BS: US troops to Uganda

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:41 PM

Oh doubtlessly they have.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:34 PM

Oh, that quaint little island. Immigrants thankfully have improved the level of cooking.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:10 PM

Oh, and thoroughly dislike Tories as well, but that's another thread isn't it...LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:07 PM

I know my history, laddie....Chinese?....now is that Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, or Min? and I still feel no gratitude to the United Snakes of America, I've never seen the fascination with that nation, unlike many British. so get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 04:54 PM

I suspect MI5 is directing the CIA.

BTNG... no gratitude to the USA... Canada? Australia? India... ??? Better read some history... or learn to speak Chinese.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:17 PM

Libya another can of worms, the EU having contributed more than 154 million Euros in aid so far. The UK, French and Italian airforce bombings have prepared the ground for ? The French have spent about 499 million Euros so far in air actions.

I see Prince Harry as the reincarnated Yoda rather than Prince Willie, although Willie is going as bald as Yoda was before he died in 4ABY, according to Wookieepedia. Where is MI5 in all this? Leaving all the work to the CIA?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:59 PM

I feel no gratitude to the USA, I don't feel obligated to them in anyway way and I leave conspiracy theories to those who need them

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:54 PM

"if you say so"

Now, THERE is the true bullshit comeback. No substance AT ALL. Not even an apology.

As far as not speaking German... I think bobad's point is, "Yer welcome ya ungrateful..." but I could be wrong.

My point is, in what's going on now, yer welcome fer what the Yanks are doing on behalf of YOUR oil companies.

Anyway, if this is gonna be a pissing match with childish accusations rather than a serious discussion of conspiracy theories I may not be back. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:45 PM

I speak German any way, so what's your point?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: bobad
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:43 PM

"The U.S.A quite simply can't mind it's own business.... "

And sometimes that's a good thing else you might be speaking German today.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:38 PM

if you say so

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:30 PM

I think the US is doing just that... and the business it is paid to mind... that of England, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany...

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:00 PM

The U.S.A quite simply can't mind it's own business....

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 03:10 PM

First of all, I was referring to Q's knowledge of the mining industry and as it relate to the stock market, which is unparalleled here at Mudcat. Secondly, to call his assessments and posts a dog and pony show is not only "name calling", in a way, it is a personal attack unless the name caller can back it up. So, BTNG... since "you started it", put your money where your mouth is eh.

Having said that, I agree with BTNG on some points, if only as conjecture. In that vein, allow me another conspuracy theory. Clinton has just announced the offer of an aid package to Libya. US assistence will have to be monitored with regard to delivery, distribution and implementation. A number of US personnel will have to be on the ground to do so. Some will be legit but I expect some... here's the CT part... will be CIA and some of the money will go to intel covert ops. (I picture Prince Charles as Yoda, with the ears and all, teaching young Barrack Skywalker the ways of the true force... "Cruise missles you must send first.")

Fantasy? Perhaps... but it's good for a laugh... or a cry. Take yer pick.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 02:53 PM

name calling, the last refuge of those without an arguement, or the playground, whichever comes first

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 02:48 PM

I think Bing has popped his cherries.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 11:02 PM

"this is a military assistance (i.e., training and advisory) group which will not engage in military operations except to defend themselves.


Hmmmm....boy, where have I heard that before??? regarding someplace in Southeast Asia was it?"

exactly....some people weren't paying attention in history class, still the USA will always have it's pet poodles, yapping along at its heels...comes with the territory

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 10:59 PM

not much of a sense of humour (that's humor to our American friends) either....

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 05:31 PM

I have a dog and I could borrow a pony from my daughter. Then I could go to the Uganda Dancers Ball.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 04:20 PM

BTNG... dog and pony show? Q knows as much as the rest of us put together and then some.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 08:41 PM

I don't think so, I've watched you with your dog and pony show...ohhh and the smoke and mirrors...there's nothing there once the air is cleared and the crowds have gone home

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 08:20 PM

Thinks he's right? You underestimate me.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:53 PM

me thinks Q takes things waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too seriously...and thinks he's right all the time LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:34 PM

You joke, the pope of course has nothing to do with ENI, the Italian Oil giant, big in the Horn of Africa. Berlusconi (sp?) and his cronies will get the gravy, not the Pope.
ENI, as I noted elsewhere, is the biggie in Libya, along with Total (French).
BP was effectively kicked out of Russia and the deal handed to ExxonMobil, but if they don't agree to a voiceless position, they may get the boot from the Russian 'mafia' as well.

BP is pushing in the Arctic offshore, their next big play. Don't forget, that Gulf blowout was from a tremendous reserve, and they will continue to develop it, hopefully with more care.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 03:42 PM

Hang on... the Pope, 2IC only to Her Majesty, has the inside track on the oil in Uganda? Hmmmm... what a minor problem it seems. I mean, if yer gonna hire a gunslinger, ya gotta go with the big gun, no? Don't forget, BP is trying to keep as low a profile as they can after all this mayhem in Libya and elsewhere. They are "cruisin silent"... a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

The Commonwealth has slowly been losing effect and cohesion. A meeting is planned to discuss commonalities, with UK and India possibly the organizers.
Canada has more in common with its fellow NATO members, and Australia and New Zealand (and Pakistan) are more involved in SEATO. South Africa re-entered the commonwealth in the 1990s, more in relation to sport than economic or aid issues. In other words, these members with strong economies tend to offer only token or verbal support to Commonwealth problems.

As noted above, Ugandan oil is more the province of major oil companies of Italy and other EU countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 10:18 AM

The answer is "will not Google" because they've already made up their minds and don't want to be confused by facts and arguements ...and why no Commonwealth troops? Well the aforementioned troops have no experience in looking stupid in front of the rest of the world, where as the U.S.....

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 09:17 AM

Bozo - back to school. "It's" is an elision of "it is". "Its" is an anomalous possessive that does not take an apostrophe.

You may well be right, but I have to take my wife to have cataract surgery this afternoon at our local BMI Healthcare Hospital so your pedantics fall by the wayside.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Arnie
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:51 AM

As Uganda is a Commonwealth member, I wonder whatever happened to Commonwealth troops when Uganda were asking for help? We could surely get together enough CW members to do the intel and advising bit that the US is now planning to provide. So much for being a member of the Commonwealth eh? Still, I suppose there's the occasional junket for the top few - attended of course by Her Majesty and Phil - to make up for the inactivity on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 12:31 AM

"For 20 years the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem"

And for 20 years we as Uganda's friends we have successfully ignored your pleas. BUT, since we don't want you to be over-whelmed by the burden of excessive fossil fuels, we will be right there. Johnny-on-the-spot, that's US.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 09:51 PM

Still no plum. The Italian oil giant INI has the inside track on the oil, which is waxy, needs a heated pipeline, and thus very expensive to produce. This is one for the EU, not the U.S. majors.
The Rift Valley prospects are more in the Congo sphere although Uganda has some possibilities in the region.
Now if the U.S. had sent in the Marines and blockaded Italy, I might be willing to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:52 PM

There you have it Q oil....and you were saying what about Uganda not being a plum...for whom...?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Songwronger
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:12 PM

oil discovered Uganda

That's Obama's casus belli. Uganda was working with Libya to develop its newfound oil reserves, but then Obama cruise missiled Libya. To the victor go the spoils.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:03 PM

Oh, sure, Uganda would be a plum in the U.S. pudding. Tuvalu next.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 07:56 PM

I rather like incursion recon, it's closer to the truth....

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 07:40 PM

Indeed Charmion. I still ask, "Is it about the people or an incursion recon?"

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Charmion
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 05:00 PM

Getting back to our real issue -- Thanks for the reference quote, Q.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 02:48 PM

Bozo - back to school. "It's" is an elision of "it is". "Its" is an anomalous possessive that does not take an apostrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

He ain't called Bonzo - or is that Bozo?- fer nuthin', Bruce.

Perhaps its past 'Bedtime'.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 12:48 PM

Western requires a capital, the word is 'militarism' and "it's" should be its. Your English is terrible but your attitude, sir, is offensive.

Wait a minute - western does NOT require an upper case w, and it's being possessive DOES require an apostrophe. My English is excellent thankyou very much.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 12:08 PM

That's it Q keep repeating till you...oh wait you already do!!


"What you are saying basically, is that it`s only Africans killing other Africans so who gives a fuck."

No bobad it's what you are saying, and that makes you, truly offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 12:06 PM

Western requires a capital, the word is 'militarism' and "it's" should be its. Your English is terrible but your attitude, sir, is offensive.

Bad light stopped spelling!

As to being "offensive" - good.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 11:50 AM

"It needs western militerism to bring it back on it's feet."

I seldom publicly point out people's misspellings, and I seldom correct people's diction, grammar or punctuation, but in this case I will.

Western requires a capital, the word is 'militarism' and "it's" should be its. Your English is terrible but your attitude, sir, is offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: bobad
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 11:29 AM

The usual naysayers with their usual whines. What you are saying basically, is that it`s only Africans killing other Africans so who gives a fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 11:11 AM

Africa has been a total disaster ever since the British Empire fell apart. It needs western militerism to bring it back on it's feet.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 08:03 PM

This is an invasion (3x)... "repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the *truth."
Substitute 'accepted' by those who read only the bottom-feeding tabloids which subsist on professional sports and titillating bits of fake news and a lot of nudging (sexy centerfold).

Henry Okello Oryem, Ugandan acting foreign minister said:
"We welcome this gesture- it has been well overdue.... For 20 years the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem, because hese are international terrorists. We wanted our friends to help in providing technical support- such as intelligence- because they have the best."
The object is to find Joseph Kony and his officers.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 07:01 PM

This is not an invasion. this is not an invasion, this is not an invasion..... repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:59 PM

CET - you are of course right. And thereby hangs a major difference from Libya.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:55 PM

Charmion... we can only hope it is indeed about the people. The injustices are staggering... sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: CET
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:53 PM

This is not an invasion. The Ugandan government has been begging for help for years.