So why be afraid of US bases in Colombia, when Venezuela has bases from FARC and attack Colombia?

mrgizmo says on Aug 7, 2009, 10:19:

Why is Venezuela afraid of bases in Colombia?
Very simple. He sees the U.S. as a body guard to Colombia and if bases are allowed in Colombia it makes it difficult for him to bully anybody in Latin America.
The base will be there to keep the FARC and the drug trafficking in check. It's an internal affair. The U.S. won't do anything against Venezuela unless provoked.
It has been proven that Chavez is a FARC sympatizer. How? with the Saab arms that were originally sold to the army of Venezuela and have now been found in the hands of the FARC. How did those get there? And if he wasn't a sympatizer why would they place a statute of Mario Marulanda alias Tiro Fijo in one of their town squares so that people in Venezuela can bring flowers to it during Marulanda's anniversary? It's easy to say that it probably is freedom of expression, and if freedom of expression is so important why would they close the radio stations that don't agree with Chavez's politics.
Let the bases come in and let Chavez S--t in his pants.

Behind every successful man, there's a nagging woman

1 funny, 2 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 10:23:

luce says on Aug 7, 2009, 10:29:

Chavez the drug runner is afraid he'll end up like Noriega, Panama's former drug-runner President. This is correct - Chavez should be afraid, since he's doing just the same as Noriega did, and worse, by allowing his state to sponsor terrorists. I'm still hopeful Ecuador will impeach and arrest Correa. Nothing on the news lately about Morales - maybe he's started to read the writing on the wall, but I'm sure he'll come up with something stupid just like the others. It continues to amaze me how many FARC sympathizers there are, especially in-country (via this website). In them there is no human compassion whatsoever towards fellow Colombians, it's like anybody caught up in FARC violence deserved it - WHAT?? mrgizmo, I did not even know there were statutes built for the FARC terrorists, so again I say, WHAT??? Waaay tooo crazy!

Loyal to both.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

mrgizmo says on Aug 7, 2009, 10:44:

If anybody doubts about the statue, here's a link with photos.
http://wildthinkstorm.blogspot.com/2009/03/caracas-remembers-marulanda...

Behind every successful man, there's a nagging woman

1 funny, 1 helpful.

Aji1 says on Aug 7, 2009, 10:48:

"US National Security Adviser James Jones accused Venezuela on Thursday of tolerating the actions of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels on its territory"

Mr. Jones is being very reserved in his comments IMHO. Call a spade a spade! TOLERATING, pleeeeessee!

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 11:27:

Aji1 says on Aug 7, 2009, 11:51:

Well, legalizing drugs may not make it end, but it would certainly effect their cash flow. Of course extortion and kidnapping would then move higher up the totem pole in their business plan. It would sure free up some funds and help reduce the "police state" atmosphere in the US as well. IMHO anyway.

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

1 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 7, 2009, 12:09:

Yes build them bases. I would rather Obama be president than Uribe.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

mrgizmo says on Aug 7, 2009, 12:13:

The U.S. has had bases in Germany, The Philippines, Japan, and now Kuwait without any problem. The difference between U.S. bases compare to Russian bases is that Russia has been a communist country, the U.S. is not.
The FARC has been around for 50 years and 50 years ago there was no drug problem.
The U.S. would facilitate Colombia a way to finally get rid of the FARC once and for all.
They (the bases) would be in Colombia to get rid of the FARC and the drug trade, it has nothing to do with Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil or Ecuador.
Chavez is afraid because with the base in Colombia he won't be able to achieve his Estados Bolivarianos dream.
The FARC today is an internal cancer fueled very discreetly by the Chavez regime hoping the Colombian government will fall apart and end up in the communist hands of one of his pawns. It's not going to work.

Behind every successful man, there's a nagging woman

2 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Aug 7, 2009, 12:48:

what if farcsters are hiding in "Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil or Ecuador"? you think the US is going to hesitate in bombing those countries? It happened last year if you don't remember... so much for your simple argument.
and as if US presence would do anything to deter drug trade, ever heard of Afghanistan? or Mexico? or even Canada?
I think mine is the only good argument for promoting US military presence in Colombia.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 12:53:

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 13:09:

Aji1 says on Aug 7, 2009, 13:10:

Play nice boys...

