|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
007
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 2684
Location: UK/Veteran of the Magic Kingdom
|
 Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: The Famous Sword Dance with Uncle Bandar |
 |
|
Uncle Sam went to visit Uncle Bandar in the Al Janadriyah Ranch in Riyadh to celebrate for the Al janadriyah ceremony and pratice the famous sword dance with Uncle Bandar!
During the meeting with Uncle Bandar, the following dialogue occured between the two Uncles:
Unle Sam: hey, Uncle Bandar, you know that the economy of US is in a terrible state!
Uncle Bandar: Why is that? What happened to your economy?
Uncle Sam: Well, you know very well that the oil prices are rocketing, and this is damaging the economy of my country, as well my reputation as a president of the USA.
Uncle Bandar: So, what do you want me to do for your help, dear friend?
Uncle Sam: I wonder if you could push for higher oil output, so that you relieve the economy of my country, and in the meantime I will press the Congress to accept the arm sale to you!
Uncle Bandar: Well, I can do that but for a condition!
Uncle Sam: And what is this condition?
Uncle Bandar: you veto the congress on the issue of the arm deal and stop the BAE investigation in USA.
Uncle Sam: OK for the arm sale. But, for BAE investigation, this is a little bit complicated and I need to consult with political and legal advisor for this issue. And as you know here in USA we cannot use the Wasta for this type of problems!
Uncle Bandar: No stopping of BAE investigation NO Oil, that is my last word!
Uncle Sam: Well, let me think about it, and I call you when I will be in the oval office, good bye! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Never Ceased To Be Amazed
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 3500
Location: Shhh...don't talk to me...I'm playin' dead...
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
George Bush AND Saudi suk!
NCTBA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sheikh radlinrol
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1222
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on 007, give Uncle Bandar a break! At the time, The Times reported that he had settled for a modest �3,000,000 commission for the BAE deal when the usual percentage would have made him five.
In any case, BAE is a British company and the case is, therefore, a British matter. You should know that we Brits are not led on by American presidents and their interests. 
GWB didn't come away from Riyadh empty-handed. Abdullah had to agree that Iran was the major menace. (That's what the Spanish press is saying, anyway) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear sheikh,
Abdullah "had to agree . . ."? I doubt there was any need to push him into that; the Saudis (and the rest of the Sunni majority Arabian peninsula) have been terrified of Iran for quite a while.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
windstar
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does this include Ibadhi Oman, Shia Yemen and Bahrain not to mention Iraq? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sheikh radlinrol
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1222
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnslat wrote: |
Dear sheikh,
Abdullah "had to agree . . ."? I doubt there was any need to push him into that; the Saudis (and the rest of the Sunni majority Arabian peninsula) have been terrified of Iran for quite a while.
Regards,
John |
Of course, you are right, John. But what can we do with/about Iran? I'd like to hear your views and those of the other posters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear sheikh,
"But what can we do with/about Iran?"
No. 1: DON'T INVADE!!!!!
No. 2: DON'T INVADE!!!!
No. 3: DON'T INVADE!!!!
As much as I'm skeptical about "diplomatic overtures", that's really the only good option. I'm hoping that, come next January, the USA will have a much saner individual in the White House, and the chances of reaching a mutually acceptable accommodation will be much improved.
Regards,
John
Dear windstar,
ALL the Arabs (even the Shia) are leery in varying degrees; most are VERY leery (not O'Leery - he's Irish.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sheikh radlinrol
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1222
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnslat wrote: |
Dear sheikh,
"But what can we do with/about Iran?"
No. 1: DON'T INVADE!!!!!
No. 2: DON'T INVADE!!!!
No. 3: DON'T INVADE!!!!
As much as I'm skeptical about "diplomatic overtures", that's really the only good option. I'm hoping that, come next January, the USA will have a much saner individual in the White House, and the chances of reaching a mutually acceptable accommodation will be much improved. |
Agreed. I'm sure the next White House tenant will be an improvement. But what about the Teheran ''White House''. It'll still be occupied by cranks, weirdos and bearded fanatics. What is to be done with these people? Let's not forget that Iran is the only nation whose leader calls for the destruction of a neighbour! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cleopatra
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 3657
Location: Tuamago Archipelago
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Abdullah "had to agree . . ."? I doubt there was any need to push him into that; the Saudis (and the rest of the Sunni majority Arabian peninsula) have been terrified of Iran for quite a while. |
The NYT and other cheerleaders for Zion have been pushing this line for some time now, but it really only represents wishful thinking on their part. "Terrified of Iran"? I don't think so. "Uneasy about Iran's growing power" would be more accurate.
Fact is, the Arabs and the Iranians have been co-existing with one another for thousands of years, and will continue to do so. Not always easily or peacefully, but all this "Sunni-Shia" schism nonsense may look great in Thomas Friedman's columns, but it is a gross over-simplification, not to say exaggeration. Ahmedinejad was the first ever president of the Islamic Republic to attend a GCC summit, and he has also visited KSA and other Gulf states recently. Not much fear and trembling there. Don't get me wrong, there's no love lost between the Islamic Republic and the Gulf sheikhdoms, but what we are witnessing is typical rival spheres of influence stuff, not the prelude to major conflict, however disappointing that may be to some.
| Quote: |
| But what can we do with/about Iran? |
The same as you'd do with/about any other relatively poor third-tier world power which hasn't invaded a country in hundreds of years, and poses no threat to your own?
| Quote: |
| Let's not forget that Iran is the only nation whose leader calls for the destruction of a neighbour! |
Have you ever met an anti-Iranian propaganda line you did not uncritically swallow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sheikh radlinrol
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1222
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting comments your majesty. I insist , however, that Mr. Ahmadinijad (please excuse my spelling) has called for the obliteration of a neighbouring country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cleopatra
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 3657
Location: Tuamago Archipelago
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I insist , however, that Mr. Ahmadinijad (please excuse my spelling) has called for the obliteration of a neighbouring country. |
And I insist that you are uncritically parotting the NYT/CNN line on this. The widely circulated notion that Ahmedinejad had 'called for the obliteration' of poor, innocent likl defenceless Izzreeel has been debunked by, well, just about every Farsi-English bilingual who was asked to comment. Here's an extract from one of the better analyses, but don't be surprised that you didn't read it in the 'mainstream' press:
"So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
BTW since you're so concerned about those who threaten to 'obliberate' other countries, and since you seem to be a type who desires action on politicians you disapprove of, what could be done with/about Hillary Clinton? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
