Better Than Revenge TOP
Sounds easy, but Castiel wasn't expecting to fall head-over-heels, or for Dean to want him back. What's an alpha to do when a beautiful omega and an unorthodox mob boss have him questioning everything, abandoning his past and all of its pain for something much better than revenge?
Better Than Revenge
What should be done with people who commit such acts? And what is to be done with the political and military leaders who launch wars of aggression that lead to these crimes? Both Gary Jonathan Bass and Richard J. Goldstone argue compellingly that they should be tried before a court that has the authority to find them not guilty.
Bass's book, ''Stay the Hand of Vengeance,'' is a timely and exhaustive survey of how political leaders have wrestled with the problem of war criminals since 1815, when Napoleon was banished from Europe without a trial. The subsequent record contains more failures than successes. The Weimar Republic's trials of German war criminals after World War I produced one acquittal after another but still triggered a nationalist reaction that Hitler was only too happy to exploit. Britain imprisoned dozens of Turks implicated in the Armenian genocide; but it exchanged them for a few captured British soldiers, and to this day Armenians have taken revenge while the Turkish government continues to deny that Armenians were ever slaughtered. Next came Nuremberg, which afforded Nazi leaders fair trials; but for obvious reasons the justice it administered had blind spots, and the bombing of Dresden and other crimes against humanity were ignored. Now we have the current trials of mostly minor war criminals from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda while the major culprits -- Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, and Slobodan Milosevic -- remain at large because the political will to arrest them is lacking.
Despite this grim inventory, Bass, an assistant professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton, argues convincingly that trying war criminals is a better option than its alternative: vengeance. His adversaries in the debate are the so-called realists in the field of international relations: diplomats, political leaders, and philosophers who oppose using moral standards to restrict the behavior of states outside their borders, not to mention applying the principle of due process to war crimes. Serious talk about war crimes trials, they argue, can prolong wars and thwart postwar efforts to build peace. ''To realists,'' Bass writes, ''a war crimes tribunal is simply something that the countries that decisively win a war inflict on the helpless country that loses it. It is punishment, revenge, spectacle -- anything but justice.'' He cites the patriarch of American realism, Hans Morgenthau, discussing the prospects for Nuremberg: ''I am doubtful of the whole setup under which these trials will be conducted. What, in my opinion, they should have done is to set up summary courts-martial. Then they should have placed these criminals on trial before them within 24 hours after they were caught, sentenced them to death, and shot them in the morning.''
Bass is careful not to buy some of the arguments cited by supporters of war crimes tribunals. These advocates say tribunals can fortify peace, rehabilitate former enemy countries, purge threatening enemy leaders, and strip them of their charisma and strength. In fact, trials can also spark a nationalist backlash in a defeated country, especially if the victors delay the legal process and cut and run in the way they did from Turkey after World War I. Tribunal advocates also argue that trials can deter war criminals, place the blame for atrocities on individuals rather than on whole ethnic groups, and establish the truth about wartime atrocities. But there is, for now anyway, insufficient evidence to prove that they can.
''At a minimum,'' Bass concludes, ''long-run deterrence of war crimes would require a relatively credible threat of prosecution: that is, a series of successful war crimes tribunals that became so much an expected part of international affairs that no potential mass murderer could confidently say that he would avoid punishment.'' These tribunals, he adds, would have to be more robust than the courts set up for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Since the extralegal exile of Napoleon, we have witnessed the world wars, the gassings, the Holocaust and the shame of Bosnia and Rwanda as well as the invention of the World Wide Web, the creation of the European Union, the lifting of trade barriers and other developments that are erasing borders and redefining international relations. Watchdog organizations and advocates like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, George Soros's Open Society Institute and others have come up with facts and funds to goad governments to do justice in situations in which revenge was once the only ''remedy'' available. These two books present important reminders that if our world is to become more globalized and humane, governments, including our own, must keep step by prosecuting war criminals. Vengeance cannot remain the only outlet for the fury of the kith and kin and countrymen of their victims.
Rather than aiming negativity at someone else, aimpositivity at yourself! Buy yourself those jeans, go for an ice cream sundae,spend an hour in a warm bubble bath. Do whatever you can to make yourselfsmile.
The story starts when it was hot and it was summer andI had it all, I had him right there where I wanted himShe came along, got him alone and let's hear the applauseShe took him faster than you could say sabotageI never saw it coming, wouldn't have suspected itI underestimated just who I was dealing withShe had to know the pain was beating on me like a drumShe underestimated just who she was stealing from
She's not a saint and she's not what you thinkShe's an actress, whoaBut she's better known for the things that she doesOn the mattress, whoaSoon she's gonna find, stealing other people's toysOn the playground won't make you many friendsShe should keep in mind, she should keep in mindThere is nothing I do better than revenge
This is about Camilla Belle stealing Joe Jonas from Taylor. On a website about Camilla Belle, found on Wikipedia it used to say Camilla Belle is an actress but shes better known for the things that she does on the matress, therefore that shows taylor is talking about her. also the lyrics "c'mon show me how much better you are, is refering to Joe Jonas' song written about taylor where he says the girl he has now is so much better. the lyrics "Oh they didn't teach you that in prep school" is referring to a comment Camilla made to taylor about growing up up a christmas tree farm and how she lot where she is today because of her family being rich, where as taylor had to make it herself.
This song is about Camilla, the girl who stole Joe Jonas away from her. She was clearly not too happy about it, and mentions details about it throughout the song such as "She's an actress" and how it spells out "You thought I would forget" in the album. Also, it says "Now whose better" which is going back to a song Joe Jonas wrote about why Camilla was better than Taylor. Sucks for you Joe AND Camilla :)
This song is all about one thing: REVENGE. Swift is talking about her jealousy of this girl who stole her boyfriend. She's telling her that she'll get him back and get her revenge in the best way possible. >:)
I am a big fan of this song and Taylor wrote it to let Joe now that she didnt forget and she mentions some lines suggesting its about Camilla and Joe. One line says "Shes better known for the things she does on the Matress"I think this means she gets guys by her looks and her gender. Camilla obvoisly doesnt like Taylor. Taylor also talks about Camilla as a childish person because of the line "stealing ppls toys on the playground wont make you many friends" She also says "Now do you still think you know what your doing?" This is saying: See?Want to mess with me lets see where that gets,ya. This is a song that sorta threatens Camilla and Joe that shes gonna get them back. She even states "I always get the last laugh!" Well This is what I think its about
This is pretty much about Camilla taking Joe away from Taylor.In the line "She's not a saint and she's not what you think. She's an actress. She's better known for the thing that she does on the mattress." She's basically trying to tell Joe not to date her because she's a whore.
I think it is about Camilla stealingJoe Jonas from Taylor. It is kinda inappropriate, because it says stuff like, ''she's better known for the things she does on the the mattress''which means she's having sex! What's up with that, Taylor?!? I still LOVE your music so MUCH!!!!!!! Whenever I'm bored, me and my little brother dance around to your music! I know, LOL!!!!
this is one of my favorites :) the song is about how taylor had joe jonas as a boyfriend, but then all of a sudden Camilla belle comes and steals him. taylor is showing all her anger in the song and even gives us a few hints on who the songs about, like, "but no amount of vintage dresses gives you dignity.", "she's better known for the things that she does on the mattress." and "she thinks that life is like a party and she's on the list".i love this song because it's so honest and a little funny too :) haha, that's what camilla gets for being her boyfriend stealer :D 041b061a72