Cricket Player Manager
Page 38 of 152 FirstFirst ... 2836373839404888138 ... LastLast
Results 556 to 570 of 2266
Like Tree58Likes

Thread: The Official Pakistan Politics thread

  1. #556
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    34,002
    i mean if i was in charge of the most kick arse country in the world and there was some douche being a douche to the people of his country i'd probably step in and do something about it. i'd be a douche if i didn't wouldn't i
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left

  2. #557
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Iraq did have chemical WMD in their past so I never minded the allusion to WMD in Iraq, most knew they had previously developed chemical WMD before and could potentially do so again. Was this enough to go to war for? Probably not. The nuke claims were, as was revealed, a dubious claim at best.
    awta.

    I did mention that earlier
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  3. #558
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    i mean if i was in charge of the most kick arse country in the world and there was some douche being a douche to the people of his country i'd probably step in and do something about it. i'd be a douche if i didn't wouldn't i
    What if you were already a bigger douche?

  4. #559
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    34,002
    i'm not tho. i'm a democratically elected - not bush at that stage tho - loved by about 44% of my country.

    in summary, bush killed hussein because he was a douche. next area of discussion please.Israel.
    Last edited by Spikey; 06-12-2011 at 05:22 AM.


  5. #560
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,327
    Spikey, what are you trying to hint at? That it was actually about freedom and democracy?

  6. #561
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    i'm not tho. i'm a democratically elected - not bush at that stage tho - loved by about 44% of my country.
    gifs to become a new unparallelled form of political advertising
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    forever 63*

  7. #562
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    34,002
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    Spikey, what are you trying to hint at? That it was actually about freedom and democracy?
    well i mean in case you didn't know the US kinda hates tyrants who don't like them. and then related to that is fear over national security. it was about america and their allies which is a fair amount of the population. the fact in theory it was great for the iraqis came into it too. i reckon the majority of talk about oil would have centered on "once we do this everyone is gonna say we're doing this for oil how should we combat that talk". the usa government ain't my favourite people but it's a gross insult to say they sent 100,000 of their citizens into a war just to take control of oil.

  8. #563
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    well i mean in case you didn't know the US kinda hates tyrants who don't like them. and then related to that is fear over national security. it was about america and their allies which is a fair amount of the population. the fact in theory it was great for the iraqis came into it too. i reckon the majority of talk about oil would have centered on "once we do this everyone is gonna say we're doing this for oil how should we combat that talk". the usa government ain't my favourite people but it's a gross insult to say they sent 100,000 of their citizens into a war just to take control of oil.
    Isn't this the same tyrant that they loved all throughout the 80s????

    Besides there are a number of other tyrants too who don't like the USA and yet we don't see a full scale invasion.

  9. #564
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    well i mean in case you didn't know the US kinda hates tyrants who don't like them. and then related to that is fear over national security. it was about america and their allies which is a fair amount of the population. the fact in theory it was great for the iraqis came into it too. i reckon the majority of talk about oil would have centered on "once we do this everyone is gonna say we're doing this for oil how should we combat that talk". the usa government ain't my favourite people but it's a gross insult to say they sent 100,000 of their citizens into a war just to take control of oil.
    hmmm... whilst there certainly is a more idealistic "we don't like tyrants" section of the us on both sides (very little distinction in terms of ends between neoconservatives and more interventionist human rights activists ie. on both "right" and "left"), most of them take the more realpolitik-based realist view that national interest trumps all.

    and rightly so, because you get into a godawful mess if you try and view the world through an idealist lens, as they found out in iraq, as many are finding out in libya now, and as they may find out in egypt (as i was just reading about an hour ago).

    having said that though, it's pretty bloody hard to mount a national interest case for iraq that actually holds up to scrutiny. which of course was why it was such a monumentally stupid endeavour... and severely undermanned, too, which is a major cause of all the post-04 ills they suffered.

  10. #565
    International Coach Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    10,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Faisal1985 View Post
    true story imo

    controlled demolition.
    Can we not derail the thread with this nonsense. People will be put off visiting the thread and as a result we won't have a good discussion, as we are having at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    And FYI, Rome had rivals, from Carthage to Parthia to Persia (at different times).

    America may not always remain the pre-eminent superpower but we have a large population but not so large as to strain natural resources, a lot more natural resources and habitable land than someone like China, and we are well situated far enough away from other major powers as to not worry about border issues (aside from Immigration type things).

    Also comparing it to Rome is funny because I'll take a 1000 years thank you very much.
    So you agree that the US will not remain a strong super power, say in about 100 years. My question is, how will the US maintain the standard of living for its people when that happens? How will the employees in the US be paid the same amount that they are currently enjoying, remain employed when better industries crop up (that are more competitive) and buy goods that are expensive due to inflation.

