. Dwight Howard dunked emphatically. Dwyane Wade bounced the ball off the backboard, caught it and stuffed. Elton Brand jammed an alley-oop pass. Finally, LeBron James flew down the lane for a tomahawk. As the crowd roared, the Greeks lined up at the other end and shot free throws. The moment foretold Greece's 101-95 victory in the semifinals of the world championships. The U.S. has dazzling skill; the Greeks are a dazzling team. ''We have to learn the international game better,'' U.S. coach Mike Krzyzewski said. ''We learned a lot today because we played a team that plays amazing basketball and plays together.'' The loss means the U.S. (7-1) will play Argentina (7-1) for the bronze medal Saturday. Greece (8-0) will face fellow unbeaten Spain in the final Sunday. Spain defeated Argentina 75-74 in Friday's other semifinal. For the U.S., a medal would improve on its sixth-place showing in Indianapolis in the 2002 world championships. But as the grim-faced Americans left the floor, their pain was obvious. They have failed to bring home a major international championship for the third straight tournament. ''Those guys are hurting and it's probably a better thing we have to come back tomorrow and play again instead of sitting on this for two days,'' Team USA managing director Jerry Colangelo said. A victory in Japan would have meant an automatic berth in the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Instead, the U.S. will have to qualify in the FIBA Americas tournament in Venezuela. By then, the U.S. will have been together for more than a year. The lack of experience -- and familiarity with each other -- was glaringly obvious against a Greek squad that has been together three years. ''I think we showed everybody that maybe we're not very good athletes like them, but we know how to play the game,'' said Greek guard Theodoros Papaloukas, who carved up the U.S. defense with 12 assists. ''We are clever.'' The Greeks don't have an NBA player on their roster, although guard Vassilis Spanoulis is headed for the Houston Rockets. Spanoulis led Greece with 22 points, Mihalis Kakiouzis added 15 and 6-foot-10 Sofoklis Schortsianitis -- nicknamed ''Baby Shaq'' -- bulled his way to 14 on 6-of-7 shooting. The U.S. was led by its three captains -- Carmelo Anthony with 27 points, Dwyane Wade with 19 and LeBron James with 17. ''It's hard for one team, if they have so many big players, in one month to adapt to their new roles,'' Papaloukas said. ''All these players are big stars, but you have to do small different things. I think that was the difference: In our team, everybody knew what they had to do exactly.'' The Greeks did one thing beautifully in this game: the pick-and-roll. No matter what defense Krzyzewski tried, the Greeks found open shooters beyond the 3-point arc or open lanes to the basket. As a result, the Greeks shot 63 percent. ''They ran like one play the whole game,'' Wade said. In the earlier rounds, the U.S. applied defensive pressure to create easy baskets. That didn't work against the methodical Greeks, who committed only 10 turnovers, the fewest by an American opponent. ''They played damn near a perfect game,'' American forward Chris Bosh said. Here's the worst indictment of the U.S. defense: It gave up more points to Greece than China did. The U.S. also was done in by inept outside shooting, a problem in other games. The Americans were coming off their worst shooting performance in this tournament. They shot 38 percent from the floor, and 25 percent from beyond the arc, in an 85-65 victory over Germany. Against the Greeks, the U.S. shot 50 percent from the floor but only 32 percent from beyond the arc. The U.S. also shot 59 percent from the line. Still, the Americans scored 95 points, which would be enough to win most games. For most of this tournament, the U.S. started slowly and then overwhelmed opponents. Against Greece, it was the other way around. The U.S. used an 11-2 run to take a 33-21 lead with 6:23 left in the first half. But the Greeks outscored the U.S. 24-8 over the final 6:10 of the second quarter to lead 45-41 at halftime. ''They made some really good plays and sort of seized the momentum there,'' U.S. forward Shane Battier said. ''We did not respond with the composure you need to be a world champion.'' As the deficit grew, the Americans sometimes abandoned team concepts. One glaring example came as the U.S. tried to drain the clock for the final shot of the third quarter. Wade dribbled through four defenders and tossed up an off-balance layup with three seconds to go. The Greeks grabbed the rebound and found Spanoulis for a layup at the buzzer to lead 77-65. ''I think this is the NBA, one against five,'' Papaloukas said. ''It's different rules'' in the worlds. The U.S. is learning that, one international defeat at time. Now the Americans have to bounce back against an Argentine team led by Manu Ginobli and Andres Nocioni. A victory would produce a bronze medal, which is what the much-maligned 2004 U.S. Olympic team earned in Athens. For this group, bronze wasn't the goal, but it would be better than nothing. ''I want to go home with something,'' Bosh said. ''Fourth place, I'll be walking home with a sandwich.''

In my books, that's an *outstanding* compliment acknowledging that he and his government are actually in touch w/ the reality of the common ppl. Would you call GW Bush a peasant? P.S.: I do realize that the interview is much too long for the average American to read and comprehend. This guy is a peasant.