Mongolia WTF
-
@aib said:
@tster said:
The truth is, George Bush is actually a smart guy.
Could you define "smart," please?
tehran times : Bush World War III rant shows he’s really lost it now
AlterNet: War on Iraq: Bush's World War III 'Solution'
google: bush "world war iii" for more
That first Op-Ed article from the Tehran Times is completely biased and full of wrong information.
How can Bush talk this way when Iran’s nuclear activities are open to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency#IAEA_and_Iran
Do any of you remember that Iraq allowed weapons inspectors into the country in 2002? It wasn't good enough because they constantly harrassed the inspectors and prevented them from doing their job properly (e.g., doors locked that should be accessible to inspectors). When the IAEA says "we find no evidence of weapons" that doesn't mean to stop looking and go home. It just means "don't attack Iran, yet".
-
@DaveK said:
They're what Americans hatch out of, of course!
@DaveK said:
Nice juxtaposition.Apple pie I thought?
-
While I'm here... macaroni isn't an american dish. But mac' and cheese is. Unless you account for the fact that canadians eat their own weight in "Kroff Dinner" each year, then I guess that makes it a canadian dish.
More fun facts:
Boxed versions (the stove top method) of the macaroni dish have been available since 1937 and are known for the rich yellow-orange color, resulting from the use of powdered "cheese sauce mix" rather than actual cheese. This color was memorialized by Crayola in 1993 when they added a "macaroni and cheese" crayon to their selection of colors available in the US.
-
@Pap said:
While I'm here... macaroni isn't an american dish. But mac' and cheese is. Unless you account for the fact that canadians eat their own weight in "Kroff Dinner" each year, then I guess that makes it a canadian dish.
More fun facts:
Boxed versions (the stove top method) of the macaroni dish have been available since 1937 and are known for the rich yellow-orange color, resulting from the use of powdered "cheese sauce mix" rather than actual cheese. This color was memorialized by Crayola in 1993 when they added a "macaroni and cheese" crayon to their selection of colors available in the US.
Although technically not macaroni, the following dish precedes it, and possibly inspired it.
Mixing cheese with hot food, isn't really new, and while both sources talk about 1900+ i would have guessed that pasta+cheese would have been around for much longer, since both base ingredients are pretty old.
-
@Pap said:
I rest my case. No it most certainly isn't. Hence my choice of those URLs,While I'm here... macaroni isn't an american dish. But mac' and cheese is.
-
Some things I would like to add to the thread.
1. Please don't let these forums become like Slashdot, which seems to me to be compose of 60% political rants and 40% tech stories these days.
2. tster, you're my new hero.
3. US citizens don't like being world police, don't want to be world police, and of course it is impossible to be such. However, we will make moves to protect our country, whether they seem like the right moves to the rest of the world or not. The United States does not ask permission to protect its interests, sorry.
-
@R.Flowers said:
3. US citizens don't like being world police, don't want to be world police, and of course it is impossible to be such. However, we will make moves to protect our country, whether they seem like the right moves to the rest of the world or not. The United States does not ask permission to protect its interests, sorry.
You are aware that "protecting your interests" is not the same as "protecting your country". For example, Iraq definitely did not have (and was not even close to getting) the means to launch any kind of military attack on the US. But since it has lots of oil, there are "interests to protect".
Exactly the same can be said about Iran now. Will the US "protect their interests" again?
-
@Pap said:
While I'm here... macaroni isn't an american dish. But mac' and cheese is. Unless you account for the fact that canadians eat their own weight in "Kroff Dinner" each year, then I guess that makes it a canadian dish.
Oh God, a Canadian friend of mine gave me some of that stuff once, it was luminous yellow and tasted absolutely revolting.
Anyways, alot of what's been said about "Americans" here just seems like crass racism to me. I mean, if we take this statement:
"Do US citizens really think? Ever? "
And modify it to:
"Do Black people really think? Ever?"
Then everybody would be up in arms about it, but because it's Americans it seems alot of people just find it acceptable. At the last presidential election around 50% of the US population stated quite clearly that they didn't like the current administration or their policies, later on those people had their voices heard and the Republicans lost control of both houses of federal government. Making statements that imply that every one of those voters approves of current US foreign policy is both incorrect and to them, probably quite offensive.
From what I see, I think alot of people use the word "Americans" when they should really be saying "The American Government" or some other phrase which isn't actively insulting to all the Americans who probably agree with them.
-
@ammoQ said:
@R.Flowers said:
3. US citizens don't like being world police, don't want to be world police, and of course it is impossible to be such. However, we will make moves to protect our country, whether they seem like the right moves to the rest of the world or not. The United States does not ask permission to protect its interests, sorry.
You are aware that "protecting your interests" is not the same as "protecting your country". For example, Iraq definitely did not have (and was not even close to getting) the means to launch any kind of military attack on the US. But since it has lots of oil, there are "interests to protect".
Exactly the same can be said about Iran now. Will the US "protect their interests" again?
Yes, I am aware of the distinction
I don't think the U.S. has the political will, or even the resources, to engage Iran in an Iraq-style conflict. However, "protecting interests" can include many things besides war.
As for the oil canard... Canada has lots of oil. Venezuela has lots of oil. Hell, we have a lot of oil, if we permitted ourselves to dig for it. Oil may have been the least compelling reason to invade Iraq.
-
@R.Flowers said:
@ammoQ said:
You are aware that "protecting your interests" is not the same as "protecting your country". For example, Iraq definitely did not have (and was not even close to getting) the means to launch any kind of military attack on the US. But since it has lots of oil, there are "interests to protect".
Exactly the same can be said about Iran now. Will the US "protect their interests" again?
Yes, I am aware of the distinction
I don't think the U.S. has the political will, or even the resources, to engage Iran in an Iraq-style conflict.
I hope so. But there are some politicians who are not opposed to the idea. Even here in Austria, one can observe preparations for such a conflict.
Of course those who want the war do not want a result like in the Iraq. Nobody wanted that, though it was hardly avoidable.
However, "protecting interests" can include many things besides war.
As for the oil canard... Canada has lots of oil. Venezuela has lots of oil. Hell, we have a lot of oil, if we permitted ourselves to dig for it. Oil may have been the least compelling reason to invade Iraq.
Venezuela... well, supposedly there has been an attempt by the CIA to overthrow the current leftist government.
Anyway, the US obviously cannot simply send the armed forces to another country and just take the oil.
But what it can do, and seemingly does, is to make sure that every major oil-producing land accepts the USD for the oil it sells. Just watch the saber-rattling when some country considers selling oil for e.g. EUR or Yen.
btw, just found on digg: http://www.economist.com/daily/kallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10026971
-
@R.Flowers said:
As for the oil canard... Canada has lots of oil. Venezuela has lots of oil. Hell, we have a lot of oil, if we permitted ourselves to dig for it. Oil may have been the least compelling reason to invade Iraq.
It's not "oil" precisely, but rather "oil that is financially connected to companies owned by specific people with significant political influence". Some other oil is no good, because that makes money for somebody else.
Fettuccine Alfredo - Wikipedia
