Old man just like you confused….so I can’t comment. She- still feeling blue? Shall I pass you my punching bag it might help?

Rich Countries Once Used Gunboats To Seize Food. Now They Use Trade Deals By George Monbiot n his book Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis tells the story of the famines that sucked the guts out of India in the 1870s. The hunger began when a drought, caused by El Niño, killed the crops on the Deccan plateau. As starvation bit, the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. While Lytton lived in imperial splendour and commissioned, among other extravagances, "the most colossal and expensive meal in world history", between 12 million and 29 million people died. Only Stalin manufactured a comparable hunger. Now a new Lord Lytton is seeking to engineer another brutal food grab. As Tony Blair's favoured courtier, Peter Mandelson often created the impression that he would do anything to please his master. Today he is the European trade commissioner. From his sumptuous offices in Brussels and Strasbourg, he hopes to impose a treaty that will permit Europe to snatch food from the mouths of some of the world's poorest people. Seventy per cent of the protein eaten by the people of Senegal comes from fish. Traditionally cheaper than other animal products, it sustains a population that ranks close to the bottom of the human development index. One in six of the working population is employed in the fishing industry; about two-thirds of these workers are women. Over the past three decades, their means of subsistence has started to collapse as other nations have plundered Senegal's stocks. The EU has two big fish problems. One is that, partly as a result of its failure to manage them properly, its own fisheries can no longer meet European demand. The other is that its governments won't confront their fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats. The EU has tried to solve both problems by sending its fishermen to west Africa. Since 1979 it has struck agreements with the government of Senegal, granting our fleets access to its waters. As a result, Senegal's marine ecosystem has started to go the same way as ours. Between 1994 and 2005, the weight of fish taken from the country's waters fell from 95,000 tonnes to 45,000 tonnes. Muscled out by European trawlers, the indigenous fishery is crumpling: the number of boats run by local people has fallen by 48% since 1997. In a recent report on this pillage, ActionAid shows that fishing families that once ate three times a day are now eating only once or twice. As the price of fish rises, their customers also go hungry. The same thing has happened in all the west African countries with which the EU has maintained fisheries agreements. In return for wretched amounts of foreign exchange, their primary source of protein has been looted. The government of Senegal knows this, and in 2006 it refused to renew its fishing agreement with the EU. But European fishermen - mostly from Spain and France - have found ways round the ban. They have been registering their boats as Senegalese, buying up quotas from local fishermen and transferring catches at sea from local boats. These practices mean that they can continue to take the country's fish, and have no obligation to land them in Senegal. Their profits are kept on ice until the catch arrives in Europe. Mandelson's office is trying to negotiate economic partnership agreements with African countries. They were supposed to have been concluded by the end of last year, but many countries, including Senegal, have refused to sign. The agreements insist that European companies have the right both to establish themselves freely on African soil, and to receive national treatment. This means that the host country is not allowed to discriminate between its own businesses and European companies. Senegal would be forbidden to ensure that its fish are used to sustain its own industry and to feed its own people. The dodges used by European trawlers would be legalised. The UN's Economic Commission for Africa has described the EU's negotiations as "not sufficiently inclusive". They suffer from a "lack of transparency" and from the African countries' lack of capacity to handle the legal complexities. ActionAid shows that Mandelson's office has ignored these problems, raised the pressure on reluctant countries and "moved ahead in the negotiations at a pace much faster than the [African nations] could handle". If these agreements are forced on west Africa, Lord Mandelson will be responsible for another imperial famine. This is one instance of the food colonialism that is again coming to govern the relations between rich and poor counties. As global food supplies tighten, rich consumers are pushed into competition with the hungry. Last week the environmental group WWF published a report on the UK's indirect consumption of water, purchased in the form of food. We buy much of our rice and cotton, for example, from the Indus valley, which contains most of Pakistan's best farmland. To meet the demand for exports, the valley's aquifers are being pumped out faster than they can be recharged. At the same time, rain and snow in the Himalayan headwaters have decreased, probably as a result of climate change. In some places, salt and other crop poisons are being drawn through the diminishing water table, knocking out farmland for good. The crops we buy are, for the most part, freely traded, but the unaccounted costs all accrue to Pakistan. Now we learn that Middle Eastern countries, led by Saudi Arabia, are securing their future food supplies by trying to buy land in poorer nations. The Financial Times reports that Saudi Arabia wants to set up a series of farms abroad, each of which could exceed 100,000 hectares. Their produce would not be traded: it would be shipped directly to the owners. The FT, which usually agitates for the sale of everything, frets over "the nightmare scenario of crops being transported out of fortified farms as hungry locals look on". Through "secretive bilateral agreements", the paper reports, "the investors hope to be able to bypass any potential trade restriction that the host country might impose during a crisis". Both Ethiopia and Sudan have offered the oil states hundreds of thousands of hectares. This is easy for the corrupt governments of these countries: in Ethiopia the state claims to own most of the land; in Sudan an envelope passed across the right desk magically transforms other people's property into foreign exchange. But 5.6 million Sudanese and 10 million Ethiopians are currently in need of food aid. The deals their governments propose can only exacerbate such famines. None of this is to suggest that the poor nations should not sell food to the rich. To escape from famine, countries must enhance their purchasing power. This often means selling farm products, and increasing their value by processing them locally. But there is nothing fair about the deals I have described. Where once they used gunboats and sepoys, the rich nations now use chequebooks and lawyers to seize food from the hungry. The scramble for resources has begun, but - in the short term, at any rate - we will hardly notice. The rich world's governments will protect themselves from the political cost of shortages, even if it means that other people must starve.