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

1 funny, 0 helpful.

tannedincali (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 14:29:

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 14:57:

quantum says on Aug 7, 2009, 15:20:

Makopp, yur the one always touting the great work that Uribe has done, and yur right, it is far better. When Uribe came in the FARC controlled what? Over 50% of the national territory and now after 8 yrs that has been reduced to what? About 5% or less. I would say the the situation is well in hand and moving in the right direction just the way it is. Keep giving Colombia money and technological assistance and help them to help themselves. Based on Uribes and Colombias track record, they really dont require 5 o 7 new American bases. Sounds like waaay overkill to me. Giving Colombia all that money may (and I say MAY)) have been the only correct thing the Bush/Cheney administration every did. In any case, leave well enuff alone. And besides I no longer trust my own govt. (if I ever did) since they sent me to Viet Nam. They invariably have ulterior motives.....Colombia, take our funny money and put it to good use, but keep the bases out. Not necessary..........yur gettin the job done! Gettin pretty close to closure I would daresay.....

quantum

1 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 15:45:

"the problem is not FARC "

Come again?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 15:46:

"Independent observers have recorded at least a million dead Iraquis "

Yes, if you are counting Saddam's war with Iran. Otherwise, can you post a reliable source for those numbers?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 15:49:

"Uribe has proven that Colombia has the ability to deal with FARC and the ELN"

Actually much of what Colombia has accomplished, without taking anything away from the heroism of its soldiers, has been achieved with the help the US has provided. On what planet are you currently residing?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 1 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 15:52:

"as if US presence would do anything to deter drug trade, ever heard of Afghanistan? or Mexico? or even Canada?"

Has anybody told the mexicans the bad news yet romy? I mean about the US having military bases there. Canada will have US bases, as soon as it is annexed as the 51st state.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

Darloup (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 16:11:

romy says on Aug 7, 2009, 16:34:

billyb-

WARNING: Before you get further confused, please re-read sentence...

I said 'presence' not 'military bases'

1 funny, 1 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 16:45:

"I said 'presence' not 'military bases'"

romy, ok then, please show us where that "presence" is based at? How many military men is it composed of? And a couple of military attaches' at the embassy won't suffice. As you have been shown before, smugness is no substitute for accuracy.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:18:

The USA have no hegemonic agenda on the planet(Darloup)
Your kidding ..right?

1 funny, 1 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:19:

Come up with anything yet romy?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

Darloup (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:27:

romy says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:29:

billyb-

WARNING: Before you get further confused, please re-read sentence...

I didn't specify the presence be militaristic

2 funny, 1 helpful.

greg says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:36:

Darloup, I hope you will read the other thread here about the world bank loaning money to Colombia.
Economic war is just as effective as using military. And you really think Iraq is about freedom?

1 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:45:

"I didn't specify the presence be militaristic"

Ah, backtracking already I see. Since you were comparing it to a US military presence in Colombia, you can see where one would have thought you were being consistent. And precisely what kind of "presence" were you referring to? American tourists in Cancun?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Darloup (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:49:

greg says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:53:

Was only using Iraq to point out U.S. hegemony is still going strong. And it is a reason for wanting a larger presence in Colombia

1 funny, 0 helpful.

quantum says on Aug 7, 2009, 17:56:

Darloup, among your other errors, I would like to point out the distinction between county and country. One is a province and the other a soverign nation. And as far as the U.S. not having imperial designs, well that would explain Iraq and Afganistan, then, wouldnt it? I was drinking with a Costa Rican dude at the border here who has been in Iraq working for Blackwater for years and he told me that we are building an enormous military base very close to the Iranian border. Now what do u imagine that is all about Darloup? And when the British empire got so spread out and stretched so thin, what happened to them Darloup?

quantum

1 funny, 1 helpful.

Darloup (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 7, 2009, 18:08:

romy says on Aug 7, 2009, 19:10:

my dearest billyb-
it is not my problem if you read more into my words than what they mean in the dictionary. Please if you have specific questions of what certain words mean then I'll refer you to an online dictionary. If you believe the only US presence in Mexico are its tourists in Cancun, then this discussion is over from my part due to intellectual boredom.

