| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
There's a pretty lively discussion going on at KOS about the fact that,
relatively speaking, little aid is flowing to Pakistan to help with that country's disaster relief. Several posters have opined thoughts similar to the following: "A lot of commentators are saying that Pakistan is a country that spends billions on its military and has enough money to fund nuclear weapons, and therefore it should reassess its spending priorities rather than expect foreign countries to save its people from cholera and starvation while it continues to spend 40% of its GDP on weapons and less than 1% on public health. UNICEF has been saying the same thing for years and years: Pakistan lets hundreds of thousands of its children die of diarrhoea every year (floods or no floods) in favour of playing expensive and dangerous war games. The difficulty in getting people to pony up financial aid reflects ordinary human disgust at the idea of rewarding this." A reasonable thought? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/22/895204/-Why Oh...boating related...lack of boats, flooded rivers, et cetera. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:52:54 -0400, Secular Humanist
wrote: There's a pretty lively discussion going on at KOS about the fact that, relatively speaking, little aid is flowing to Pakistan to help with that country's disaster relief. Several posters have opined thoughts similar to the following: "A lot of commentators are saying that Pakistan is a country that spends billions on its military and has enough money to fund nuclear weapons, and therefore it should reassess its spending priorities rather than expect foreign countries to save its people from cholera and starvation while it continues to spend 40% of its GDP on weapons and less than 1% on public health. UNICEF has been saying the same thing for years and years: Pakistan lets hundreds of thousands of its children die of diarrhoea every year (floods or no floods) in favour of playing expensive and dangerous war games. The difficulty in getting people to pony up financial aid reflects ordinary human disgust at the idea of rewarding this." A reasonable thought? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/22/895204/-Why Oh...boating related...lack of boats, flooded rivers, et cetera. well they do have shari'a. that probably gives them comfort as they watch their children die. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On 8/22/10 5:50 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 8/22/2010 9:52 AM, Secular Humanist wrote: There's a pretty lively discussion going on at KOS about the fact that, relatively speaking, little aid is flowing to Pakistan to help with that country's disaster relief. Yep, billions on military and nuclear weapons. But no money for the people. Do you think the Muslims will thank the west? Speaking of which, has other Muslim nations ever helped their own? We are in Canada and the US in debt up the wazoo and Pakistan only owes $50 billion give or take. Don't we have some of our own problems that could use the money such as a few decaying and unsafe bridges? Or perhaps some corruption to investigate? Frankly, I think most of the military expenditures on our recent foreign adventures have been and are a waste of money. When we finally leave Iraq, no matter when it is, even if it is a decade in the future, the country will become a shambles and civil war will break out. The same is true of Afghanistan. In the end, we will accomplish nothing in either country, no matter how much we waste there in terms of personnel and money. Pakistan is another corrupt failed state and always will be. As is Bangladesh. I support the idea of humanitarian aid when and where it is needed, so long as it is clearly marked in the appropriate language, "A Gift from the People of the United States of America." I support the idea of using our military troops to deliver humanitarian aid. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On 8/22/2010 9:52 AM, Secular Humanist wrote:
There's a pretty lively discussion going on at KOS about the fact that, relatively speaking, little aid is flowing to Pakistan to help with that country's disaster relief. Yep, billions on military and nuclear weapons. But no money for the people. Do you think the Muslims will thank the west? Speaking of which, has other Muslim nations ever helped their own? We are in Canada and the US in debt up the wazoo and Pakistan only owes $50 billion give or take. Don't we have some of our own problems that could use the money such as a few decaying and unsafe bridges? Or perhaps some corruption to investigate? -- Is government working for you, or are you working for the government? |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On 8/22/2010 2:00 PM, Secular Humanist wrote:
On 8/22/10 5:50 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 8/22/2010 9:52 AM, Secular Humanist wrote: There's a pretty lively discussion going on at KOS about the fact that, relatively speaking, little aid is flowing to Pakistan to help with that country's disaster relief. Yep, billions on military and nuclear weapons. But no money for the people. Do you think the Muslims will thank the west? Speaking of which, has other Muslim nations ever helped their own? We are in Canada and the US in debt up the wazoo and Pakistan only owes $50 billion give or take. Don't we have some of our own problems that could use the money such as a few decaying and unsafe bridges? Or perhaps some corruption to investigate? Frankly, I think most of the military expenditures on our recent foreign adventures have been and are a waste of money. I would agree. If we didn't go into Iraq, Saddam might have had anotehr war with Iran to kill another 500,000 - but better them fight each other than our people spilling blood for their feuds and cult. When we finally leave Iraq, no matter when it