Maybe it's because I know he would escape, but he told katara confidently that he would be back. His footsteps were light, not one of a soldier. He didn't knock like he said, and I imagine he sounded very young. Then he said surely Zuko and Iroh could handle things. Does he subconsciously not want to capture the avatar because it feels wrong?

So are you only arguing that corruption exists? This would imply not only to the US but every other country as well. If so then I would agree. Corruption exists, it's only to what degree and extent. So if your only argument is sometimes judges or jurors might take bribes? Then I would agree with you. I only disagree with you on the fact that a worker protection lawsuit would not get a fair trial for the majority of the time. This lawsuit would not be high stakes enough to require bribes. Settling out of court to avoid public scrutiny and losing less money in the long term would be more prudent. If taken to trial anyway, it would not be worth the risk versus reward factor of bribing judges. It's best to simply hire an expensive corporate lawyer or use the lawyers they have on retainer and argue for a lesser payout. Anyway, I'm going to move on from this discussion so you can say your last piece and I will most likely read it but not respond to it. As for you not being from the US and therefore not have knowledge of various things about it I'll give you that the internet has made information available anywhere so you could very well be educated on this matter. I just don't understand why you would care about all these things about a country that you don't live in and therefore take the time out of your day to research and become educated in the matter. So I hope you understand why I would have doubts to the level of your knowledge in this regard. Especially when I myself live in the country and have never experienced rampant bribery in our justice system that a worker suing their employer results in bribery often enough that it becomes unreliable.

First off, I'm 99% sure you're not from the US if English is not your first language, which makes me question how you would know so much about the US justice system, the corruption of US corporations, or even care. And for the court siding with a "random man." Why would they do that. It's either the judges or jury's job to decide who is guilty and not. So they don't just choose a random person. That's just silly. And by "taking the bribe so they don't get depressed and kill themselves" I'm assuming you mean the corporation would kill them if they did not take the bribe. This would mean the corporation threatened them at some point. Which you yourself say corporations find much harder to do nowadays. I'll say again, I've never denied the existence of corruption. Only the extent, ease, and kind of corruption which you imply. Though, I do have a question. Why would I trust a person not from the USA on how corrupt the US justice system is? In my experience, I have never heard of corporations being corrupt enough to bribe or assassinate judges. Ever. Period. Not even from conspiracy theorists. There is simply no verifiable evidence for this. Instead, corporations hire expensive lawyers to represent them, but even then, there is still only so much they can do. That is why they settle out of court if they believe they can't win. I believe you may have heard a bunch of false negative things about the US or propaganda depending on where you live and take these things as fact.

Everything before you started a potential new sentence with "Corruption" is barely readable to me. I dont mean this in any disrespectful manner, but is english not your first language?

Get back to me with better grammar. I can't read that. I never denied the existence of corruption, just not to the scale you imply.

No. That'd be idiotic. It's just not nearly as big of an issue. If you said corruption in lobbying our politicians then I'd fully agree, but the days of the mafia threatening judges and the jury are over. Sure, It probably happens at times, but big corporations would much rather settle outside than risk most things going to court. It's bad publicity and they could lose far more. If there was as much corruption as you claim, then they would never settle and always go to court. But that's not the case. Your comments about someone writing a paragraph and saying you didn't order a "yappachino" makes me believe you have no intention of having any sort of intelligent dialogue. Either from trolling or being unable to produce any sort of counterargument. Either way, I'm not going to interact with someone who's been condescending and rude. So again best of luck in life, I'm not going to argue with you. Oh, and sorry for making you read another paragraph. :P

I cant tell if your an idiot or a troll... Well either way I wish you the best of luck in life.

Its the law. You can sue if they dont.

Some chinese nationalism and acquiring peak human fitness with possible super human senses by killing some cockroaches all in the first chapter.

Might as well become an exterminator if he gets this much benefit from killing bugs

Who the hell bullies an adult for being asian in new york? Are we in an elementary school?

We have labor laws and worker protection.

I mean, we have freedom and democracy so I dont understand why that's foolish. Is this the chinese nationalism I hear about?

k

You just contradicted yourself. You first say they probably didn't think they were going to fight "undying creatures" and then proceeded to say a sniper rifle is more suited for ranges that avoid situations that "even a scratch is certain death." Which alludes to them knowing they did know. You can't have both in your argument. Just because everyone else has an assault rifle doesn't mean another has to have a sniper. You take what is most effective for each mission. The implementation of the sniper rifle to the mission at the end of the day is a very small complaint. The condescending tone of your answer wasn't necessary and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who can't even counter the points I've given you with at least adequate english grammar.

The only advantage is the sniper rifles higher caliber round but more bullets can easily make up for as they arent there for any pelt or meat. Plus all my other points make an ar or mg preferable. Now look at him using a sniper in the situation hes in. Firing semi auto at best, god forbid having bolt action with what 10 rounds in the magazine?

So they know they have to kill some infected BEARS as in plural. They dont have an exact position on where these bears are and from what I assume they are going into a forest biome. An assault rifle and or machine gun would be preferable. Because 1. If you have to kill more than one, they could come flying out of the forest to ambush you in which fully automaric fire would come in handy. 2. They dont have any idea where these bears are so they dont have any way to set up with a favorable sniper position and a good view of said target BEFORE the mission has started aaand 3. They are in what I assume to be forest where ranges where a sniper is more favorable than an ar is rare. So YES I have questions on whether taking a sniper into this particular mission is viable.