you watch too many movies. one helicopter? one team? wow, you really know nothing of the area in question.
i wouldnt blame it on movies. i took the liberty of assuming. i dont hink it would be as hard as you are paitning him. one minute he is pushed to the edges of the world hiding in caves riding horses with old school weapons, then the next minute only world war 3 can capture him? which is it?
so you dont believe pakistan would treat it as an act of war? you are ok with risking a country like pakistan being our all out enemy? a country with nukes? and a very tense situation to the east? not me.
ONE MORE TIME. you cut off their fucking money and military aid and he would be on our step by the morning. period. dont blame me becuase i realize they have no intertest in capturing him. he is more valuable to their hegemonic desires alive and free. period. if pakistan is so unfriendly and unccoperative with osama then why are we funneling billions thier way as a friend in the "war on terror"
you just cant believe your leaders would let him run free? i understand, it is a tough pill to swallow once you realize they are all pieces of shit that dont give a fuck about you or your country
secondly, how do we prove osama is there? and you keep avoiding my other question. would you support prsident bush sending in troops to pakistan if we had proof osama is there?
i wouldnt blame it on movies. i took the liberty of assuming. i dont hink it would be as hard as you are paitning him. one minute he is pushed to the edges of the world hiding in caves riding horses with old school weapons, then the next minute only world war 3 can capture him? which is it?
why did it take so long to get saddam? osama is hiding in one of the most remote areas of the world. he doesnt walk around with a target on his head. lets try and add some common sense to the disccusion.
ONE MORE TIME. you cut off their fucking money and military aid and he would be on our step by the morning. period.
again, you say this as its fact. what if he's not handed over on a silver platter? or do you not even consider that as an option.. i'm not all that happy with the aid we give them. but they do give us help in some sense. they are not our enemy. musaraf keeps the population in check. got it now?
dont blame me becuase i realize they have no intertest in capturing him. he is more valuable to their hegemonic desires alive and free. period. if pakistan is so unfriendly and unccoperative with osama then why are we funneling billions thier way as a friend in the "war on terror"
you just cant believe your leaders would let him run free? i understand, it is a tough pill to swallow once you realize they are all pieces of shit that dont give a fuck about you or your country
this is such crap. this all 100% your opinion. none is fact. WE CAN NOT PROVE WHERE HE IS. the sooner you understand that, the better.
Note the red highlight and tell the readers again why you can't go in there?
Pakistan's Musharraf increasingly isolated
MOSHIN RAZA / REUTERS
Lawyers take part in a rally against the suspension of a top judge in Lahore, May 31, 2007. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's move to sack the country's chief justice in March has triggered the worst street violence in years.
Growing criticism of general's rule making his position `untenable, unsustainable,' analysts say
ISLAMABAD–When Pakistani President Perez Musharraf survived back-to-back assassination attempts in 2003, he might have thought the worst lay behind him. But now, after easily quelling any threat to his power during eight years of military rule, the general appears trapped in a labyrinth of his own making.
His attempt 2 1/2 months ago to sideline the country's independent-minded chief justice touched off nationwide protests that have coalesced into a full-blown pro-democracy movement. Islamist militants have established a firm foothold in the tribal borderlands, and vigilante-style followers of a radical cleric here in the capital have been kidnapping police officers and menacing those they consider to be promoting a licentious lifestyle.
Musharraf's supporters are blamed for bloody street fighting last month in Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, which killed more than 45 people, many of them workers for opposition political parties. And the general's once-polished speeches and public statements lately have taken on a tone that alternates between shrill accusations and near-tearful pleas for understanding.
Long-time political allies are beginning to distance themselves from the 63-year-old Pakistani leader. And although top generals appear to be standing by him, even government ministers are remaining silent in the face of withering criticism of his rule, or offering only a tepid defence.
"His position has become untenable, unsustainable," said author and analyst Ahmed Rashid.
"I don't see how he can hang on," said prominent journalist Zahid Hussain.
The choices facing Musharraf are stark ones, analysts say. He could hunker down and try to ride out the current crisis, or move to declare martial law. He could seek to strike a deal with opposition figures, who are likely to spurn him. Or he could step aside.
"It's a scenario that could play out over some time, or could play out quite quickly," said Teresita Schaffer, director for South Asia affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "My experience is that in Pakistan, when things are in decline, they don't go down a sloping ramp; it's a series of steep stair steps.''
