^ LOL. Islaantii caawa cashadaan dawo lagu seexdo ugu daray. I'm trying to catch up on March Madness on ESPN. The only time I'm allowed to watch sports is when everyone is asleep. On the topic, I wanted to respond but changed my mind figuring Naden would take your bait. I still hope she will.

For the umteenth time, I will ask for a single picture of a highschool anywhere in Somalia. Won't someone post a picture of one? Anyone?

^ Possibly. It depends on what she (or anyone really) wants to achieve by engagement. Though this particular issue has been discussed frequently on this forum, new blood and new ideas are always around the corner. I encourged Naden to go ahead and indulge Xoogsade not to make this into a tit-for-tat but to explore the issues at hand and really exercise some thinking. Believe it or not, I read these back and forths between two SOLers that go beyond the screaming and shouting. And I still have hope that good HornAfrique could diversify his clear talents in the political section into other arenas. Surely it can be done.

^ Being a veteran troll myself, I encourage you to call Xoogsade's bluff and engage him. Think about it. Some of his arguments are legit and some are not. Acknowledge the good ones and make him "wear a skirt" on the poor ones. HornAfrique, on the other hand, you can safely ignore. No point really bringing a firearm to his knife-fight.

Will the U.S. Lose its Influence Over Countries That Have Paid Off Their IMF Loans? By Mark Engler For decades the International Monetary Fund (IMF) served as one of the key pillars of the "Washington Consensus." Dominated by the White House, the Fund allowed successive administrations to control the economic policy of poorer countries in this hemisphere and beyond. Those nations wishing to buck a U.S. agenda of corporate globalization risked having their access to international loans cut off. The brutish IMF not only handled its own funds but also played gatekeeper for money from other creditors, such as the regional development banks. This power made the institution as hated throughout the global South as it was celebrated inside the Beltway. Maybe it's not surprising, then, that an increasingly progressive Latin America is starting to say good riddance. In recent months, major countries in the region have moved to pay off their loans to the IMF ahead of schedule and free themselves of direct oversight from the institution. Announcements in December from Argentina and Brazil, which are paying off $9.8 billion and $15.5 billion respectively, inaugurated the trend in the region. In addition, Bolivia was relieved of its outstanding obligations to the IMF by last year's debt relief agreement at the G8. The country's newly elected president, Evo Morales, has indicated that he may let his standby agreement with the IMF expire at the end of the month. The motivation for cutting ties has been explicitly political. The Latin American electorate is fed up with policies like privatization and curtailed social spending; these policies, hallmarks of IMF "neoliberalism," have hit the countries' poor majorities hardest. It would be one thing if the Fund's prescriptions worked in creating economies that served their people. But in country after country, neoliberal economic mandates have produced lackluster growth at best and often have resulted in catastrophe. Argentina was once a poster child of IMF economics; that is, until its economy collapsed in 2001. As voters throughout the region demand change and put left-of-center governments into power, leaders like Argentinean President Néstor Kirchner proclaim that throwing off the chains of IMF debt constitutes an overdue victory--a move toward "political sovereignty and economic independence." Interestingly, within the domestic political debates of Argentina and Brazil, the left has been critical of the decision to repay. Social movement activists argue that the debts, some of which had been accumulated by past military governments, were unjust and should be renounced outright. In Argentina, critics contend that the IMF should have to pay for a crisis it was largely responsible for creating. Instead, billions of dollars that could have been used for needed social programs are going back into the Fund's coffers. The activists may have had a solid argument. But now that the deals are going forward, it's time to assess their impact: Will freedom from the IMF lead to a truly independent economic path? On face, distance from the IMF will provide poor and middle-income countries with room to chart a more autonomous course. Still, there are complicating factors. Remaining debts to institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank can be used to leverage governments to impose neoliberal policies. In Brazil, where Lula da Silva's ostensibly progressive government has mostly adhered to the orthodox economic prescriptions of corporate globalization, political will to change may be lacking. Finally, the IMF will be able to continue giving its recommendations to other creditors. The power of such advice, however, is not what it once was. The IMF has lost a lot of clout in recent years, due in no small part to Argentina. Since taking power in the wake of the country's economic crisis, Kirchner has played hardball in negotiations with the IMF and private creditors. The strategy worked, allowing his government to negotiate a very favorable restructuring of its loans. Argentina standing up to the IMF was like an underdog knocking down the schoolyard bully. The aura of invincibility surrounding the Fund was dispelled, and the institution will likely never again inspire the same begrudging awe. Furthermore, as the failures of neoliberalism grow increasingly evident, creditors like the World Bank have been compelled to moderate their once-stringent conditions on loans. In a final critical development, the oil-rich government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela has stepped forward to provide other Latin American leaders with financing they might otherwise have needed to beg from Washington. Venezuela already bought up $2.4 billion worth of Argentina's debt to help the country break free of the IMF, and Chávez has expressed a willingness to do more. This source of backup funds makes the governments of the Latin American New Left considerably less susceptible than before to threats of capital flight. Cutting ties with the IMF is not just a regional phenomenon. Russia and Thailand have pursued strategies of early debt repayment, and Indonesia and Pakistan are among those now contemplating the move. Asian countries that were burned by the region's neoliberal financial crisis in 1997 are building up large cash reserves so that they will not have to go back to the Fund in times of economic downturn. These policy trends are producing funding shortfalls for the IMF. Since Argentina, Brazil, and Indonesia represent three of the Fund's four largest clients, a lack of interest payments from these countries will make a serious dent in the institution's operating budget. Currently, the IMF expects to be $116 million short in fiscal 2006. Not that the Fund is going broke. Among other assets, the institution sits on more than $56 billion worth of gold. Nevertheless, Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato has initiated a strategic review of the IMF's activity, and the institution is contemplating a future of reduced global influence. The bigger trial may be for the United States. As the administration's command over its Southern neighbors declines, its rhetoric will be put to the test. The White House has long proclaimed that promoting democracy and reducing poverty are key foreign policy goals, even while it has limited its support to governments willing to tow the neoliberal line. Democratically elected leaders in Latin America are calling the bluff. They are refusing to defer to self-serving U.S. prerogatives, and instead they are seeking economic policies that can reverse the failures of corporate globalization. Washington now has a choice: It can redefine its sense of national interest, cheer democratic renewal in the region, and acknowledge that the rigid economic program once forced into place by the IMF cannot fit all countries. Or it can become an ever-more-despised adversary for citizens throughout the Americas. Mark Engler, an analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, can be reached via the web site http://www.DemocracyUprising.com. Research assistance for this article provided by Kate Griffiths. This article first appeared on TomPaine.com and is reprinted with permission of the author. Source

