http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kroyMfkoRHA&feature=channel_page it'll do them a LOT of good. better a 20th century arrow every week than a Boeing 747 after 10 years. or not? the US ministry of defense's job is to insulate the american people from the crimes and tyranny outside done in their name. attempts to waken them have gone from throwing rocks at the window to bashing down the front door, but the Americans always manage ending up self conscious after sometime. what would be the solution in your opinion, other than invading America and destroying it?
Well, let's see, that's Gaza Strip (46 countries smaller than this--none with a larger pop.) with a population of 1.6 million (approx.) on a land area of 360 sq. km.(double the size of Washington DC) = 4400 persons per sq km. (approx.) Okay, now Israel Green Zone (not including West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan, etc.) with a population of 6.6 million (approx.) on a land area of 20,580 sq. km. = 300 people per sq km.(approx.) Just for fun, and to dramatically intensify what a whine the OP is, let's add Washington DC's population (resident 600,000/weekday commuted to over 1 million) on a land area of 160 sq km = 6250 people per sq km.(approx.) (all data courtesy: ciafactbook/wikipedia)
In American English, the word "ministry" is used exclusively in a religious context. The organizations headed by the members of the President's Cabinet (his "Secretaries") are "Departments." The Secretary of Defense is in charge of the Department of Defense.
I wish there were sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek and hoity-toity emoticons; I'm certain we both should be using them. I hope you know that I know exactly what--in parliamentary democracies--a "minister" does and how it all works in relation to American (and similar governmental systems) "secretaries" and "cabinet members". In case you don't, then I kindly thank you for your friendly reply and remind you that I'm well aware of what you say. In the off chance you were merely using my post as an opportunity to offer clarity for clarity's sake, then disregard my response and carry on as normal. ~String
I was quite sure that you do. However, not all of the members know that. As the Head Linguist it's my job to explain it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I love reading and/or listening to non-American news sources refer to our senior administrators. I often hear British (or other Westminster) sources refer to our senior department heads as "The American Secretary of State for This-Or-That-Job" (referred to as 'the Secretary of State' or 'Secretary of Defense). . . . or "The American Minister of Finance, Timothy Geitner". Or other somesuch not-so-correct title, but adjusted for the British, Australian, Canadian, South African listener. ~String
i really think this is serious, i don't know why everybody is being all sarcastic. pentagon, US army, marines, all of the millitary force, has a dual responsibility of plundering what it can in the world while maintaining the lids and corks in the americans' eyes and ears and pretty much every sensory input. it's called "keeping them safe". when a country is at war but the civilians aren't experiencing it, their judgment of it [if they had any] would be flawed and incomplete. see, americans divide into two parts when it comes to the war their country wages, those who actually go fight it, and experience it first hand, get to ask all the hard questions about it, "why are we doing this?", they wonder whether it is that necessary, and they run away or commit suicide when they come back or start voicing their questions and get a psychological leave. or just shush them and go on. the others are the rest of the americans back home, living their daily lives, having their normal problems and concerns, wars outside don't leave the tv screen, which shows news meant not to worry them, until one day two planes fly overhead into two towers, they start wondering from what planet did those planes come? and by what aliens were they piloted? and just WHY did they attack US so deliberately and desperately??? the media answers the first two questions easily, but not the third, to which many americans don't care, as long as we know who they are and where they are, i'm ready to go bomb them. or pay the taxes for bombing them.. and so america steps on more toes. and things are bound to repeat themselves. till when? i don't know. is there a remedy, a solution? i don't know. if you don't care, you're part of the problem. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i don't get what you're saying. what's your point?
You are discounting the fact that many Americans, even if they knew what exactly was being done in their name, would not necessarily object to it. Sderot is the reason why harsh measures are sometimes taken against the militants in Gaza.