Amid the turmoil, the United States increasingly is viewed as the main power propping up Musharraf in the face of calls that he renounce his position as army chief, allow the creation of an interim government and call free and fair elections.
Some observers warn that the Bush administration's continuing support for Musharraf at this crucial juncture could threaten long-term U.S. interests in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state that is considered an indispensable ally in the fight against Islamic insurgents across the border in Afghanistan.
"There's a huge disappointment over the American position, a real sense that it is a short-sighted one," said Samina Ahmed, South Asia project director at the Brussels, Belgium-based International Crisis Group.
For the time being, the general appears to retain the backing of his patrons in the Bush administration, with whom he cast his lot after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Are we pulling away from Musharraf? No," said a U.S. diplomat. "Because that would be pulling away from the government of Pakistan. We will not draw away from this relationship.''
The conventional wisdom has held that Musharraf is a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalists, and that without him, the country could slide into chaos, creating a vacuum that extremist groups would rush to fill.
But opposition parties insist that free and fair elections could empower a moderate, Western-leaning regime. Islamist parties won only about 12 per cent of the vote in the last parliamentary elections, in 2002, and many people believe they would draw less support now.
"There's this perception that if Musharraf goes, in come the Taliban," said Sherry Rehman, a Pakistan People's Party MP. "That's really not the case.'' The opposition insists the groundswell of support for Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whom Musharraf is trying to oust, has become a larger renunciation of military rule.
would you support president bush if he sent troops into pakistan?
Through Pakistan and into the region that almost everybody believes that Bin is in? Sure, I'd play along with that foray. Sure the people who believe the tribal region to be some kind of zen land who live in Pakistan may have a problem with it. But name me a country that when a foreign army goes into or through that 100% of the population likes what is happening. The boy in Pakistan is supposed to be an ally. Then he should be playing along. Not the US's fault that he can't keep the country running smooth. Neither could Saddam and he was another one of your puppets. Look at Iraq and look at Pakistan. Almost the same thing. The people with money like who the leader is. The rest would off him in a second.
As for what I believe about that day when the Bin man became public enemy number one. I would like to see the States go in there and get him. Hell you are already in Afgan with some other countries including Canada. Why don't they have a big push north. Then there would be no need for Pakistan, except to have to go in there after you have chased the Bin man out of his cave. So you may end up in Pakistan but for a very good reason.
Aren't any of the "stans" above Afgan on your buddy list? Not a bad starting ground from there either.
Talking about invading Pakistan is laughable and a complete waste of time.
especially considering pakistan are nuclear armed.
i guess bin laden is hiding in those same caves that the US helped modify for the mujahideen when they were our friends and the enemy was the soviet state. looking for people who know the terrain like the backs of their hands by those who also know the terrain but dont apply the forces needed or who failed to provide the man power to do the job in the first place puts bin laden at a considerable advantage. pakistan is the 3rd largest recipient of US foreign aid behind egypt and israel. if they wanted to seriously find bin laden they could do it. one would think the billions of tax payers' dollars the US government has provided islamabad with over the past few years would grease the wheels enough. if musharraf wants to keep his leadership, and his life for that matter, one would imagine a little pressure need only be applied for some action to transpire.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
whos bin laden, ive never heard of this guy. is he that guy we helped in the 80s against russia and was buddy buddy with us and then we turned on him so he bombed us a couple of times, is that him
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
whos bin laden, ive never heard of this guy. is he that guy we helped in the 80s against russia and was buddy buddy with us and then we turned on him so he bombed us a couple of times, is that him
especially considering pakistan are nuclear armed.
i guess bin laden is hiding in those same caves that the US helped modify for the mujahideen when they were our friends and the enemy was the soviet state. looking for people who know the terrain like the backs of their hands by those who also know the terrain but dont apply the forces needed or who failed to provide the man power to do the job in the first place puts bin laden at a considerable advantage. pakistan is the 3rd largest recipient of US foreign aid behind egypt and israel. if they wanted to seriously find bin laden they could do it. one would think the billions of tax payers' dollars the US government has provided islamabad with over the past few years would grease the wheels enough. if musharraf wants to keep his leadership, and his life for that matter, one would imagine a little pressure need only be applied for some action to transpire.
