Hahaha! 

G=G'day, mate!!

bml00 said:

Why bother replying

Because he has to have the last word.

That is the function of the macro.  No matter what happens, I get the last word.

I've taken that away from him. 

And he is quite put out about it.

MEDDLY said:

G=G'day, mate!!

I'll allow it.

RGoss99 said:

Ask what America i doing by threatening it for engaging in a program on the phony scare tactic that Iran wants the program to terrorize it neighbors.

Its a very, very phoney scare tactic. The Iranians have not been threatening their neighbours for 2000 years (the last war they may have started was 270 years ago). 

But they urgently need the means to retaliate against the attacks they're suffering and are threatened with.

To deprive them of this is the height of hypocrisy, driven by land-grabbing greed.

I used to be an officer , I did not debate nor have democratic dialogues , it was my way or the highway .

If any poster (including myself) goes out of their way to defy the rules then it is 1 week out 2 weeks then out out for good , I see no leadership I just see you trying to stamp your authority on people who are deliberately doing what they want with no care to what you say 

BM

Haha!

RGoss99 said:

Like I say, if someone starts a fire then puts it out, this is not success.

I presume that the US is attempting to leave a puppet government in power in Afghanistan.

Its hoping that payments by the CIA for the heroin being produced will support the war-lords and dictatorship created.

Not very clear this will work for them - Afghans have never accepted this before.

As in the past, Afghan war lords sort of go with the Flow in the short term, but I predict what ever deal the U.S. makes to sabe its ineffective government there Will not last long. As a state, Afghanistan has never had much success working togather, except when outsiders such as the Brits, Russians, and Americas caused a threat to unite them against an outside evil. Even as the back to back threats from Russians then the U.S. have not united them. The Northern Alliance was happy to work for the U.S. when it paid a bounty on so called terrorists that fell into their hands. There is a famous case of 4 Pakistanís who had no radical history had real establishment Jobs in London, one with Boots the chemists. They came to Pakistan early for a family wedding, to kill time they became tourists in Afghanistan aout the time the Americans attacked, were picked up by the Northern Alliance for cash, and ended in Guantánamo. The only reason they were released was Tony Blair was taking flack on the home front, and these established British families had lawyers who pushed the habeus corpus button. The result was the bogus evidence against them fell apart. One problema is that one of the 4 picked up at the same time has been lost somewhere and is still missing. Basicly what the Northern Alliance was doing is picking up local political enemies and selling them to the Americans as terrorists, getting rid ofpolitical enemies and getting paid for it at the same time. One advantage of living outside of the U.S. where the press environment is freer, many of these stories never reach the American public but are common knowledge within the E.U. countries. I was in Scotland for a Little over a week before Christmas and really shocked at both the trivia that filled even the better British press, and the stories not covered I had been following in Spain before and after my trip. A lot of the bogus British journalism appears here at Delphi on the Irish site, often recycled from the U.K. after it is already discredited in Europe.

RGoss99 said:

As in the past, Afghan war lords sort of go with the Flow in the short term, but I predict what ever deal the U.S. makes to sabe its ineffective government there Will not last long. As a state, Afghanistan has never had much success working togather, except when outsiders such as the Brits, Russians, and Americas caused a threat to unite them against an outside evil. Even as the back to back threats from Russians then the U.S. have not united them. 

What threat to them posed by Russia? Russian troops can't be trusted not to defect anywhere - even to the enemy. Many Spetznats are supposed to have stayed in Afghanistan. No helicopters used, same reason.

RGoss99 said:

The Northern Alliance was happy to work for the U.S. when it paid a bounty on so called terrorists that fell into their hands. There is a famous case of 4 Pakistanís who had no radical history had real establishment Jobs in London, one with Boots the chemists. They came to Pakistan early for a family wedding, to kill time they became tourists in Afghanistan aout the time the Americans attacked, were picked up by the Northern Alliance for cash, and ended in Guantánamo. The only reason they were released was Tony Blair was taking flack on the home front, and these established British families had lawyers who pushed the habeus corpus button. The result was the bogus evidence against them fell apart. One problema is that one of the 4 picked up at the same time has been lost somewhere and is still missing. Basicly what the Northern Alliance was doing is picking up local political enemies and selling them to the Americans as terrorists, getting rid ofpolitical enemies and getting paid for it at the same time. 

I don't recall that. But its very believable. 

RGoss99 said:

One advantage of living outside of the U.S. where the press environment is freer, many of these stories never reach the American public but are common knowledge within the E.U. countries. I was in Scotland for a Little over a week before Christmas and really shocked at both the trivia that filled even the better British press, and the stories not covered I had been following in Spain before and after my trip. A lot of the bogus British journalism appears here at Delphi on the Irish site, often recycled from the U.K. after it is already discredited in Europe.

I believe you. Had the same when I was in the Middle East. Stories from Kenya and India and all sorts, rather little from the UK.

I'm shocked that we've demonised the secular Syrian regime that might torture its opponents (like us) but was relatively open to the West. Girls went to school, alcohol was sold to the public, minorities were protected.

It was never a hell-hole - even though it was groaning under the weight of a huge number of Palestinian refugees. Assad survived - because the entire administration and all the police are invested in his secular regime. Our attempts to get rid of him would have caused a huge explosion in crime and an appalling disaster on all the people who make society run.

Compare that with our friends the Saudis.

This is Ed Husain who went on to become a top government advisor on handling extremism, said:

... Working for the British Council in Saudi Arabia was a radically different experience from my time in Syria.

Students in Syria were intellectually engaged with current affairs and progress in science and technology, brought up subjects for discussion in class, and enjoyed comparing Western culture with Arab traditions.

Moreover, British Council managers in Syria fully understood and helped realize the raison d'etre of the Council: to promote modem Britain in all its diversity. Thus gay and Asian teachers, for example, were welcomed and supported.

In Saudi Arabia I felt as though I were working for a Saudi organization, not a British one. Nepotism, corruption, sexism, and racism were tolerated because we could not be seen to offend 'local culture'.

Why is the British Council in Syria more boisterous than its counterpart in Saudi, when we consider Syria to be part of the 'axis of evil', and Saudi Arabia an 'ally' in the fight against terrorism? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eb-zCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT236

This is a Zionist enforcer in another Forum stating the obvious, the Saudi culture is nasty whereas the Iranian one (so far, before we destroy it) is charming.

Just think of [Saudi Arabia] as Beardy Headchopper Central.

Is it just a coincidence that the perfect caliphate that IS wanted to build seems a lot like Saudi Arabia?

Everyone I know who has travelled to Iran says what an interesting place it is and how interesting and friendly the people are. I've never heard similar tributes from the ones who spent time in Saudi Arabia.

So the US and the UK has befriended just about the nastiest regime on earth.

We've sided with the bad guys against two sets of (slightly) good guys!