2 funny, 1 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 19:22:

I see romy, you got caught, AGAIN, posting falsehoods (you do remember how embarrassing it was for you when you were outed posting false titles to articles, a la Byron_costner?), and now you are looking for a way to squirm out of having to explain what you meant by presence (we know you meant military, and as any moron knows, there is none in Mexico), maybe next you can quote some dead French dudes in hope of impressing people so that they might overlook the fact that, once again, you can't back up your statements.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 1 helpful.

ferran says on Aug 7, 2009, 20:20:

Oh silly billy, the debunker who sits on his high illusional chair dictating the world as he narrowly conprehends it, let me ask you silly billy, what back ground do you have in political studies, what was the last book that you read? may I ask what you do for a living besides spending most of your living hours typing away babbling mantras on the computer keys? what do you really gain by recurring to school boy slogans and name calling instead of carrying on a level headed debate? LIKE YOU SAID, YOU DO THIS FOR AMUSEMENT, its life so dull up there in the Castro area of SF that PBH becomes your only outlet? What happened to you, did you get runned over by hotdog cart when you were a child and had to lick the relish off from the gutter?

Silly Billy if we want any shit out of you, all we have to do is squeeze your head.

by the way, your comments and a metro card will only take me to the next station.

All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 20:49:

"What happened to you, did you get runned (SIC) over by hotdog cart when you were a child and had to lick the relish off from the gutter?"
???

"silly billy if we want any shit out of you, all we have to do is squeeze your head."


"by the way, your comments and a metro card will only take you to the next station"


"what do you really gain by recurring to school boy slogans and name calling"

Sadly, ferran doesn't see the irony of this last statement.




jajaja, I see our little (very little) man of mystery is getting a little upset and defensive, otherwise why the childish insults? Is this really the best you can do ferry? I had hoped for more sophisticated insults from such a "learned" man as yourself, but instead we get schoolyard taunts, too fokken funny.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

seacomoche says on Aug 7, 2009, 22:23:

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2009

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 7, 2009, 23:26:

It looks like chavvie has come down from his latest cocaine binge........




Venezuela's Chavez returns envoy to Colombia
Reuters

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez on Saturday ordered his ambassador back to Colombia a few days after withdrawing him amid a crisis over plans to increase the number of U.S. troops in the neighboring country.

Consistent U.S. critic Chavez pulled his ambassador from Bogota on July 28 to protest Colombian plans to accept more U.S. troops at seven military bases and in anger at accusations he had supplied arms to Marxist rebels across the border.

But in a surprise announcement after an hours-long late-night meeting, Chavez delighted a group of left-wing Colombian peace campaigners by reversing the decision.

"Nicolas, our ambassador Gustavo has given you all the reports he was going to, let him go back to Bogota. Return to Bogota Gustavo," Chavez said to his Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro and the ambassador, Gustavo Marquez.

In recent days he has also threatened sanctions against the Colombian state oil company Ecopetrol and said he would block some car imports from one of Venezuela's top trade partners.

Colombia says the extra U.S. troops are needed to help fight drug traffickers. but Chavez sees them as a threat against Venezuela. He says the plans could spark war in South America.

The socialist president frequently makes fiery threats against Colombia and its president, Alvaro Uribe, whose government says Chavez supports the FARC guerrillas who have fought Bogota for over four decades. Chavez usually backs down and seeks to make peace within a few days.

Colombia last month said weapons bought by Venezuela in Sweden had made their way to the FARC rebels.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday denied that Washington was opening new military bases in Colombia, comments Chavez dismissed as not credible.

(Reporting by Frank Jack Daniel, editing by Vicki Allen)

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

ferran says on Aug 8, 2009, 01:18:

It is an obvious pattern of discrediting and debunking that goes on in this forum to anyone making rational documented evidence agaisnt pillagers who disguise themselves as protectors of democracy and freedom by some of the so called regular posters on this forum, we see here an agenda, the internet has the power to move mountains, they are aware of this and it has become the grounds for a new offensive agaisnt threatining individuals that might open up questions that the public will react to and lead them to think, you know who you are hinding behind silly handles and avatars, you guys seemed to spent alot of time on these boards just for some cheap amusement? I think not, unless you get paid to do so for the interest of some obscure fake front office.

Many posters here including myself have stated many times their stance of not being inclined to any leftist movement and not supporting any leftist idealism but time after time they are attacked with propaganda slogans like:

you related to Castro and Putin? Well..... you appear to be a clown

why don't you go live in Korea (North! Of Course.)