not taht I dont believe you cate, but do you have a link proving that?. I searched and couldnt find the list.
to be honest jlew, i got this information from a source. i do hold him in high regard, but as i am only relying on his truth and fact gathering skills, i shall endeavour to find some confirmation for you. i'll get back to you.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well...he's awfully quiet for a guy who's still alive and comfortably hooked into some underground elite hideout(s) with loads of cash at his disposal...
all his muja buddies are cranking out mega jihad tapes (1 every 3 days to be exact)...I'm somewhat amazed Binnie hasn't managed even a 10 second guest appearance...however he's obviously Bin-faked (:D ) by a look alike in 2004 though.
Seems to me a big egocentric attention getter like him (I believe he was profiled as such before 9/11) would probably rally the troops a little more than he is...still being alive and all. Unless he just wants to look like some trembling kneed chump by his inner circle. I doubt he'd take this approach
Maybe he's just really big on incredibly long and drawn out suspense and surprises.
or maybe he's just dead as hell...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
why would anyone want to invade pakistan in the first place, it would cause far more harm to US interests than good.
exactly. I would have a hard time supporting going into pakistan even if we knew bin laden was there. that country is just too fucked up. and has nukes.
"The Center defined U.S. military aid as taxpayer supported programs that contribute to a foreign nation’s offensive military capabilities."
I had no idea the United States pumped that much money, (time & effort) into war.
is it me, or wtf is wrong with this picture?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
foreign aid doesn't really bother me that much. the world would probably be a lot more fucked up if we weren't using it to influence other governments' policies.
even military aid?
and the non discriminatory practice where human rights abusers are concerned?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
now you see why some of us are so amused and horrified by the actions of the US governemnt and their policy makers.
good lord...no shit eh? It seems the more I look into it the crazier it gets...
If Pakistan is such a volatile powder keg why dump gasoline on it?
Honestly...it must all be a big ploy to destabilize the entire region to take it over...
why else? it seems utterly nonsensical otherwise..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
military aid isn't necessarily a bad thing. it doesn't always lead to war. if we weren't giving military aid to Israel or Taiwan they almost certainly would've been invaded and effectively destroyed by now. military aid also led to the development of Western Europe and the peace, cooperation, and prosperity that Western Europe has experienced. i could go on and on. our military aid has led to the preservation and stability of many regions throughout the world.
of course, military aid can lead to war and can also come back to haunt us later on. but everything isn't so black and white, not all military aid is bad. i'd wager that the majority of it has done a lot of good.
well, in my jaded opinion all military aid is bad. it perpetuates a never ending cycle of violence.
please define western europe for me.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
military aid isn't necessarily a bad thing. it doesn't always lead to war. if we weren't giving military aid to Israel or Taiwan they almost certainly would've been invaded and effectively destroyed by now. military aid also led to the development of Western Europe and the peace, cooperation, and prosperity that Western Europe has experienced. i could go on and on. our military aid has led to the preservation and stability of many regions throughout the world.
of course, military aid can lead to war and can also come back to haunt us later on. but everything isn't so black and white, not all military aid is bad. i'd wager that the majority of it has done a lot of good.
I imagine it's quite the opposite in reality...
Dude...you sound a bit like Richard Perle...he's one twisted mofo upstairs. not speaking to you specifically (I don't know you) but that Perle guy creeps me out large...he got some seriously cold evil eyes..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
military aid isn't necessarily a bad thing. it doesn't always lead to war. if we weren't giving military aid to Israel or Taiwan they almost certainly would've been invaded and effectively destroyed by now. military aid also led to the development of Western Europe and the peace, cooperation, and prosperity that Western Europe has experienced. i could go on and on. our military aid has led to the preservation and stability of many regions throughout the world.
of course, military aid can lead to war and can also come back to haunt us later on. but everything isn't so black and white, not all military aid is bad. i'd wager that the majority of it has done a lot of good.
the US gave billions in military aid to western europe (france, west germany, britain, belgium, austria, denmark, netherlands, norway, italy, etc) which developed the post-war economies that were devastated by the war. it led to the growth that europe has experienced until today, prevented the takeover of western europe by the soviet union, and laid the seeds for integration that has led to the european union.
the thing that you're not realizing is that without military aid there could be an even greater cycle of violence. through the use of aid and the threat of suspending aid, the US (and the EU, and international organizations) can prevent nations from taking hostile actions in the international community. like i said, its not all black and white.
