Messages

AFRICOM :

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h0chhgV9L5MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command+africom&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk

VS

The African Union :

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8XEfNfc4EhIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union+african+union&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk

The US is trying to ease its way into Africa through Obama to set up a US military jurisdiction and militarisation over Africa - AFRICOM that was set up by Donald Rumsfeld under GW Bush who was backed by Halliburton,Bechtel,The Carlyle Group,Dynecorp under the pretext of fighting terrorism and Humanitarianism.The vast majority of African nations have rejected Africom but others have signed into AFRICOM like Ethiopia as they received/were bribed with funding from AFRICOM which is easy with corrupt despots and warlords etc.AFRICOM has surrounded Africa with military bases and sections of the military dedicated to AFRICOM who want to assist Africa in a military capacity.Also AFRICOM wants to drive out China from Africa.

The US wanted to take Libya but it has potentially cost them the rest of Africa and the almost certain failure of AFRICOM.The situation in the Ivory coast hasnt helped either.THe US military has merged with NATO military forces as it is overstretched.

The Libyan conflict has worked against AFRICOMs presence in Africa and plans for it and .AFRICOMs mission statement under "Theater Security Objectives" clearly states :

"Defeat the Al-Qaeda terrorist organizations and
its associated networks."

Yet in Libya the US is funding and logistically supporting ALQuaeda members amongst Libyan rebel forces.Gadaffi had previously informed the US that ALQuaeda were active in Libya but these warnings were ignored/not acted upon.

AFRICOM also state the following under their heading of "US Africa Command Mission" as a mission statement:

U.S. Africa Command Mission
United States Africa Command, in concert with
other U.S. government agencies and international
partners, conducts sustained security engagement
through military-to-military programs, militarysponsored
activities, and other military operations
as directed to promote *a stable and secure African
environment in support of U.S. foreign policy*."

So what this means is that if Africa signs up to AFRICOM then they support or will in time support US foreign policy so if US foreign policy decides that there is a problem within Africa [after signing up to AFRICOM]that requires a US military presence for reasons of terrorism or whatever else then they wont have a say in it themselves as US foreign policy isnt set out by Africans so Africa could very easily become a victim of US foreign policy.If African nations sign up to AFRICOM then the US will set up a permanent military base in its country.Obviously Africa is a huge potential marketplace for the arms trade etc or "We will supply you military equipment in return for your resources".Africas political/military leadership have rejected having an AFRICOM headquarters on African soil.

[no idea why there is a line through the text as i didnt do it deliberately and i have no idea how to get rid of it]



Resist AFRICOM:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1552/t/5734/content.jsp?content_KEY=3855

Heres the good bit where i admit that i have fucked up and that i may be delusional as i have backtracked and i cant find where i listed the positives where in actual fact i had only named a few positives over two or 3 comments some way back and then 5 positives in a reply to @MIK.I could have sworn that i had listed them earlier than that......I dont mind admitting i am wrong as its self evident but it was a shock backtracking to find something that i imagined was there - the awful truth.

What a complete utter moron.

Apologies.

As it was you who i called thick then i sincerely apologise.

Apology not accepted.

You also said that I couldn't read plain English, could only see things in simplified, black and white polarised terms, wasn't interested in the subject*, had a simplistic, "sanctomonious" (sic) view of things and hadn't bothered to look anything up. None of which is even remotely true.

Neither is any of this....

Calling you thick/stupid was a result of having to repeat myself as in having my patience tried as in others as well as yourself claiming that i didnt or havent listed any positives when i had already listed them along with the frustration of being misunderstood that was partly wilful.You even read them and then said i hadnt listed them.I didnt get the impression that you didnt understand anything.

When did I say you hadn't listed them? Are you backing up your paranoia with hallucinations now?

And how in hell would understanding things but ignoring or misinterpreting them on purpose make me thick? A bit of a git, maybe, but not stupid. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

I'm done here. You've wandered too far into the town of Doolally. No point talking to someone who changes reality to justify their outlook.

* Bit rich that you'd have a problem with someone commenting on something they have no interest in anyway, given your past history.  "I don't really care as it's not something I'm interested in" was pretty much all you seemed to say at one point.