Originally posted by HornAfrique: From the way you put it, my words do not look like they carry weight, but I still stand by statement. You can be poor or rich as possible, but life is to be lead in dignity. If you do not have dignity, life has no meaning. If keeping my dignity and self-respect as the expense of my life, then so be it. I have been in situations where I though I would never live (I swear to you), but I have never, ilaahay baa i jeedo, feared death because I always understood it is not in my hands nor was it ever in my hands. Fighting for that which I believe and keeping my dignity intact is in my hands, and I'll be damned if I would live and not stand up for it. Saaxib what's all this you're spewing on here? You seem to be living in a theoretical bubble and not in the real world. Even worse, you've taken the saying "hadaad dhimanaysana, dhareerka waa layska duwaa" a little too literally, I'm afraid. "Hunger is kufr" say the Arabs. And for Allah to have allowed even eating pig meat when starving makes your dying-in-dignity rant sound even more asinine. You're confusing dignity with pride, atheer. The former is brought about by faith in the Lord despite difficulties faced. What you describe (at least in the highlighted portion) above is pride and, if you didn't know already, it actually leads to Jahannam.

^ That's just wrong. We're playing dead like Possums now? Tsk tsk. Originally posted by Khayr: Yes, I'm a new father (alhamdulillah) and I've got something in common with Castro now (Hint!) Alhamdulilah. So does this mean you'll be gentler on women (and women issues) going forward?