. if there were no military, and yes i know how utopian that concept is(not to mention possibly delusional), we would have to find other ways to resolve conflict. just like we tell our children on a daily basis.
i dont believe the US had to provide MILITARY aid to western europe in order to secure its sovereignty.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I can't say specifically... I may just be naive, but I just don't see how moving in one direction actually takes one in the opposite direction...like an "either part of the problem or part of the solution" scenario... I don't see how supporting and progressing the very notion of war can possibly evade or eliminate it.... I suppose I'm more of a philosopher in this regard. The last thing you want to give children is loaded weapons.
I think no matter what you try to do in that direction (guns, bombs, war)... for whatever reason...it ultimately escalates it and creates more. It's like it's own little stock market in a way and the countries are the stock.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
. if there were no military, and yes i know how utopian that concept is(not to mention possibly delusional), we would have to find other ways to resolve conflict. just like we tell our children on a daily basis.
i dont believe the US had to provide MILITARY aid to western europe in order to secure its sovereignty.
o come on cate. military will be here until the end of time. just like its been since the beginning of it..
someday 6 billion people are going to put down there weapons? its part of human nature.
knowing that, can you at least see the point icaus is making?
I can't say specifically... I may just be naive, but I just don't see how moving in one direction actually takes one in the opposite direction...like an "either part of the problem or part of the solution" scenario... I don't see how supporting and progressing the very notion of war can possibly evade or eliminate it
by giving military aid, we arent "supporting and progressing war" just look at eygpt. we hav ebeen giving them billions for years. what wars have they been in, in the past 30 years?
then what else were they going to do? soviet tanks rolled all the way up to berlin and would've gone the rest of the way through.
umm you do realise the soviets were on our side and they were defending themselves after the germans invaded their country, right?
i certainly have no problem with soviet tanks rolling all the way up to berlin whilst liberating europe from nazi occupation.
the point of giving any kind of aid, economic or military, is that you create a lifeline that another country will need. by creating that lifeline, you automatically have an influence over their policy decisions. the threat of suspending aid or increasing aid can have a large sway over the policymakers and leaders of these countries, especially developing nations that are desperate or even relying on that aid for survival (in the case of certain african nations). by using this influence and this threat of suspension, you can control the actions that that government will take, such as liberalizing their economy, not taking aggressive military actions, etc. its not as simple as "more military aid equals more military actions." its about the control that you create over that government and you can thereby restrict their actions.
It's pretty incredible how far removed we are as we sit here...formally educated...on computers..having the privilege of circumstance (being the top 5% ?) as billions in the third world stumble around like fools in the dark ages... some crazy shit man. It's a bit painful watching people and societies slowly evolve. Unfortunately they have access to our advanced technology and modern weapons.
I suppose once a particular device of destruction is invented and it exists, I believe it's usage is entirely out of control at that point.
I wonder at what point this whole thing collapses and we turn into colonial farmers again...lol
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
ONE MORE TIME. you cut off their fucking money and military aid and he would be on our step by the morning. period. dont blame me becuase i realize they have no intertest in capturing him. he is more valuable to their hegemonic desires alive and free. period. if pakistan is so unfriendly and unccoperative with osama then why are we funneling billions thier way as a friend in the "war on terror"
you just cant believe your leaders would let him run free? i understand, it is a tough pill to swallow once you realize they are all pieces of shit that dont give a fuck about you or your country
your the one that said he was in pakistan?
again, you say this as its fact. what if he's not handed over on a silver platter? or do you not even consider that as an option.. i'm not all that happy with the aid we give them. but they do give us help in some sense. they are not our enemy. musaraf keeps the population in check. got it now?
this is such crap. this all 100% your opinion. none is fact. WE CAN NOT PROVE WHERE HE IS. the sooner you understand that, the better.
thats my best guess, yes.
Note the red highlight and tell the readers again why you can't go in there?
Pakistan's Musharraf increasingly isolated
MOSHIN RAZA / REUTERS
Lawyers take part in a rally against the suspension of a top judge in Lahore, May 31, 2007. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's move to sack the country's chief justice in March has triggered the worst street violence in years.