Here are your comments:

Cut and pasted as i cant backtrack that far when quoting:


Re: "Truth? You can't handle the truth!"
« Reply #540 on: 07 July, 2011, 12:16:21 AM »

    * Quote

Quote from: Peter Wolf on 06 July, 2011, 11:58:58 PM

    As for dictators i wouldnt support any dictator by default like i didnt support Saddam Hussein and if it was North Korea i wouldnt support KimJungIl but because Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime have positive aspects i support them on that basis but not on the basis of abuses of power.


Okay... What are the positive aspects?
Report to moderator   Logged
http://malcolmkirk.blogspot.com/

That implies that you hadnt read my previous comments or couldnt understand plain english.No paranoia or hallucinations

There it is and that was well after i had already listed them and theres more than that.If you want to nitpick then you have come to the right place for it.Someone else also claimed that i hadnt listed any positives yet they are there further up the thread.

Alternatively you and the other had not read the previous comments.

You can reject the apology if you like but the fact is i still apologised.and the fact that you are overly concerned and slighted over being called thick says a lot about in the fact you wouldnt let it lie.I have been called far worse far more times yets its water off a ducks back to me.Get a thick skin instead of being delicate and easily slighted or dont get in the ring.

Gaddafi Peterwolf is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

Fixed that for you, mate.

Now go and fix your face.

So, when someone doesn't understand what you're saying, they get called thick, but if you don't understand what someone else is saying, it 's because it isn't clear enough?

I can't see how that works. I must be too stupid.

Calling you thick/stupid was a result of having to repeat myself as in having my patience tried as in others as well as yourself claiming that i didnt or havent listed any positives when i had already listed them along with the frustration of being misunderstood that was partly wilful.You even read them and then said i hadnt listed them.I didnt get the impression that you didnt understand anything.

I was called a "fucking idiot" by someone along with another personal attack yet i went out of my way to be polite in return to that comment and others but the fact is it was a heated debate/argument and even though i was going out of my to keep things as civil as possible i dont fuck about with words or saying what i think to others.

As it was you who i called thick then i sincerely apologise.

The comment from @Garageman was a bit ambiguous as in i wasnt sure what it was referring to.

Google+ is Google's shot at a Facebook killer,

Google own Facebook as they paid 25 billion USD for it so its odd that they would then create a rival social networking website that will more than likely undermine Facebook.Having said that there may be room for two social networking websites on the Ternet.

Dont ask me as i just work here.

It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.

If that's an attempt to retreat to the moral high ground, it's piss. What's so curious about it? Do you really care what other people think, seeing as you've said before if people don't understand it like you they're stupid? Hardly a reasonable position to debate from is it?

Bottom line is, you made a statement of personal opinion you claimed was an objective assessment only when you were challenged on it. The shit storm was caused by that rather than anything to do with you I reckon.

M.

Gaddafi is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

M.

It certainly wasnt that.No problem with being challenged either but i am interested in what others think about it all particularly from the US/UN/NATO side of things and i thought that more of that would have been forthcoming.The comments about stupidity were because i was being misunderstood and having to repeat myself.

As for the comment only being objective it was always objective right from the start but you are suggesting that i was backpedalling when i wasnt.I had to explain that it was objective as some chose to read it as something different probably because they wanted to.

As for Gadaffi having to fuck off when he should there are better ways to go about this than what NATO etc are up to on behalf of a minority of "Rebel forces" and ALCIADA who are funded and armed by NATO etc.Besides that 2 or 3 times Gadaffi offered to engage in talks with NATO etc but it was rejected.

What happens if the majority of Libyans support Gadaffi ?

Do the US/UN/NATO have the right to dictate to them who they can and cant support ?

Who are they to dictate what goes on within a sovereign nation ?

Perhaps if they really were a force for good in the world then they would have some kind of legitimacy but that isnt the case.Their fake humanitarianism is selective anyway.

To paraphrase Mrs. Merton; What first attracted her to the rich and powerful, multi-billionaire, Rupert Murdoch?

She is blind and has necrophilliac tendencies.

Now to your question about who i would vote for if a loaded gun was pointed at my head i would vote for ...........wait for it................................................................................Cameron ! or do i die by my principles and say none of them ?

I expect more abuse now for that answer !!

Okay, I'll bite: it is the politics thread after all.