ATT & T quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Waa la isu kay sheegay baan umaleyne, let us concentrate on ambushing new entrants. Inta hore, they are updated. Mise iyaga laftigooda mid laga xanaajiyey baan sasabtaa. have you ever been approached by a beautiful girl (an acquaintance) who tells you at length sida uu her man -in most cases your friend- u xumeeyay? And did you have the gut to console her by wiping tears from her eyes and suggesting non-verbally that the tears could go away forever if she assents to what is in your mind? Women are sophesticated. There are some who understand it in a fraction of seconds. And all the grief is gone! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- She beware of scavengers in Troll Corner.

Respect you? AT&T you’re hilarious as for you telling on me… dear its so unbecoming of you.

fill in the blanks then, translate the Somali parts.

ATT- it’s not your Somali that I understand but the English. Where on earth do you meet these women? As for the “if she assents to what is in your mind?” be a dear and explain what will be running in that mind of yours? Old man- Morning to you 2, yes dear women are sophisticated but that’s that to that. As for the other blah blah NO mwah doesn’t agree.

Waa la isu kay sheegay baan umaleyne, let us concentrate on ambushing new entrants. Inta hore, they are updated. Mise iyaga laftigooda mid laga xanaajiyey baan sasabtaa. have you ever been approached by a beautiful girl (an acquaintance) who tells you at length sida uu her man -in most cases your friend- u xumeeyay? And did you have the gut to console her by wiping tears from her eyes and suggesting non-verbally that the tears could go away forever if she assents to what is in your mind? Women are sophesticated. There are some who understand it in a fraction of seconds. And all the grief is gone! :rolleyes:

How does one massage ones eyes? My eyes hurt. Ibti Congratulations dear….

for faaraax's@Nuune 80% u sure?

lol@Malika PC response.