I think you need to stop watching Al Jazeera for your analysis of current events. If the job of the U.S. military leaders is to plunder, then they should all be fired! They destroy more than they appropriate. They made such a rotten mess of Iraq that we still have not gotten one drop of Saddam's oil. Our military doesn't do that either. Where do you live, Crapistan? You don't seem to know very much about how our government is organized, much less the rest of our society. And from that day on there has been a conspiracy between the news media and the federal government to blow that event out of proportion. Frightened people buy more news, which makes the media happy, and frightened people are willing to surrender more of their rights, which makes the civil "servants" in the TSA (we inspect your Titties, Schlongs and Asses) happy. During the past ten years, 3,000 Americans have been killed by Muslim terrorists. During that same time, more than one hundred thousand Americans have been killed by drunk drivers. Which risk should we be giving the most attention to, and putting our money and effort into reducing it? Duh? For a variety of reasons. U.S. military support virtually keeps the Jewish theocracy of Israel alive, which makes us the Great Satan in the eyes of the neighboring Muslim theocracies. We're also a strong ally of India, which makes us an evil empire from the perspective of Pakistan, the world's second-largest Muslim nation. We also have a terrible history in our relations with Iran (we thwarted their attempt at democracy and installed the Shah, then called them the bad guys when they finally overthrew him) and with Afghanistan (it was Jimmy Carter who absentmindedly created the Taliban during that little chess game with the Russians we call the Cold War). There's no one reason why young, militant Muslims hate America. They have a whole menu to choose from. Until 1979 few Americans knew anything about Muslims or Islam. If anything, we associated that part of the world with a vague aura of charm. We didn't even pay much attention to their antagonism toward Israel. Then when the Iranian hotheads captured our embassy--an act of war by universal international definition--they got our attention. It's been all downhill since then. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, the destruction of the giant stone Buddhas in Afghanistan, 9/11, other attacks and failed attacks. Today, most Americans unconsciously (or even consciously) regard the world of Islam as not just anti-American, but thoroughly un-American. The people who have appointed themselves the spokesmen for Islam (whether or not their constituents actually agree with that appointment) are specifically opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, two of the most cherished founding principles of our society, and opposed to women's liberation, a cause that has been enshrined in all of our institutions, even though its practical implementation is not quite complete. These are not people the less thoughtful, more easily manipulated Americans believe can be negotiated with (or even coexisted with) and their counterparts in the Islamic countries feel the same way about us. Eventually America will be bankrupt and we'll have to scale back our military adventures. We've spent something like two trillion dollars in the War on Islam, and we don't have the resources to keep funding it at that level. Especially when the bill for Obamacare comes due. Once America stops sending Christian soldiers (or soldiers who are regarded as Christians, anyway) to kill Muslims, there might be hope for a cease-fire on both sides. The internet is a powerful force for peace too. Americans wept over the real-time videos of Neda Agha-Soltan dying in the street in Tehran after being attacked by government thugs. People on the other side of the planet used to be nothing more than abstractions to us; now we know their names and we watch them grieving and doing all the other normal things in life that we do. I think if the U.S. government ever actually becomes so insane that they want to start a war against Iran, the memory of Neda's dying face will be a strong deterrent to the population's grant of permission. Full-color images of the Vietnam War were broadcast into American living rooms at dinnertime during the late 1960s and early 1970s. That bit of journalism is given a lot of credit for our people losing their enthusiasm for that war. Since then the government has been more careful about the scenes they allow us to see during military action. But they can't do anything about cellphone videos that show up on YouTube. Civilians can be connived into supporting a war--until they see it happening. Then they get squeamish. The Electronic Revolution, which began in 1833 when the first telegraph line went into regular service, may be the key to world peace. I may not live long enough to see that happen, but I hope you younger folks will. BTW, the U.S. is by no means responsible for all of the evil and violence in Muslim nations. Something like fifty thousand people in Tajikistan were killed during the chaos in that country, when it became independent after the collapse of the USSR. That's a whole hell of a lot of dead Muslims and we had nothing to do with it!
Sderot is why their are militants. I wonder what the town's name was before the great war of conquest in 48.
Why are you not getting a drop of oil? Iraq is not such a mess that the Chinese cannot get at the oil. Yes the oil is going to China. Interesting twist isn't it? We should be asking how China has first dibs on oil reserves when the Americans were the first ones with their foot in the door. WASIT, Iraq — A red banner hangs at the entrance of the office of the company — the Iraqi affiliate of China's state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. — its Chinese characters promising anyone who can decipher them: "We will try our best to make this project a success." From among the most outspoken of critics of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, China has emerged as one of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the war, snagging five lucrative deals. While Western firms were largely subdued in their interest in Iraq's recent oil auctions, China snapped up three contracts, shrugging off the security risks and the country's political instability for the promise of oil. The result of its efforts is that about half of China's oil comes from the region. It has ousted the United States as OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia's top oil customer. Saudi Arabia has also set up a joint venture refinery in China. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37577656/ns/business-oil_and_energy/ China's deal with Iraq began BEFORE the invasion in Iraq. China and Iraq will sign a deal next week to develop the Ahdab oil field, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, at time when political gridlock and security concerns have cast doubt over several pending short-term contracts. The new agreement, valued at $1.2 billion, is a variation of a deal struck with the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. in 1997, when Iraq was in the clutches of Saddam Hussein. “The Chinese contract was signed with the former regime,” Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraq’s oil minister, said in an interview that appeared on Iraqi news Web site al-Noor. “It’s valid. It was unfair because it was a production-sharing contract. We have negotiated with them for a year. It was turned from a sharing contract into a service contract.” http://moneymorning.com/2008/08/22/china-iraq/ One would think that a contract signed with an ousted regime would be null and void. I mean why is it that the US cannot sign an oil deal with Kurds under a new regime but the Chinese can secure oil based on a contract with an ousted regime? 'The Obama administration advised Marathon Oil not to invest in the KRG last month. U.S. policy is to tell American companies not to sign petroleum deals with the Kurds because there is no national oil law between them and Baghdad. They told Marathon that they are taking a risk working in Kurdistan without the central government’s okay. The Oil Ministry has called all oil contracts with the KRG illegal.' Iraq Oil Report, “US Authorities Advised Marathon Oil Against KRG Deal,” Iraq Business News, 11/3/10
You have to first strip the people in DC of their rights, food, water, add a no mans land to the area and send in only a list of approved foods [for reasons of national security] You then have to bomb them on a daily basis allow no infrastructure and trade, put all the politicians in prison, kill most of the cops and only allow foreign soldiers who pee in the homes and crap in the fridge for fun. Okay, now that looks more like Gaza. On with the whine They are too apathetic to get that active, nowadays they don't even have the energy to pick up the guns so they send drones and bomb people from a safe distance. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You can't get to first...that doesn't work. Okay, that works. Absolute security absolutely starts at home.
