Council Member
Posts: 2,299 
February 5th, 2008, 02:07 PM
Tell me one thing, Mister Immigration Officer, is this a humanitarian war your nation is fighting or a self-serving war?
Quoting mbryant26
I knew you would say that... as an American Civil Servant!!!
Taliban was running the country. The women couldnt go to school, face covered 24/7, children being drafted...The war to get taliban out is the best war to date
Tell me one thing, Mister Immigration Officer, is this a humanitarian war your nation is fighting or a self-serving war?
Quote:
Your friend with the long neck
Never ask a Civil Servant a question in the morning, otherwise he has nothing to do in the afternoon!"
Council Member
Posts: 1,784
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 5th, 2008, 03:45 PM
The war was to take control away from the taliban, now, the war is an occupation for geopolitical goals being waged under the guise as humanitarian. There are many places in the world that could use such help but they are left largely ignored. Afghanistan is an exception only because of its location.
Quoting mbryant26
I disagree.
Its humanitarian war. We liberated them from taliban. I dont know what the war with Iraq is about though.
The war was to take control away from the taliban, now, the war is an occupation for geopolitical goals being waged under the guise as humanitarian. There are many places in the world that could use such help but they are left largely ignored. Afghanistan is an exception only because of its location.
Member
Posts: 159
Location: U.S.
Location: U.S.
February 5th, 2008, 04:16 PM
you only think that because of the oil. now if we were taking the oil, our gas prices wouldnt be out of control. Do you think u.s. or other countries are going to help kenya or any african country thats in war? No, and dont ask me why, i have no idea. I just know, that u.s. isnt in occupying afghanistan for oil. Taliban rose back up, the majority of troops are in Iraq,..and I dont know why.
you only think that because of the oil. now if we were taking the oil, our gas prices wouldnt be out of control. Do you think u.s. or other countries are going to help kenya or any african country thats in war? No, and dont ask me why, i have no idea. I just know, that u.s. isnt in occupying afghanistan for oil. Taliban rose back up, the majority of troops are in Iraq,..and I dont know why.
Council Member
Posts: 1,784
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 5th, 2008, 05:12 PM
The only people that want lower prices are us.
Oil companies and government want control, not lower prices.
Quoting mbryant26
The oil companies are making huge profits right now.
you only think that because of the oil. now if we were taking the oil, our gas prices wouldnt be out of control. Do you think u.s. or other countries are going to help kenya or any african country thats in war? No, and dont ask me why, i have no idea. I just know, that u.s. isnt in occupying afghanistan for oil. Taliban rose back up, the majority of troops are in Iraq,..and I dont know why.
The only people that want lower prices are us.
Oil companies and government want control, not lower prices.
Council Member
Posts: 2,299
February 5th, 2008, 07:06 PM
As you see, Chris got himself into trouble... I didn't like all his negative assumptions about me, because none of them were true.
Of course, believing or supposing are words of the same meaning, only they don't lend themselves as nicely to joke with!!
Chris is a nice guy, a fiction writer according to his web page, and his thinking goes right along with my own. I hope he has not crawled under the table!
Otherwise, data, you are right, to assume is a perfectly harmless English word. By the way, your English is pretty good. Do you have an opportunity to practice it in Germany? As you know, English isn't my mother tongue either. Just by living here have I picked up my language skills.
I like your colourful chart! Your are right, there is hardly any difference between the two main party representatives. As has been stated by many, it doesn't change anything fundamentally.
I once read, that all US Presidents are members of the AIPAC.
Yesterday 09:19 PM
Quoting data
Yes, I guess that would serve as another example. Chris should come back and explain himself.
Sorry, no sidetrack. Take for satrap the German word "Stadthalter", the guy who wanted to release Jesus, but agreed to the mob claiming his crossing for blasphemia, since he was afraid of local trouble coming to the ears of his masters in Rome.
Quote:
Yes, it is a joke, but it has a valuable message to it. You assume what you don't know. You can't accuse or convict or make statements on assumptions. To act on assumptions is foolish and risky, especially in business. Our teacher wanted to warn us to be careful with assuming... it could get us into trouble. By making a joke about it he tried to make this little piece of wisdom stick to our memory. He was successful with me!
Assuming is a good English word. Why should it get replaced by believing, accepting, supposing...? Sorry, did the teacher just make a joke or is there a really emotional trap in the use of this word?
As you see, Chris got himself into trouble... I didn't like all his negative assumptions about me, because none of them were true.
Of course, believing or supposing are words of the same meaning, only they don't lend themselves as nicely to joke with!!
Chris is a nice guy, a fiction writer according to his web page, and his thinking goes right along with my own. I hope he has not crawled under the table!