Show off

Dependent territory The war in Georgia puts energy security back on Europe’s agenda OFFICIALLY, the European Union is no more worried about the closure of two oil pipelines running through Georgia than are the world’s oil traders, who have so far shrugged off the news. After all, less than 3% of Europe’s oil imports come from Azerbaijan via Georgia, according to the European Commission, and none of its gas. The commission plans to do no more than “monitor the situation closely”. Yet the Eurocrats, complains one European diplomat, are not looking at recent events in the Caucasus “with their energy spectacles on”. Some of his colleagues certainly suspect that a principal Russian motive for invading Georgia was to highlight its vulnerability as a transit route for oil and gas. European countries have long dreamt of securing access to gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan through a pipeline that crosses Georgia. That route would bypass Russia, which controls all the existing pipelines between Central Asia and the EU, and so leave less of Europe’s gas supply at Russia’s mercy. At the very least, the war in Georgia has highlighted the region’s instability, and thus the difficulty of this plan. Russia is easily the biggest supplier of oil and gas to the EU. It provided 38% of gas imports and 33% of oil imports last year. Some European countries—especially former Soviet republics and satellites—rely on Russia for virtually all their energy. The EU’s dependence will only grow, as its own production declines, along with that of its second-biggest supplier, Norway. By 2030, predicts the International Energy Agency, a watchdog for big energy consumers, Europe’s gas imports will have doubled—with much of the extra supply coming from Russia. Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use oil and gas for political purposes on several occasions. In early 2006 it cut off the gas to Ukraine, which in turn siphoned off some supplies intended for countries such as Hungary and Italy. Russia has also cut off supplies of oil to Lithuania and gas to Belarus and Georgia. More recently, it cut by half the amount of oil it sends to the Czech Republic through the “Friendship” pipeline, in what many have interpreted as punishment for the Czechs’ willingness to host a radar base for America’s planned missile defences. Despite much high-minded talk, Europe has responded to these events with indecision and division. Big energy firms in France, Germany and Italy, to name but three, have rushed to sign long-term contracts with Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled gas giant, so as to secure their own supplies. There is also unseemly competition to sign up to Gazprom’s various pipeline schemes, while plans for alternatives that circumvent Russia languish. Iran and Iraq both have gas to spare, but the EU is reluctant to do business with the first, because of its nuclear ambitions, and unable to do business with the second, because of its instability. It does not help that pipelines from either place, or from the Caspian, would have to cross Turkey, with whom Europe’s relations are getting frostier and Russia’s are getting warmer. The commission would like to reduce individual countries’ vulnerability to supply interruptions by getting them to build more links between Europe’s largely separate national gas grids. To overcome the big gas companies’ reluctance to invest in pipelines that would expose them to more competition, the commission has suggested forcing them to sell their distribution networks. European governments hammered out a compromise, whereby firms could continue to own the network and sell the gas, as long as the two businesses are separately run. But the European Parliament has rejected this plan, leaving “unbundling” in limbo. There is also talk of increasing imports of liquefied gas from farther afield. But the cost of building the necessary infrastructure has risen dramatically, and many proposed plants have run into planning problems. European governments might dust off such ideas again after the war in Georgia. In recent pow-wows, some observers have detected somewhat greater unity and resolve over Russia than before. There is also the comforting thought that the Soviet Union never cut supplies of gas to Europe throughout the cold war. Russia, after all, is almost as much at the mercy of the pipelines as the EU, in that it cannot easily send its gas anywhere else. The Economist

After six years of rapid growth, Argentina’s economy is at a familiar turning-point, in which the president’s refusal to change course threatens to make it poorer EVER since Argentina began its recovery in mid-2002 from a devastating financial collapse, it has seemed to defy economic gravity. The country’s left-wing government, first led by Néstor Kirchner and then this year by his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has violated many standard economic prescriptions: it has shunned the IMF and shafted private bondholders; kicked out foreign companies and set up new state-owned ones; imposed price controls; and even doctored the inflation figure. Yet over the past six years, Argentina’s economy has grown at an annual average rate of 8.3%—faster than any other big economy except China. At last a turning point seems to have been reached. A slowdown, long predicted by the Kirchners’ opponents, is at hand. When compared with the same period last year, retail sales (measured by volume) are down 10% to 15%. On Calle Florida, Buenos Aires’s main shopping street, almost every block has at least one vacant shopfront. Employment in the private sector is still growing, but at half last year’s rate, according to Nicolás Bridger of Prefinex, a consultancy. Meanwhile, inflation has taken off. Almost nobody believes the official index, which shows prices having increased by 9% over the 12 months to July. Credible unofficial estimates put the figure at 25%. By underestimating inflation, the official figures may also overstate economic growth. Throw in the recent fall of up to a quarter in world prices for the country’s farm commodities, and the markets have suddenly become rattled. After years in which it bought dollars to stop the peso from appreciating, the Central Bank has been selling them to boost the currency. On August 11th Standard & Poor’s, a ratings agency, downgraded Argentina’s credit rating. The risk premium on Argentine public debt has soared to 670 basis points above the interest rate paid by American Treasury bonds. The equivalent figure for Brazilian debt is just 240 basis points. Fears of another economic collapse of the kind that Argentina has made its speciality are, in fact, overblown. Most forecasters expect the economy to carry on growing, but at a more moderate rate of 4-5% in 2009. “Argentina’s hyper-growth period is over,” says Miguel Bein, an economic consultant. The country still enjoys budget and trade surpluses. But by common consent, maintaining these surpluses and engineering a soft landing requires policy changes. And therein lies the doubt. Two things have underpinned the growth spurt. The first was the depth of the preceding collapse. In 2001-02 the economy shrank by 15%, unemployment climbed to 21% and poverty engulfed 56% of Argentines. The government defaulted on debts of $80 billion and devalued the peso, which sank to less than a third of its previous value. When growth resumed, idle plant and workers could easily be brought back into action. The second boost was the surge in world commodity prices, and thus in the value of Argentina’s exports (and the taxes on them). The government supercharged growth, stimulating demand with wage increases, price controls, an undervalued peso and public works. This formula worked for much longer than the critics expected. But it has generated big distortions. Inflation has cut into the real value of wages and profits, pushing up poverty again. The government’s energy and farming policies have caused particular problems. It kept energy tariffs frozen at their 2002 level, deterring investment and prompting blackouts last year. Winter has been milder this year, and tariffs have recently risen. But uncertainty about energy supply is another discouragement to investors. The Kirchners have relied on taxing farm exports to fund public spending. This originally had some justification, since farmers benefited hugely from the cheap peso. But Ms Fernández pushed the policy too far, raising farm taxes in March. After months of protests by farmers, Congress voted down the tax increase. The conflict paralysed parts of the economy, and undermined confidence. The economy’s slowdown puts Ms Fernández in an awkward financial position. Energy and transport subsidies now cost 3.5% of GDP, according to Ecolatina, a consultancy. And Ms Fernández wants to spend money on renationalising an airline and on building a high-speed train. To boost its primary budget surplus (excluding interest payments), the government now includes in its accounts revenue from the Central Bank and the pension system. It has also held back payments to provincial governments. But the president, who has become deeply unpopular, has lost the confidence of much of her Peronist party, making that harder. At 55% of GDP, Argentina’s public debt is still large. But the cost of servicing it has been low, partly because of the tough restructuring Mr Kirchner imposed on bondholders. Even so, to service its debts, the government needs to find an extra $2.5 billion or so next year. It cannot tap the international capital markets, because it has still not settled with some bondholders nor its sovereign creditors in the Paris Club. Instead, it is relying on Hugo Chávez. This month Venezuela’s president bought another $1 billion in Argentine bonds (taking his total purchases to $7 billion). The latest bonds pay interest of 15%—the same rate agreed by Domingo Cavallo, a former finance minister, in a notorious bond swap in 2001 on the eve of the collapse. This time the government has plenty of policy tools with which to stabilise the economy. Start with energy, for which Argentines still pay a third less than their neighbours. Further hikes in energy tariffs would improve the public finances, and attract investment. Settling with the Paris Club and the bondholders would enable Argentina to secure financing from the markets on relatively favourable terms. Many economists reckon that these measures would be enough to keep the country growing at a still-healthy annual rate of 4% or so for several years. “These problems should not be difficult to solve,” says Javier González Fraga, a former Central Bank governor. “But no one seems to want to do so yet.” By delaying the necessary adjustments, the government has already made them more painful. And the Kirchners, who govern as a couple, have made their defiance of the IMF, the Paris Club and the bondholders a point of pride. Unless they now swallow that pride, it will be followed by a fall.

Malika you believe her? The girl graduated from Mlimani primary school.

Afro Pants on fire dear..kidogo kidogo my foot.. JB- oldies + unknow and username

Pardon @JB

Afro- **shhhhhh Morning ladies and others Malika mamboz mpenzi Lily hello Jb- what can I say SOL has funny people.

Old man you without sin? Pigs can fly dear boi pigs. Adam-calm down dear P.S without a doubt if the man in question was not Ugandan but Somali opinions would have been different in this thread.

No comment.

Let he who is without a sin caste the first stone.

^^^Ahhhh

Poor ATT

And frankly I am feeling jelous. No wonder my wife thought I am dating you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ***Coughs

What are you on about Ibti?