What. The Hell. Would David Cameron do for you that Labour wouldn't? How are your interests and David Cameron's aligned in any conceivable way whatsoever?


Edit: Oh bollocks. Wrong thread. Feel free to disregard the question. I don't want to know.

Not so fast...........

Labour and Conservatives are all the same to me these days so it was down to the fact that David Cameron comes from a good background and went to a good school.

 

Conservatives are not aligned to my interests in any way.Milliband is a complete drip but preferable to his brother by a long way.

Apologies for not showing up but i did have a not very good attack of hayfever on fri/Sat that i posted about elsewhere.I didnt say anything about it as i didnt think that anyone would be that bothered either way.I was up for going but running late but as soon as i went outside i could feel it starting up again.Nasal spray doesnt always work and i didnt want to take the risk as it brought back memories of having it really bad when i lived in London which was a nightmare.One of those sods law things as it was alright on Sunday.

Just trying to get a handle on how you think, PW. The fact you see arguing as something to enjoy is interesting if nothing else.

Bit of a cop-out answer, though. Let's say your life depended on it, (or the lives of lots of cute little orphan kittens or something). - if you had to pick one to vote for... could you? Or are they all just as bad as one another?

If i didnt enjoy arguing and debate i wouldnt be involved in these threads.I say i enjoy arguing but only on the basis that it is something worth arguing about and it is enjoyable to me because it is challenging but at the same time i wouldnt ever choose to argue if there was an alternative to it as  i would much rather debate than argue.

The trick to arguing though especially online is to never take anything personally or bear grudges as lifes too short but i think a lot of others enjoy it as well.If i have insulted you or offended you then keep it in the context of what was being said at the time.

Now to your question about who i would vote for if a loaded gun was pointed at my head i would vote for ...........wait for it................................................................................Cameron ! or do i die by my principles and say none of them ?

I expect more abuse now for that answer !!

The kittens would win out though as i wouldnt be able to bear the thought of anything terrible happening to them so you have found one of my weak points.

Some of you people manage to make debating or even arguing as tedious and unpleasent and timewasting as possible

Well why don't you stop then?

Thats making it too easy for you and giving you what you want but keep in mind i very rarely start arguments and attack others points of view as i usually just post a comment that is not posted with the intent of starting an argument but you choose to argue with me as it takes two or more to argue.I could choose not to reply to you but then you wouldnt get any personal enjoyment or satisfaction out of it.I know that this is as much to do with what i say as the fact that is myself saying it so enough said about that as i wasnt born yesterday and i understand psychology 

There wouldnt be a shitstorm in this thread if it wasnt for me.

To me Gadaffi is just another elite with a personal interest in domineering the weaker elements of Africa, if he really believed he was in 'trouble', he'd as soon as get around the table with Western elites and make a deal that benefitted themselves..

Human nature never changes and its the same wherever you go.

News of the World!

Its good to have some good news for once.One down - more to go............

Think of all those trees that will be saved.

It will be the beginning of a long and expensive slippery slope providing that you can find the art that you want......

Well done to  you both.

It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.

Don't have much good to say for any of 'em.

I know that you have said what you think already and it certainly helps that you have a clue about this sort of thing.I dont know that much about the African Union as i havent really read up on them as there are only so many things i can read up on at any given time or even know the ins and outs of.

Ditto. 

Peter, just out of interest... weighing up the positives and negatives, if you could elect Gadaffi as prime minister of the UK, would you? Would you choose him over the likes of Cameron or Miliband?

Now this is just getting stupid.Of course i wouldnt elect a tyrant control freak but i am no more likely to vote for Milliband or Cameron.Some of you people manage to make debating or even arguing as tedious and unpleasent and timewasting as possible rather than enjoyable as i ususally enjoy debate and arguing.

Can't understand plain English, Peter?

Not if its not clear i dont but i m sure that if it is clarified i will.Of course now simply linking to an article is a loaded statement but i am still not clear whos fault it is.

No real problem with the African Union, Peter, just surprised to see you citing them as a source.  You wouldn't generally be known for your trust of federalising super states or their aspirants.

Since it was the African Union who have rejected the ICC and noone else what else can i do but refer to the African Union ?

Like i have said i submitted the articles without comment.

It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.