Otherwise, data, you are right, to assume is a perfectly harmless English word. By the way, your English is pretty good. Do you have an opportunity to practice it in Germany? As you know, English isn't my mother tongue either. Just by living here have I picked up my language skills.
Quote:
Ha ha... chuckle, chuckle... well put, data!
Mr. Obama is said to be the hope for change, rather than Hilary. Other skin colour of a president means more of change, than other sex type of the president. Wow, it needs a rocket scientist to puzzle that out.
Quote:
Brzez.. was quite the brain and advised Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in many positive ways. He is also a Human Rights guy and pushes for it's recognition in the US. Data, I don't think he is all that bad as you might assume by mentioning his association with Wolfowitz. What astonishes me is his age!!! 80 years and still gong strong!!
Guess who! Guess who the political newbie Barrack chose as his advisor for international affairs (i.e. in terms of US - handling of war): Zbigniew Brzeziński (hawk and friend of hawk Wolfowitz), who let support the Mujahidin since July, 3rd 1979, what provoked Breshnew to jump into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan half a year later, what got so long refused by the Soviet leadership.
Quote:
True! The average working class voter has little time nor interest to earnestly study and investigate the various political agendas of the candidates. So many decisions are made on gut feelings, personal like or dislike of the one or other candidate, also family and peer pressure play a role.
Not stupid, but discouraged to defend democracy:
People are chased into competitive fights for their daily dollar to secure food and shelter. What intensity shall they develop in checking out their political brainwash? If someone tries to find out political differences between candidates for elections, it turns out to be a waste of time. The avoidance of Barrack Obama to say something besides: "We need change! Now!" ("clever" copied from MDC in Zimbabwe) - that avoidance is very professional “talk without saying something”. Look, how close the alternatives are in the 2008 reelections, or elsewhere in the present world: http://politicalcompass.org/
People are chased into competitive fights for their daily dollar to secure food and shelter. What intensity shall they develop in checking out their political brainwash? If someone tries to find out political differences between candidates for elections, it turns out to be a waste of time. The avoidance of Barrack Obama to say something besides: "We need change! Now!" ("clever" copied from MDC in Zimbabwe) - that avoidance is very professional “talk without saying something”. Look, how close the alternatives are in the 2008 reelections, or elsewhere in the present world: http://politicalcompass.org/
I like your colourful chart! Your are right, there is hardly any difference between the two main party representatives. As has been stated by many, it doesn't change anything fundamentally.
I once read, that all US Presidents are members of the AIPAC.
Member
Posts: 159
Location: U.S.
Location: U.S.
February 6th, 2008, 07:38 AM
Quoting Scott Free
I do agree that the oil companies are making huge profits,..look at exxons profits. But to me, afghanistan isnt a huge oil country,..Iraq is a bigger oil profit than afghanistan. The only reason we are still there is too look for bin laden and to tear the taliban a new a$$ hole. If they keep uprising, we'll continue to show our presence. Noone realizes that we are pulling out 30,000 troops every 2 months.
The oil companies are making huge profits right now.
The only people that want lower prices are us.
Oil companies and government want control, not lower prices.
The only people that want lower prices are us.
Oil companies and government want control, not lower prices.
Council Member
Posts: 2,299
February 6th, 2008, 11:44 AM
what do you mean with "pulling out 30 000 troops every month" ? How many troops does the US have in Afghanistan? I think you could mean they "rotate 30 000 troops every month" in both countries... Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe they actually pull their troops out, period... never to come back there.. uh uh!!
Are you serious they are still looking for bin Laden?? Most of the world knows he is dead!!!
As far as I know Afghanistan is vital as a strategic country in the middle between Iran Pakistan, Uzbekistan and India. The US simply has to be there in that oil-rich area. They are the biggest consumers!!
Here is a wonderful map, which you can rotate around to see where what is located.
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701511561/Caspian_Sea.html
I am not very knowledgeable about that particular area, but it is good to know a little bit at least.
Quoting mbryant26
Hi, Michael;
I do agree that the oil companies are making huge profits,..look at exxons profits. But to me, afghanistan isnt a huge oil country,..Iraq is a bigger oil profit than afghanistan. The only reason we are still there is too look for bin laden and to tear the taliban a new a$$ hole. If they keep uprising, we'll continue to show our presence. Noone realizes that we are pulling out 30,000 troops every 2 months.
what do you mean with "pulling out 30 000 troops every month" ? How many troops does the US have in Afghanistan? I think you could mean they "rotate 30 000 troops every month" in both countries... Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe they actually pull their troops out, period... never to come back there.. uh uh!!
Are you serious they are still looking for bin Laden?? Most of the world knows he is dead!!!