is, even if it is a decade in the future, the country will become a shambles and civil war will break out. Bet it will revert in less than a year, just like Vietnam. The same is true of Afghanistan. Yep. Heroin will flow as soon as the fields yield a crop. In the end, we will accomplish nothing in either country, no matter how much we waste there in terms of personnel and money. Agreed. Pakistan is another corrupt failed state and always will be. As is Bangladesh. Yep. US and Canada are suckers in providing aid as it is also a route of smuggling of weapons that kill our soldiers. I support the idea of humanitarian aid when and where it is needed, so long as it is clearly marked in the appropriate language, "A Gift from the People of the United States of America." I support the idea of using our military troops to deliver humanitarian aid. Send food and materials clearly marked "Humanitarian Aid USA" with the Red White and Blue. Might as well get credit. Let them know who helped. And deliver it directly or not at all. None of this middle men corruption. -- Is government working for you, or are you working for the government? |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message
... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: wrote in message ... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say. We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
In article ,
says... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: wrote in message ... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say. We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly wouldn't go around calling others morons. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
"Secular Humanist" wrote in message ... In article , says... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: wrote in message ... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say. We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly wouldn't go around calling others morons. You sure need to get out more. You waste a lot of time foaming at the mouth and spoofing people. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:10:41 -0400, Secular Humanist wrote: Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly wouldn't go around calling others morons. The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They hold enough of our money to crush us. True, but they would crush themselves even worse. It's unlikely, or it's about as likely as Cheney being voted most popular former VP. Spending as much as we do on defense is foolish. That is one of the factors that brought down the Soviets and what is keeping North Korea in poverty. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:32:54 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:26:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:16:30 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:02:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote: r. bull****. for example, we were afghanistan's largest donor BEFORE 9/11 how'd that work out? How many Afghanis were in on the planning or execution of 9-11? Zero wrong. ever hear of the taliban? they're pashtuns. about 40% of afghanis are pashtun oh. you didnt know that. I certainly didn't know the Saudis who perpetrated 9-11 were Pashtun They were Sunis. But you ignore that. uh...osama bin laden? he is saudi. and he was in afghanistan khalid sheikh mohammed? captured in pakistand... but you ignore that. after all, they only killed 3000 americans. The Pashtun don't care about anything but getting us out of Pakistan. no one gives a **** what they think. For that matter you told me, Bin Laden only wanted to get us out of Saudi Arabia. it was none of his ****ing business. he's another fascist imperialist murderer...the kind that warms the cockles of your heart. The Germans had as much to do with 9-11 as Afghanistan. really? bin laden was bankrolling the german govt? Now you are inventing things. Bin Laden was "bankrolling" Afghanistan? guess who ran afghanistan? a group known as the 'taliban'. and guess who bankrolled them? oh. you didn't know this The major planning was done in Germany and Spain. irrelevant. it was done with the cooperation of the taliban you just have a sympathy for nazi fascists You seem to be the nazi here. You want the genocide of all Muslims. i dont give a **** about them or their ignorant religion. they're just a bit more ignorant and barbaric than the murderous christians. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They hold enough of our money to crush us. True, but they would crush themselves even worse. It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to be spending $790 billion on defending from that. I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They hold enough of our money to crush us. True, but they would crush themselves even worse. It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to be spending $790 billion on defending from that. I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys. How does that make any sense? Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan. There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On Aug 24, 2:20*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They hold enough of our money to crush us. True, but they would crush themselves even worse. It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to be spending $790 billion on defending from that. I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys. How does that make any sense? Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan. There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money. Indeed, D'Plume. A waste of money, just like the stimulus package. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message
... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They hold enough of our money to crush us. True, but they would crush themselves even worse. It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to be spending $790 billion on defending from that. I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys. How does that make any sense? Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan. So she is right? Your $790B figure is a gross overstatement. She has you by the short hairs so to speak. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
"TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Aug 24, 2:20 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They hold enough of our money to crush us. True, but they would crush themselves even worse. It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to be spending $790 billion on defending from that. I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys. How does that make any sense? Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan. There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money. Indeed, D'Plume. A waste of money, just like the stimulus package. Indeed, you are a moron. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:20:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys. How does that make any sense? Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan. There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money. Which is which? I understand Saddam is gone but Bin Laden is still around. ?? Not sure of your point. Iraq was a war of choice that cost us $1+T, not counting the 100000s of ruined/lost lives. How does that equate to a few missiles targeting China? |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On Aug 23, 3:49*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: wrote in message ... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.. We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes? Dip**** idea. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On 8/24/10 4:50 PM, John H wrote:
On Aug 23, 3:49 pm, wrote: "John wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: wrote in message ... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say. We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes? Dip**** idea. Racist. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:53:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:20:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys. How does that make any sense? Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan. There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money. Which is which? I understand Saddam is gone but Bin Laden is still around. ?? Not sure of your point. Iraq was a war of choice that cost us $1+T, not counting the 100000s of ruined/lost lives. How does that equate to a few missiles targeting China? I was referring to the hundreds of billions we wasted in Afghanistan, the lost/ruined lives and the damage to the fragile stability of Pakistan accomplishing absolutely nothing. Which would have been avoided if we had concentrated on Afg. to begin with and stuck with it. At least we killed Saddam. Bin Laden is still walking around. Iraq was all about Israel anyway. The next war we will fight for them will be Iran if Hillary fails to accomplish anything with diplomacy. I hope she is successful but I am not optimistic. Iraq was all about oil (for us). I'm not optimistic either, as it's a tough problem. But, I think we won't be doing the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran that McCain joked about. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
"John H" wrote in message ... On Aug 23, 3:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: wrote in message ... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say. We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes? Dip**** idea. Whoo... so, you claiming to not read my posts was..... a lie? |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
"Secular Humanist" wrote in message
... On 8/24/10 4:50 PM, John H wrote: On Aug 23, 3:49 pm, wrote: "John wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: wrote in message ... Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help them, we wouldn't need to have the war. Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs. Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say. We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not need any defense budget. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it. The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes? Dip**** idea. Racist. fat coward -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
YukonBound wrote:
admittance test Don't you mean "admission test" or is that a Canadian term? |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On 8/24/10 7:08 PM, Larry wrote:
YukonBound wrote: admittance test Don't you mean "admission test" or is that a Canadian term? No, ****brain, he means admittance: admittance (ædˈmɪtəns) [f. admit + -ance, cf. remittance; after Fr. and Eng. analogies in assistance, attendance, etc. The analogical formation on L. admittens would be admittence.] The action of admitting, now confined to the literal sense of giving entrance, the fig. ideas connected with admit being expressed by admission. 1.1 The action of admitting, letting in, or giving entrance; permission to enter. Usually attributed to the person admitted: ‘our admittance (by the porter) into the grounds’ rather than ‘the porter's admittance of us’; thus = the fact of being admitted, entrance given or allowed. a.1.a lit. into a place. 1593 Thynne Let. in Animadv. (1865) 97 Whene your Lordship will vouchsafe mee admyttance to your presence. 1611 Shakes. Cymb. ii. iii. 73 'Tis Gold Which buyes admittance. 1635 Naunton Fragm. Reg. in Phenix (1708) I. 208 He came up per ardua‥not pulled up by Chance, or by any gentle admittance of Fortune. a 1704 Locke (J.) There are some ideas which have admittance only through one sense. 1731 Arbuthnot On Aliments (J.) As to the admittance of the weighty elastic parts of the air into the blood. 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. (1872) I. vii. ix. 238 He gets admittance through the locked and padlocked grates. Mod. ‘No admittance except on business.’ |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