More Far Left sludge leaking out all over the place

Ferran when I read your leftist bull* all I see is bla bla bla bla.

Great they will protect you against CHAVEZ, Correa, Narcos and Farc.

Thats just on one thread, all you need is a few to spark the fire to get the rest to filled in and follow the chorus, the obsession in these tactics is evident. Its very transparent what's happening in Colombia, all you have to do is follow the trail and you come to the same source, same tactics and to the same objective. By labeling anyone who makes a point and disagrees with the pillaging invaders, with no argument by their definition you become a leftist. the obvious is in plain sight.

All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

2 funny, 0 helpful.

quantum says on Aug 8, 2009, 08:05:

Darloup, check this out and get back to me okay...

quantum

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 08:43:

* Main Entry: pres·ence
* Pronunciation: ˈpre-zən(t)s
* Function: noun
* Date: 14th century

1 : the fact or condition of being present
2 a : the part of space within one's immediate vicinity b : the neighborhood of one of superior especially royal rank
3 archaic : company 2a
4 : one that is present: as a : the actual person or thing that is present b : something present of a visible or concrete nature
5 a : the bearing, carriage, or air of a person; especially : stately or distinguished bearing b : a noteworthy quality of poise and effectiveness
6 : something (as a spirit) felt or believed to be present

0 funny, 0 helpful.

JGD (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 8, 2009, 08:57:

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 09:06:

it seems like Colombianos por la Paz came through again

0 funny, 0 helpful.

JGD (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 8, 2009, 09:08:

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 09:39:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/internacional/2009/08/090808_1140_embajador...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Aug 8, 2009, 11:06:

ferran, you are the last one in here who should be criticizing anyone. At least billyb is a Colombian. At least he has lived and travelled in Colombia. At least he and others like Darloup have travelled throughout Colombia and have talked to Colombia. About the only thing you have ever talked to is your right hand on Saturday night. You can't even defend what you write. That is really a shame.

As I have said before people like you are all hat and no cattle. Why do you get attacked? Because you never defend or you cannot defend.

...and so it goes

2 funny, 1 helpful.

ferran says on Aug 8, 2009, 12:33:

Darloup has travelled throughout Colombia? Ha! what are you high on Rikito? even darloup himself will tell you he's only been to a few cities in la costa. the only shame here Rikito is your lack of information and knowledge about anything.

All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 8, 2009, 12:50:

romy, i notice you still haven't come through with what the "presence" in mexico is? The nest time you are ever able to defend one of your smarmy statements will the first. And you wonder why you are treated as lightweight instead of the intellectual you delude yourself into thinking you are.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 8, 2009, 13:11:

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:17:

billyb- what "nest"?

also, a good starting point to inform yourself of what the US is doing in Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_–_United_States_relations

"lightweight" hahaha, I don't recall you ever beating me in a discussion... so what are you?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:21:

Come on romy, quit floundering, and tell us what presence in Mexico compares to the new accord between the US and Colombia (since that is what you compared it to). It can't be that hard, even for you, can it? I mean you made a statement, were called on it, now back it. Is wiki really the best yo can do?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:21:

Makopp- they probably have already...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:24:

"billyb- what "nest"?"

Hit the wrong key.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:24:

I wasn't called on it. You didn't understand, read over initial comment.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:25:

"lightweight" hahaha, I don't recall you ever beating me in a discussion.."

jaja, another manifestation of your self delusion?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:32:

when you don't understand what I say and then I end up explaining it to you word by word because I'm nice it doesn't mean you won the discussion, it just means I'm catering to your comprehension challenge.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 8, 2009, 14:34:

Raise your hand and join billyb if you don't understand the following:
"as if US presence would do anything to deter drug trade, ever heard of Afghanistan? or Mexico? or even Canada?"
it seems like simple language to me...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 8, 2009, 16:46:

Again romy, humor us, and explain in your own words, (I know copying and pasting others' ideas are more your style), in what form does the US presence in Mexico manifest itself. The more you hem and haw, the more you confirm the image you have of not being able to hold your own after you make what you think are smug asides that won't be called out. When they do get called out, you are like a little doe in the headlights.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Aug 9, 2009, 08:43:

why waste my time writing something for you?
if you're interested I've given you a good starting point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_–_United_States_relations

1 funny, 0 helpful.