Growing criticism of general's rule making his position `untenable, unsustainable,' analysts say
ISLAMABAD–When Pakistani President Perez Musharraf survived back-to-back assassination attempts in 2003, he might have thought the worst lay behind him. But now, after easily quelling any threat to his power during eight years of military rule, the general appears trapped in a labyrinth of his own making.
His attempt 2 1/2 months ago to sideline the country's independent-minded chief justice touched off nationwide protests that have coalesced into a full-blown pro-democracy movement. Islamist militants have established a firm foothold in the tribal borderlands, and vigilante-style followers of a radical cleric here in the capital have been kidnapping police officers and menacing those they consider to be promoting a licentious lifestyle.
Musharraf's supporters are blamed for bloody street fighting last month in Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, which killed more than 45 people, many of them workers for opposition political parties. And the general's once-polished speeches and public statements lately have taken on a tone that alternates between shrill accusations and near-tearful pleas for understanding.
Long-time political allies are beginning to distance themselves from the 63-year-old Pakistani leader. And although top generals appear to be standing by him, even government ministers are remaining silent in the face of withering criticism of his rule, or offering only a tepid defence.
"His position has become untenable, unsustainable," said author and analyst Ahmed Rashid.
"I don't see how he can hang on," said prominent journalist Zahid Hussain.
The choices facing Musharraf are stark ones, analysts say. He could hunker down and try to ride out the current crisis, or move to declare martial law. He could seek to strike a deal with opposition figures, who are likely to spurn him. Or he could step aside.
"It's a scenario that could play out over some time, or could play out quite quickly," said Teresita Schaffer, director for South Asia affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "My experience is that in Pakistan, when things are in decline, they don't go down a sloping ramp; it's a series of steep stair steps.''
Amid the turmoil, the United States increasingly is viewed as the main power propping up Musharraf in the face of calls that he renounce his position as army chief, allow the creation of an interim government and call free and fair elections.
Some observers warn that the Bush administration's continuing support for Musharraf at this crucial juncture could threaten long-term U.S. interests in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state that is considered an indispensable ally in the fight against Islamic insurgents across the border in Afghanistan.
"There's a huge disappointment over the American position, a real sense that it is a short-sighted one," said Samina Ahmed, South Asia project director at the Brussels, Belgium-based International Crisis Group.
For the time being, the general appears to retain the backing of his patrons in the Bush administration, with whom he cast his lot after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Are we pulling away from Musharraf? No," said a U.S. diplomat. "Because that would be pulling away from the government of Pakistan. We will not draw away from this relationship.''
The conventional wisdom has held that Musharraf is a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalists, and that without him, the country could slide into chaos, creating a vacuum that extremist groups would rush to fill.
But opposition parties insist that free and fair elections could empower a moderate, Western-leaning regime. Islamist parties won only about 12 per cent of the vote in the last parliamentary elections, in 2002, and many people believe they would draw less support now.
"There's this perception that if Musharraf goes, in come the Taliban," said Sherry Rehman, a Pakistan People's Party MP. "That's really not the case.'' The opposition insists the groundswell of support for Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whom Musharraf is trying to oust, has become a larger renunciation of military rule.
would you support president bush if he sent troops into pakistan?
Through Pakistan and into the region that almost everybody believes that Bin is in? Sure, I'd play along with that foray. Sure the people who believe the tribal region to be some kind of zen land who live in Pakistan may have a problem with it. But name me a country that when a foreign army goes into or through that 100% of the population likes what is happening. The boy in Pakistan is supposed to be an ally. Then he should be playing along. Not the US's fault that he can't keep the country running smooth. Neither could Saddam and he was another one of your puppets. Look at Iraq and look at Pakistan. Almost the same thing. The people with money like who the leader is. The rest would off him in a second.
As for what I believe about that day when the Bin man became public enemy number one. I would like to see the States go in there and get him. Hell you are already in Afgan with some other countries including Canada. Why don't they have a big push north. Then there would be no need for Pakistan, except to have to go in there after you have chased the Bin man out of his cave.