Secular Humanist wrote:
On 8/24/10 7:08 PM, Larry wrote: YukonBound wrote: admittance test Don't you mean "admission test" or is that a Canadian term? No, ****brain, he means admittance: admittance (ædˈmɪtəns) [f. admit + -ance, cf. remittance; after Fr. and Eng. analogies in assistance, attendance, etc. The analogical formation on L. admittens would be admittence.] The action of admitting, now confined to the literal sense of giving entrance, the fig. ideas connected with admit being expressed by admission. 1.1 The action of admitting, letting in, or giving entrance; permission to enter. Usually attributed to the person admitted: ‘our admittance (by the porter) into the grounds’ rather than ‘the porter's admittance of us’; thus = the fact of being admitted, entrance given or allowed. a.1.a lit. into a place. 1593 Thynne Let. in Animadv. (1865) 97 Whene your Lordship will vouchsafe mee admyttance to your presence. 1611 Shakes. Cymb. ii. iii. 73 'Tis Gold Which buyes admittance. 1635 Naunton Fragm. Reg. in Phenix (1708) I. 208 He came up per ardua‥not pulled up by Chance, or by any gentle admittance of Fortune. a 1704 Locke (J.) There are some ideas which have admittance only through one sense. 1731 Arbuthnot On Aliments (J.) As to the admittance of the weighty elastic parts of the air into the blood. 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. (1872) I. vii. ix. 238 He gets admittance through the locked and padlocked grates. Mod. ‘No admittance except on business.’ I never said it wasn't a word, expert. It just doesn't fit in that context. Care to try again? Google "admittance test" and then "admission test" and let me know if you get the same results. Here's a hint: the ratio is 29:1 |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:19:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:53:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:20:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more complicated than that. It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys. How does that make any sense? Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan. There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money. Which is which? I understand Saddam is gone but Bin Laden is still around. ?? Not sure of your point. Iraq was a war of choice that cost us $1+T, not counting the 100000s of ruined/lost lives. How does that equate to a few missiles targeting China? I was referring to the hundreds of billions we wasted in Afghanistan, the lost/ruined lives and the damage to the fragile stability of Pakistan accomplishing absolutely nothing. Which would have been avoided if we had concentrated on Afg. to begin with and stuck with it. We would just have more body bags from Afghanistan. Leave out the word "just" and you might have a point. We might have been more successful, but it's impossible to know. Thanks GWB! At least we killed Saddam. Bin Laden is still walking around. Iraq was all about Israel anyway. The next war we will fight for them will be Iran if Hillary fails to accomplish anything with diplomacy. I hope she is successful but I am not optimistic. Iraq was all about oil (for us). If this was just about oil, Saddam would have sold us all we wanted at a bargain price. I'm not going to argue the Iraq war with you. It was a huge mistake, and the area has a long history of being about the oil. If you want to claim Saddam cared about Israel more than he cared about his own power, go for it. Bush's/Cheney's interest was in cheap oil. I'm not optimistic either, as it's a tough problem. But, I think we won't be doing the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran that McCain joked about. These guys are getting better about putting things they want to keep so far underground that bombs don't work. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:44:31 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:28:09 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:39:42 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:19:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which would have been avoided if we had concentrated on Afg. to begin with and stuck with it. We would just have more body bags from Afghanistan. didnt have many body bags after 9/11 Invading Afghanistan had little to do with that. The covert forces had cut off Bin Laden and made him totally ineffective within a month. Once we pushed him into Kandahar and cut him off from his money and his contacts he stopped being a threat. which is irrelevant to the fact the taliban were complicit in an act of fascist imperialist aggression against the US more goalpost moving. These guys are getting better about putting things they want to keep so far underground that bombs don't work. there are ways to handle that. ever hear of a dolphin submarine? The SSKs? How does a sub attack a nuclear plant built inside a mountain? what weapons do you think a sub can carry? |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:16:07 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:59:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:38:30 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:26:52 -0400, bpuharic wrote: Plenty, we had been bombing Muslims virtually every day for 10 years in Iraq. uh no. your sympathies for fascist aggression keep blinding you to the realities of life WE hadnt been doing ANYTHING. it was the UNITED NATIONS. ever hear of 'em? If you really think the 10 year war with Iraq was the "United Nations" then you have to believe the invasion was the United Nations since it was the result of a UN resolution. The reality is the UN does not have an army, an air force or a navy. hmmm...wonder what all those