As far as I know Afghanistan is vital as a strategic country in the middle between Iran Pakistan, Uzbekistan and India. The US simply has to be there in that oil-rich area. They are the biggest consumers!!
Here is a wonderful map, which you can rotate around to see where what is located.
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701511561/Caspian_Sea.html
I am not very knowledgeable about that particular area, but it is good to know a little bit at least.
Member
Posts: 159
Location: U.S.
Location: U.S.
February 6th, 2008, 02:01 PM
He might be, but he is very wealthy and he has alot of supporters. He could be anywhere with no beard, etc.
Quoting dancing-loon
Your right, u.s. is the biggest consumer, but we get 60% of our oil comes from saudi arabia. In 3 years China will be the biggest consumer. I didnt mean u.s. pulls out 30,000 troops a month out of afghanistan, they pull 30,000 out of Iraq, I dont know how many they pull out of afghanistan. When I fought in Afghanistan we only had like 25,000 soldiers there. I dont know the exact numbers right now.
Hi, Michael;
what do you mean with "pulling out 30 000 troops every month" ? How many troops does the US have in Afghanistan? I think you could mean they "rotate 30 000 troops every month" in both countries... Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe they actually pull their troops out, period... never to come back there.. uh uh!!
Are you serious they are still looking for bin Laden?? Most of the world knows he is dead!!!
As far as I know Afghanistan is vital as a strategic country in the middle between Iran Pakistan, Uzbekistan and India. The US simply has to be there in that oil-rich area. They are the biggest consumers!!
Here is a wonderful map, which you can rotate around to see where what is located.
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701511561/Caspian_Sea.html
I am not very knowledgeable about that particular area, but it is good to know a little bit at least.
what do you mean with "pulling out 30 000 troops every month" ? How many troops does the US have in Afghanistan? I think you could mean they "rotate 30 000 troops every month" in both countries... Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe they actually pull their troops out, period... never to come back there.. uh uh!!
Are you serious they are still looking for bin Laden?? Most of the world knows he is dead!!!
As far as I know Afghanistan is vital as a strategic country in the middle between Iran Pakistan, Uzbekistan and India. The US simply has to be there in that oil-rich area. They are the biggest consumers!!
Here is a wonderful map, which you can rotate around to see where what is located.
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701511561/Caspian_Sea.html
I am not very knowledgeable about that particular area, but it is good to know a little bit at least.
He might be, but he is very wealthy and he has alot of supporters. He could be anywhere with no beard, etc.
Council Member
Posts: 1,784
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 6th, 2008, 03:47 PM
The USA let bin Laden escape in a deal they brokered for support. While he might be alive or dead, one thing is for sure, the USA isn't spending the resources it should if it were really interested in capturing him or verifying his death. They are using those resources to assert hegemony over the region instead.
Quoting mbryant26
Afghanistan isn't an oil country at all but it has huge geopolitical significance. If someone wants to control ME oil then they must control Afghanistan.
I do agree that the oil companies are making huge profits,..look at exxons profits. But to me, afghanistan isnt a huge oil country,..Iraq is a bigger oil profit than afghanistan. The only reason we are still there is too look for bin laden and to tear the taliban a new a$$ hole. If they keep uprising, we'll continue to show our presence. Noone realizes that we are pulling out 30,000 troops every 2 months.
The USA let bin Laden escape in a deal they brokered for support. While he might be alive or dead, one thing is for sure, the USA isn't spending the resources it should if it were really interested in capturing him or verifying his death. They are using those resources to assert hegemony over the region instead.
Council Member
Posts: 1,784
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 6th, 2008, 04:06 PM
Also the control of oil requires the entire region be controlled. Russia has better scientific data about the origins of oil then the west and is closely guarding that secret now. The proof is that Russia hits oil 11 times in 12 when it drills and they drill in areas that western science would say is a waste of time. By comparison we (the west) hit oil 1 in 10 holes we drill. There is a very real possibility that there is far more oil in the world then we know and that the Russians are better equipped to find it.
Quoting mbryant26
Not true. The USA did let bin Laden escape. If not then where is he? The proof is in the pudding. If it was intentional or not is up for debate, but did they let him escape? Absolutely!
U.S. didnt let bin laden escape,..the soldiers are looking for him in the caves, while his taliban are shooting at them. He's in pakistan or who knows.,
If anyone wants to control oil, then take over saudi arabia.
If anyone wants to control oil, then take over saudi arabia.
Also the control of oil requires the entire region be controlled. Russia has better scientific data about the origins of oil then the west and is closely guarding that secret now. The proof is that Russia hits oil 11 times in 12 when it drills and they drill in areas that western science would say is a waste of time. By comparison we (the west) hit oil 1 in 10 holes we drill. There is a very real possibility that there is far more oil in the world then we know and that the Russians are better equipped to find it.