    Take new York society for example, it's a very affluent society, with a very specialised labour force (probably the most in the world). A society where most people have their own therapists, trainers, dog-walkers, etc. How can a society like this survive for the foreseeable future?

    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    I know you guys want profits immediately but patience is a virtue. Capital expenditure always comes first. Read .

    "Iraq is worth owning, unlike Vietnam. I mean Eisenhower did contrive stories about the rubber and the tin and so forth but that was mostly for propaganda purposes. Vietnamese resources were not of that much significance. Iraq is totally different. It is the last corner of the world in which there are massive petroleum resources pretty much unexplored, maybe the largest in the world or close to it. Now they are very easy to gain access to. The profits from that must flow primarily to the right pockets, that is, US and secondarily UK energy corporations. And controlling that resource puts the US in a very powerful position, even more powerful than today, to exert influence over the world."

    from Noam Chomsky

    On the War in Iraq, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

    Wait. There is more.

    Now at first the US intended to run it like a pure colony. I mean the Bremer laws [named after former US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer] that were passed apart from being illegal were just grotesque. I mean they opened up the whole economy to foreign takeover. It was a joke: Iraqi businesses would not have been able to survive. Nothing.
    I am sorry Smali, but I completely disagree with this. The US did not go to Vietnam for its resources. They went to stop the spread of a so called "evil" ideology known as Communism. And Iraq doesn't have the largest deposit of oil in the world, and it's also not easy to extract oil. It's a very expensive procedure, which gets more expensive the deeper the oil is. That's why nobody gives a **** about oil reserves in Canada, because the cost of oil extraction and refinement is more expensive than what they can get with it by selling it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    I'm not sure why they were so insistent on the nuclear aspect. That was almost certainly a political thing because in the public mind, chemical weapons sound bad but nuclear weapons are death incarnate (when in reality given the purpose I would be far more concerned about chemical weapons than nuclear. Nasty, nasty ****ers)
    They were insistent on the nuclear aspect because they claimed that they had an inside source (Iraqi military) telling them that Iraq had WMD's. The problem was that the source was lying to the US all along. Saddam did have WMD's but he decommissioned them long ago (probably after the first gulf war).

    And Spikey the whole going into Iraq to get rid of the douche Saddam is a noble gesture, but it's absolute bull****. Saddam was still a douche back when the US was supplying him with weapons during the Iraq-Iran war.

    In fact a wiki-leaks cable reveals that the US actually told Saddam to invade Kuwait. And we all know what happened next (the US invaded Iraq for invading Kuwait).

    WikiLeaks Reveals a Smoking Gun: U.S. Encouraged Iraq to Invade Kuwait in 1990 and Start Gulf War - Veterans For Common Sense

  11. #566
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    I am sorry Smali, but I completely disagree with this. The US did not go to Vietnam for its resources. They went to stop the spread of a so called "evil" ideology known as Communism. And Iraq doesn't have the largest deposit of oil in the world, and it's also not easy to extract oil. It's a very expensive procedure, which gets more expensive the deeper the oil is. That's why nobody gives a **** about oil reserves in Canada, because the cost of oil extraction and refinement is more expensive than what they can get with it by selling it.


    Isn't that exactly what Chomsky is saying regarding Vietnam?

    And he said the Iraqi reserves may be the largest in the world not that they ARE the largest.

    Spark to shed more light on why the US was in Vietnam

  12. #567
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,588
    Good question AN, but it's worth remembering that none of us have any idea what will constitute "affluent" standard of life in 50 years' time.

    I'm reading the cable now and while it's interesting, I'm very reluctant to read too much into it because it is so clearly wrapped in diplo-speak and there's all kinds of threads, slights of language and the such that you have to be pretty good to untangle.

  13. #568
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    They were insistent on the nuclear aspect because they claimed that they had an inside source (Iraqi military) telling them that Iraq had WMD's. The problem was that the source was lying to the US all along.


    sorry but I found this part funny

  14. #569
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,588
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post


    Isn't that exactly what Chomsky is saying regarding Vietnam?

    And he said the Iraqi reserves may be the largest in the world not that they ARE the largest.

    Spark to shed more light on why the US was in Vietnam
    Vietnam was an ideological war, through and through. Containment containment containment, that's what it was about.

  15. #570
    International Coach Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    10,027
    Yeah, to contain Communism. Fairly stupid imo, because they should have realised that communism would have failed on its own.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Official Programming Thread
    By vcs in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 25-01-2012, 09:57 PM
  2. Pakistan vs England Jul-Aug-Sep 2010
    By gunner in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24-07-2010, 09:41 PM
  3. India Pakistan Slug-fest !!
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17-08-2009, 11:50 AM
  4. Pakistan Squad
    By Xuhaib in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2009, 07:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •