posted March 01, 2008 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

There is none. Saying, "if Al Qaeda is making a base in Iraq," is not a misstatement. Nor does it imply that Obama is unaware of Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. On the contrary it acknowledges that Al Qaeda came to Iraq in order to fight with the U.S.

---

That assumption is so far fetched I won't even begin to explain it...Yes its a misstatement and yes it implies Obama is unaware...or just said something wrong and couldn't take it like a man...

quote:

---

but the distinction she makes is fair for while they may be part of the same organization their functions are different.

---

Yet that is not what she said...

quote:

---

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan are the brains of the group. They make, approve, and/or fund the plans for terrorist actions

---

Not quite so, a lot of their funds come from the middle eastern oil tycoons and other high up individuals...few people in Afghanistan and Pakistan have such funds. EVen Osama himself is neither from Afghanistan nor Pakistan...

quote:

---

I'll give you the Saddam points. I've re-read with a different possible understanding of what you were trying to convey, and I can see that your statements were consistent, and actually in-line with what I understand to be true.

---

Yea we were basically saying the same thing.

quote:

---

With regard to having discussions, I still think you're pessimistic.

---

Lol perhaps. Optimism is not in Scorpio moon nature

posted March 06, 2008 01:58 AM              

if u have seen my new thread perhaps u will learn ur lesson to not let ur republican brain disorder posess ur judgement.
as usual ur post responding to mine is nothing but blatent disinformation tchtch.. talk of impotency.

"""So VDI, does India claim the area of Kashmir...or not? If not, please say no and say it clearly. Then, I'll notify Pakistan and that will end the stare down over the area."""

kick urself in the nuts for that one , fraud. the Kashmiri people chose to be a part of the Indian state in 1947 thru a public mandate.Pakistan however being a muslim state since inception opposed it, because the majority of Kashmiri populace is Muslim. never mind THEY dont care about being Pakistanis or Muslims

actually if u look at it, JW YOU have a lot in common with the Pakistani militants. you are both fighting for a non existent cause that hepls people who dont want to be helped, by hurting them.like i said tchtch.

do better next time than to fling ur BS at me.all it shows is how desperate you are.
if ur brain isnt paralysed by anger by now, heres some more.the terrorist activity in India is OUTSOURCED from Pakistan.the terrorists who are caught and implicated in bombings that kill indian civilians are all pakistani civilians/ militants.

as for Kashmir, please dont display ur desperation to get a woodie, by talking crap.
as for my not being concerned or having right to talk about US politics...

u really are a piece of work , it DOES concern me when Obama talks about the extermination of terrorists who are killing my countrymen.
that and the FACT that i have survived 3 bombings, one in 1993, 1999,2006.

posted March 06, 2008 01:58 AM              

"Even when shown in black and white "untouchables" and other "lower caste" Indian citizens are treated disgracefully....you deny it.'

uh..like always twist my words limp dick for lack of better material.. i said our constituion gives not only equal rights to every citizen, the untouchables YOU are painting as victims actaully gert a PREFERENCE over all others in Education and Employment.

for the last time... get a LIFE.
maybe THEN you wont snoop so low as to exploit victims of terror and human right violation for ur Republican Disinfornmation agenda

PS ::: oh come on about the Call centers aldready. i have aldready posted in other thread how they are closing down becoz our youth are finding better employment opportunities in our OWN economy. not to mention THAT will add to our own National Income.

India's Call-Center Jobs Go Begging - TIME
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1671982,00.html

to make sure YOU and ur big Penis buddy dont fling it on me when u r out of stuff to bully me, i am making a thread on it

posted March 06, 2008 02:28 AM              

oh thank God , i never got a job in a call center !

and btw, for a fact , IT is still just contributes a fraction to the Indian Econmony and Call center are just a fraction of this IT business .
so you can easily guess , how much it affects the Indian ecomony .

and just another fact , in busines a buyer is as important as a seller . and each every layer of the sytem has its importance .