JGD (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 9, 2009, 08:47:

Rikito says on Aug 9, 2009, 08:53:

machin1967, a couple of questions for you. How old are you? Do you have a job..married, have you ever been to Colombia? Do you have children? What kind of education do you have?

A couple of more. Where and in what condition would Europe/China be in today without the US? Who makes more contributions to charitable causes than all of the UN nations combined? Who has contributed more money to fight aids than any other of the UN nations combined? What country has more NGO's helping the worlds displaced, poor, hungry, and sick people than all of the UN nations combined? What country allows more freedom of speech and reiligion than any other country in the world?

“The US spends so much money destroying, rebuilding, bribing, and other manipulative things to get what they want. Then at the end, the world is more volatile and dangerous, not less so.” OK...and what does Britain, France, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, Germany, etc, etc. do? Do you think that the U.S. is the only country who does these things? Let's take one country…hmmmm; let’s take my favorite country, France. Tell me all about their purity?

p.s. interestng profile...shows a lot of character too!

...and so it goes

0 funny, 1 helpful.

quantum says on Aug 9, 2009, 10:14:

whose the idiot who marks funny after every serious intent at communication?? All I can say is "Get a life"!

quantum

2 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Aug 9, 2009, 17:47:

maybe the person thinks that the person who wrote the comment is a joke. sounds about right.

...and so it goes

1 funny, 1 helpful.

manINred says on Aug 9, 2009, 18:35:

The billions of dollars of US aid to Colombia was never unconditional. Colombia will have to suffer US military bases because they do not really have much choice. Not to say that it is a bad thing to have these bases if they can deter FARC from any resurgence, but one would have hoped improved Colombian military presence would suffice, and Colombia would not have to have its sovereignty breached.

US hegemony is still alive and well, and the US has political and economic agendas, to deny so is ignorant.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Rikito says on Aug 10, 2009, 12:10:

Ok machin1967, I disagree with you, but you wrote a good logical post. You obviously know what you are talking about. Thanks for that.

The only problem is the way in which the D's & R's take care of everything. They both suck big time and in my book have no credibility. I think most people would agree that in the past 25-50 years we are seeing a U.S. decline. I don't think there is anything that can be done by Obama to ever change that. Just look at how he operates lately and you will see that each day that passes the more he sounds and acts like Bush, Clinton, etc. And then throw in Pelosi and Reid and you have one big fart in the elevator.

But whatever the criticisms of the U.S. by ill-informed squirrels and how bad the U.S. is; there is still no country that is even close to do for the world populace than the U.S. That's where the lefties like Ferran run amok. Sure go ahead and hate America, but who do you have to replace them? Answer...no other country or political thought.

This is a little off track, but the biggest problem the world has and the one that should be on everyone's minds is not the U.S. or Socialism. What we need to worry about more than anything is the increasing influence and birthrate of the world’s biggest toilet...Islam and Muslims. They are gaining more ground and much faster than the Ferran’s or the right wingers. Yeah there are good Muslims and bad ones. (Actually there are not good ones and bad ones), but if they are not checked soon and checked hard they will make Hitler look like a choir boy. Then what would Desi and Ferran do? Convert I guess. Because when they take control of a political system and introduce to ferran a little thing called Sharia Law people like ferran will be crapin in their pantalones all day long. Obama and Britain have already stated that there are parts of Sharia Law that might be beneficial. That shows you what direction these two political heavyweights are leaning.

والسلام عليكم

...and so it goes

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Aug 10, 2009, 18:33:

I agree with everything you said...expecially China. They are not an agressive nation and it has been a zillion years or more since they last invaded another country.

...and so it goes

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Aug 11, 2009, 06:40:

Rikito, China invadad Vietnam about 30 years ago (not a zillion ;) and got a bloody nose for their troubles, not to mention that they sent troops across the border in the Korean War.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rikito says on Aug 11, 2009, 10:48:

I know, but they only sent small numbers not a coordinated attack plan. Korea was different I agree, but even there they were not that agressive. They have a 2 million man army and sent less than 200k to Korea. They were more afraid of MacArthur and another nuke than winning a war with Korea. But you are correct.

...and so it goes

0 funny, 0 helpful.