Senate Member
Posts: 5,586
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
February 6th, 2008, 04:35 PM
Quoting dancing-loon
"humanitrian war" is an oxymoron. ALL war is self-serving, or is at least seen that way........
I knew you would say that... as an American Civil Servant!!!
Tell me one thing, Mister Immigration Officer, is this a humanitarian war your nation is fighting or a self-serving war?
Your friend with the long neck
Tell me one thing, Mister Immigration Officer, is this a humanitarian war your nation is fighting or a self-serving war?
Your friend with the long neck
Council Member
Posts: 2,299
February 6th, 2008, 06:50 PM
I think you just invented a new expression.... brain sprain!! I have to save that to my memory bank of humorous expressions!
Quoting data
Hi, data;
"Oxymoron"? What a brain sprain! "humanitarian war" sells and that is sufficient. Ever heard from American logic (
)? Nothing is so successful like success!
)? Nothing is so successful like success!
I think you just invented a new expression.... brain sprain!!
I have to save that to my memory bank of humorous expressions!
Senate Member
Posts: 5,586
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
February 8th, 2008, 04:14 PM
What the hell does "Ever heared from an American logic?" mean, exactly?
Quoting data
Hey! New in town? Speakee English?
"Oxymoron"? What a brain sprain! "humanitarian war" sells and that is sufficient. Ever heared from American logic ()? Nothing is so successful like success!
)? Nothing is so successful like success!
What the hell does "Ever heared from an American logic?" mean, exactly?
Council Member
Posts: 2,299
February 8th, 2008, 05:29 PM
that's news to me that you were a soldier fighting in Afghanistan! With that credential, you are a first-hand source for us! We surely will believe what you can tell us. Are you wounded? I hope not! Anyway, I went on the web and found out from the Boston Globe news paper, that actually at least another 20 000 troops are needed in Afganistan.
The US accuses Musharraf of squandering money, I think the US are wasting their tax payers' money just as recklessly! 11 billion... sounds like some bribery money to me, like in the Mulrooney and Schreiber scandal... US being Schreiber - Musharraf being Mulrooney! What a hilarious world it actually is... none of it should be taken too serious!
You have an opinion on the need of an extra 20 000 troops, Michael?
Quoting mbryant26
Hi, Michael;
Your right, u.s. is the biggest consumer, but we get 60% of our oil comes from saudi arabia. In 3 years China will be the biggest consumer. I didnt mean u.s. pulls out 30,000 troops a month out of afghanistan, they pull 30,000 out of Iraq, I dont know how many they pull out of afghanistan. When I fought in Afghanistan we only had like 25,000 soldiers there. I dont know the exact numbers right now.
He might be, but he is very wealthy and he has alot of supporters. He could be anywhere with no beard, etc.
He might be, but he is very wealthy and he has alot of supporters. He could be anywhere with no beard, etc.
that's news to me that you were a soldier fighting in Afghanistan! With that credential, you are a first-hand source for us! We surely will believe what you can tell us. Are you wounded? I hope not! Anyway, I went on the web and found out from the Boston Globe news paper, that actually at least another 20 000 troops are needed in Afganistan.
Quote:
A grandiose suggestion... one that will never happen!
The stakes are too high to be tinkering on the margins of US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan needs at least 20,000 more troops. The United States also must coordinate its military operations more effectively by placing all of its troops under a unified NATO command.
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...n_afghanistan/
The Bush administration has over-personalized its policy toward a discredited dictator and allowed Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, to squander the $11 billion we have given his country since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on items that will not help deal with the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The US accuses Musharraf of squandering money, I think the US are wasting their tax payers' money just as recklessly! 11 billion... sounds like some bribery money to me, like in the Mulrooney and Schreiber scandal... US being Schreiber - Musharraf being Mulrooney!
What a hilarious world it actually is... none of it should be taken too serious!You have an opinion on the need of an extra 20 000 troops, Michael?
Electoral Member
Posts: 141
February 9th, 2008, 01:00 PM
Yeah, I guess dealing with a fundamentalist, misogenest-type (sp) regime would be in our best interest not to say the Afgans themselves. Yeah, sure....
Oh, and the pipeline - yeah - investment is going to pour into the area with that type of government...can't wait for it to happen.
Yeah, I guess dealing with a fundamentalist, misogenest-type (sp) regime would be in our best interest not to say the Afgans themselves. Yeah, sure....
Oh, and the pipeline - yeah - investment is going to pour into the area with that type of government...can't wait for it to happen.