folks with blue helmets are who wander the world.... Mostly Americans and Brits oh. i'm sorry. you don't know what a 'blue helmet' is. it's the helmet worn by troops on UN missions. It is really just the US and UK with a small participation by a few other countries. Most had abandoned the Iraq effort by 1998 in disgust over the bombing. meaningless. it was authorized by international law. that this doesn't fit with your support of fascist imperialist aggession is irrelevant So was the invasion of Iraq, what;s your point? the invasion of iraq was not authorized by the UN. sorry. and we were enforcing a lawful repulsion of aggression against a UN member state. oh...and that member state?? iit was a muslim state Kuwait was liberated in 1991, we bombed Iraq for 12 more years until we finally invaded them, enforcing a series of US instigated "resolutions" which is absolutely irrelevant to your point. our actions were legitimized by votes in the UN. that some folks objected to them is irrelevant in fact this is proof of your tendency to move the goalposts when you get your ass kicked. You are the one who is fast and loose with the goal posts. First it is Bush's war, now you admit it was a UN war. Make up your mind. WHOA sports fans! you seem to have mixed up your wars. there was the liberation of kuwait...which WAS authorized by the UN and bush's idiotic war to kill hussein which was a waste of time and blood your fundamentalist faith in fascists to attack only those who deserve to be attacked is touching. really. it's almost quaint. I may be a pacifist anarchist but I am certainly not a fascist. and the difference is? oh. if the US defends itself THEN you're a pacifist. if someone attacks the US then you're in favor of war. Afghanistan did not attack us. yes, it did. that's why the taliban no longer control afghanistan. they controlled afghanistan until we destroyed their power it's an historical fact. i realize you're a fundamentalist, but denial is hardly a weapon suited for your argument. We have killed about 5,000 innocent Afghanis ah well. that happens in war. (the center point of the estimates) who may have never heard of Bin Laden. That sounds more like a nazi reprisal than defense. IOW you dont know about the history of war...innocents DO get killed, unfortunately. it's quite a bit different when they're TARGETED as was the case on 9/11 christ, you're just not too bright. so far your argument consists of revisionism, ignorance and denial |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
|
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:13:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Bush's/Cheney's interest was in cheap oil. "Cheap oil" was leaving the status quo. Saddam would have pumped the desert dry to advance his power and sold it on the world market. If you want to say there was a revenge factor for the attempt on GHWBs life I would agree. If you wanted to say there was an "unfinished business" aspect there I would agree but the worst thing we could do for oil prices was having a war. We went to war with Iraq because the "neo-cons" convinced Bush that it was in America's best interests to deal with Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East and eventually the world. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:38:55 -0400, bpuharic wrote: You are the one who is fast and loose with the goal posts. First it is Bush's war, now you admit it was a UN war. Make up your mind. WHOA sports fans! you seem to have mixed up your wars. there was the liberation of kuwait...which WAS authorized by the UN and bush's idiotic war to kill hussein which was a waste of time and blood I agree with you about the war but Bush did use a UN resolution to justify it. Yeah, after he got Powell to lie to the UN, after Bush/Cheney lied to the American people. |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:09:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:13:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Bush's/Cheney's interest was in cheap oil. "Cheap oil" was leaving the status quo. Saddam would have pumped the desert dry to advance his power and sold it on the world market. If you want to say there was a revenge factor for the attempt on GHWBs life I would agree. If you wanted to say there was an "unfinished business" aspect there I would agree but the worst thing we could do for oil prices was having a war. We went to war with Iraq because the "neo-cons" convinced Bush that it was in America's best interests to deal with Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East and eventually the world. We went to war with Iraq to avoid a Iraq, Israeli war. We are probably going to be in a war with Iran for the same reason. Untrue. We went to war so that the neocons would get a chance to remake the middle-east in their own image. It was a stated policy. Look it up. I'd say that we need to give diplomacy a chance to work. We're in no position to attack Iran (unless you're channeling McCain). |
Little Aid Forthcoming for Pakistan?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:41:53 -0400, bpuharic wrote: How does a sub attack a nuclear plant built inside a mountain? what weapons do you think a sub can carry? Nothing that will penetrate a mountain without starting WWIII ?? iran doesn't have the capabilty to start WWIII. No but the Russians and the Chinese do and they would have the fallout from that mountain landing on them. In real life WWI started over a whole lot less. If the Israelis nuke Iran in a preemptory strike, we won't even support them when the rest of the world wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. no one can wipe israel off the map without become a parking lot. Like I said WWIII The cold war is over. The new (global) war is economic. It's been that way for quite a while. China and Russia have no interest in fighting us. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com