Aren't any of the "stans" above Afgan on your buddy list? Not a bad starting ground from there either.
it was reported??? really? story like that gots to be true.
especially considering pakistan are nuclear armed.
i guess bin laden is hiding in those same caves that the US helped modify for the mujahideen when they were our friends and the enemy was the soviet state. looking for people who know the terrain like the backs of their hands by those who also know the terrain but dont apply the forces needed or who failed to provide the man power to do the job in the first place puts bin laden at a considerable advantage. pakistan is the 3rd largest recipient of US foreign aid behind egypt and israel. if they wanted to seriously find bin laden they could do it. one would think the billions of tax payers' dollars the US government has provided islamabad with over the past few years would grease the wheels enough. if musharraf wants to keep his leadership, and his life for that matter, one would imagine a little pressure need only be applied for some action to transpire.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
i dont find my info on the net. i use hard copy.
which part were you searching for?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
just a list of who and how much we give aid to.
and by aid I assume u mean military aid?
to be honest jlew, i got this information from a source. i do hold him in high regard, but as i am only relying on his truth and fact gathering skills, i shall endeavour to find some confirmation for you.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
all his muja buddies are cranking out mega jihad tapes (1 every 3 days to be exact)...I'm somewhat amazed Binnie hasn't managed even a 10 second guest appearance...however he's obviously Bin-faked (:D ) by a look alike in 2004 though.
Seems to me a big egocentric attention getter like him (I believe he was profiled as such before 9/11) would probably rally the troops a little more than he is...still being alive and all. Unless he just wants to look like some trembling kneed chump by his inner circle. I doubt he'd take this approach
Maybe he's just really big on incredibly long and drawn out suspense and surprises.
or maybe he's just dead as hell...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
ooh thanks icarus.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
thanks. thats alot of aid to pakistan. it will be quite ugly if that country ever turns on us.
Holy shit!
"The Center defined U.S. military aid as taxpayer supported programs that contribute to a foreign nation’s offensive military capabilities."
I had no idea the United States pumped that much money, (time & effort) into war.
is it me, or wtf is wrong with this picture?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
now you see why some of us are so amused and horrified by the actions of the US governemnt and their policy makers.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
even military aid?
and the non discriminatory practice where human rights abusers are concerned?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
good lord...no shit eh? It seems the more I look into it the crazier it gets...
If Pakistan is such a volatile powder keg why dump gasoline on it?
Honestly...it must all be a big ploy to destabilize the entire region to take it over...
why else? it seems utterly nonsensical otherwise..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well, in my jaded opinion all military aid is bad. it perpetuates a never ending cycle of violence.
please define western europe for me.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I imagine it's quite the opposite in reality...
Dude...you sound a bit like Richard Perle...he's one twisted mofo upstairs. not speaking to you specifically (I don't know you) but that Perle guy creeps me out large...he got some seriously cold evil eyes..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
. if there were no military, and yes i know how utopian that concept is(not to mention possibly delusional), we would have to find other ways to resolve conflict. just like we tell our children on a daily basis.
i dont believe the US had to provide MILITARY aid to western europe in order to secure its sovereignty.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I can't say specifically... I may just be naive, but I just don't see how moving in one direction actually takes one in the opposite direction...like an "either part of the problem or part of the solution" scenario... I don't see how supporting and progressing the very notion of war can possibly evade or eliminate it.... I suppose I'm more of a philosopher in this regard. The last thing you want to give children is loaded weapons.
I think no matter what you try to do in that direction (guns, bombs, war)... for whatever reason...it ultimately escalates it and creates more. It's like it's own little stock market in a way and the countries are the stock.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
someday 6 billion people are going to put down there weapons? its part of human nature.
knowing that, can you at least see the point icaus is making?
umm you do realise the soviets were on our side and they were defending themselves after the germans invaded their country, right?
i certainly have no problem with soviet tanks rolling all the way up to berlin whilst liberating europe from nazi occupation.
oh yeah i know military has been here since the dawn of time and that is will remain. i'm just dreaming.
oh and by the way 6 billion people are not armed.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's pretty incredible how far removed we are as we sit here...formally educated...on computers..having the privilege of circumstance (being the top 5% ?) as billions in the third world stumble around like fools in the dark ages... some crazy shit man. It's a bit painful watching people and societies slowly evolve. Unfortunately they have access to our advanced technology and modern weapons.
I suppose once a particular device of destruction is invented and it exists, I believe it's usage is entirely out of control at that point.
I wonder at what point this whole thing collapses and we turn into colonial farmers again...lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")