I agree , Us is important to us , infact very important but the fact remains India and other countries like china are as important to Us .

i dont know if u understand all this ( i have my doubts now with this callceneter stuff that you put , earlier than this post i always thought you were a better and smarter person) try boycotting India and better raise this issue in the upcoming elections, if you have networks .

posted March 06, 2008 11:36 PM            

quote:

---

the Kashmiri people chose to be a part of the Indian state in 1947 thru a public mandate

---

posted March 10, 2008 07:27 AM            

quote:

---

I don't know I feel that if major powers supported Kashmiri independance then Pakistan would be less likely to attack.

---

Not likely to happen (for the time being anyway.)

posted March 11, 2008 09:43 PM            

quote:

---

Obama is certainly a pacifist...acoustic

---

If it's true O'Bomber is a pacifist then O'Bomber is disqualified from ever being president of the United States. He could not fulfil the Presidential oath of office.

posted March 12, 2008 03:50 AM              

:::

I can not say of Pak but to an extent you are right . that might happen not only in the case of sikhs but some others purely bcos of politics not bcos of some simmering insuffiecency among the people for the state .
you know , how these events tend to have a snowball effect . case in point , USSR .

In India NO other solution to Kashmir will be accepted mainly bcos we never accepted Jinnah Two Nation theory . We always said Hindus And muslims can live togetther as they have for hundred of years ( i think we got vindicated , India has the second largest Muslim population as proud to be an Indian as anyone else the thousand of other communities )

So for us its more than politics now . its the essence on which India got created .

posted March 12, 2008 03:51 AM              

[url]http://www.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne080308on_the.asp [/url]

posted March 12, 2008 11:05 AM            

quote:

---

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

---

posted March 12, 2008 11:57 AM            

You think that just because Eisenhower preferred peace to war that made him a pacifist. I don't know many military commanders who want war.

The difference is that a pacifist would go to any lengths to avoid war...and get a hell of a lot of people killed...like Neville Chamberlain and a realist would act through strength, taking such actions as are necessary if war cannot be prevented.

O'Bomber, if he is a pacifist as you claim, cannot take the oath of office as President...for obvious reasons.

Your Eisenhower quotes are not persuasive...if you intended to show Eisenhower was a pacifist.

posted March 12, 2008 01:21 PM            

You need to read up on Eisenhower if you don't think he was a pacifist. Of course a military commander would be a pacifist and do everything in his power to avoid armed conflict having seen firsthand the destruction of war. From www.whitehouse.gov :

quote:

---

The President proposed that the United States and Russia exchange blueprints of each other's military establishments and "provide within our countries facilities for aerial photography to the other country."

---

posted March 12, 2008 02:00 PM            

You're probably enemy number one to words which you usually manage to mangle their meanings...or just make up your own definitions.

Eisenhower was not in any way a pacifist. You would have immediately realized that if you had bothered to look up the definition.

But that would destroy your position...not that your position isn't already destroyed.

posted March 12, 2008 02:25 PM            

1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

posted March 12, 2008 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

O'Bomber threatening to attack Pakistan makes him something "other" than a pacifist too....unless he's lying through his teeth to get elected.

---

posted March 12, 2008 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

...you know , how these events tend to have a snowball effect.

---

My point exactly. The factoral groups within both Pakistan and India number way too greatly. If the international community gets involved in this, it will spark conflicting notions between all those groups. That is why I say its best to wait till things simmer down (preferably after the elections, though by what I am seeing so far, the coalition between the two parties opposed to Musharaf may get the upper hand now but will divide up so fast after the elections... Oi...)

Lol! Well yes I do have sub-continential connections but they have little to do with politics. I am currently one of the Model UN administrators here at U of T and thus it is my Job to know the latest political issues of the world. We actually had a NAMUN summit at U of T on Febuary.

Apart from that, I worked extensively with Oxfam and many other NPO and NGO orginizations during my high-school years.

posted March 12, 2008 02:38 PM            

Let's see acoustic, Eisenhower was opposed to violence of any kind? And that's the reason he led all allied troops in Europe in WWII. Nice try but no cookie

Or, how about this one:

"a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service."

Oh wait, Eisenhower wasn't drafted into military service. He volunteered. Volunteers for pacifism

Or, maybe this one:

"Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action"