^ Northernerow, despite my seemingly harsh words for SB, I'm firmly of the belief that he has the capacity to materially consider alternative points of view and question his own. That any of us would hold erroneous beliefs is not a shame. What is a shame, however, is to never question those beliefs and give oneself a chance to set the record straight. Always remember saaxib the ultimate goal is to reach the most probable truth not to win or lose an argument.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Didn't Saddam Hussien invade Kuwait in '91 unprovoked? Didn't the world led by the US (as it was the only one capable of) including many muslim and arab countries join forces to evict him from Kuwait. Prior to kuwait invasion, Saddam initiated yet another unprovoked invasion of neighbouring country - Iran. Saaxib you've confirmed my suspicions of you and that is you're trumpeting the official US State department line for the first Gulf War. If, even after 15 years and many books having been written on the real reasons for that war (reasons not unlike the ones for this war), you're still singing that line, well, I pity you ninyahow. I'm sure you think this current war in Iraq is to bring them democracy as well. Keep singing saaxib. The US doesn't have to stand in line because oil is fluid market commodity and it goes to the highest bidder. The US can afford to pay for oil even at inflated prices at much cheaper cost than it was to bomb. Keep in mind also that the US is 3rd largest oil producer but because it has economy that consumes more than it produces it needs to look to others to cover its needs. So why does it bomb? Oh, I forget, to bring freedom. :rolleyes: Well, if we follow your line of thinking, God forbid, then you would have us believe that a nation consuming 20 millions barrels a day would need to stand in line and wait in the "free market" to buy oil. What happens if one day there are no 20 million barrels? Have you thought of that atheer? I'll tell you what will happen, this house of cards would come down crashing (like it did in the 70's, an era, by the way, the US learned nothing from). It's not just the oil of Iraq that the US is after, it is after the whole thing for itself, uninterrupted. What would Iraq or any of other Middle Eastern oil nations do with their oil? Do they even have a choice? They need to sell their oil to make money since they got no non-oil based economy. Atheer it's their bloody business what they want to do with it. Why does the US care if they drink it, stick up their as$es or sell it in Euros? Whatever happened to bloody international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity? The American insatiable appetite for oil does not justify pillaging a sovereign nation to get it. Let the Iraqis sell it on the market, in Euros, to the bloody Chinese. It's their choice, or at least it should be. But the US cannot have that. The US dollar is the prefered international currency for its stability. I believe the US dollar was accepted as the trading oil currency in 1971, different world back then. Preferred by whom? Obviously the Americans. Anyone else? The greenback is not a currency of choice but one imposed by the barrel of a gun. And now that another currency shows any sort of competition to the dollar and Saddam hints at using it for his oil sales, suddenly American bombers are in the air. Can you connect the dots atheer? Maybe but given how interconnected world economies are now days, a collapse of US economy will induce similar collapse on other world economies. How does the collapse of US economy benefit China, Japan, India or Europe? That world economies are interconnected we agree upon, but the most damage will occur to the Americans. They can't borrow anything with collapsed credit and they can't buy anything with an empty treasury. What's next? Nuke the whole world? Even they are not at that stage, yet. But there is investment in alternate sources. Hybrid cars is one, cow manure as energy source another. And the impetus for a move away from oil as energy source will be economics! As oil prices soar accompanied by all adverse environmental side effects, alternate energy sources become more affordable. Saaxib last time you compared oil to stones and now it's cow manure? Walee the only thing that reeks of cow manure are your arguments, I'm sad to say. Where's the SB I've come to admire on these boards? No matter. Cow manure (a.k.a. bull shit) is what you give me and that's what I have to deal with. None of these things you mentioned are in any serious competition with oil. If even a minute fraction of the money spent on oil exploration (neither an art nor a bloody science, btw) were spent on hybrid or even electric cell technology, we'd be less dependent on oil today. Alas, oil companies (or the US, same thing really) would rather invade countries or dig in the bottom of the ocean (5 miles deep) looking for oil. And you're talking about cow manure. Cow manure my matako. Why do you say that? For example the theoretical ground work for cold fusion -- limitless energy -- is done, the only thing holding us back are engineers who are still unable to apply it. I suppose after cow manure (the injury) the only thing you can add is cold fusion (the insult). I'm assuming you mean energy extracted from a fusion reaction at room temperature. Saaxib, I don't know under which rock you've been hiding but to call this rubbish science is a form of endearment. Look, I wanna be serious with you here. Drop all the magazines you've been reading. Stop all the radio you've been listening to and drop all the people you've been hanging out with. Start from scratch (you're not too far from it) and I can help you with many of these issues. You're a bright young man with an open mind. A little too open but it will do. Saaxib let me relieve you of this mode of thinking. Please.

^ Who said it's a son? Congrats khayr. Ilaahay ilmo khayrqaba hakaaga dhigo.

Originally posted by Baashi: I'm just gonna go there and enjoy watching how good ol Fidel loses his teeth . If I do loose my teeth, it will be out of frustration for the lack of a worthy opponent. I'll stop hijacking Suldaanka's thread. As you were.

Originally posted by Baashi: Castro I love ya buddy and u know it I do know and its mutual awoowe. Now let me get back to beating SB with a stick.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: My claim is based on Iraq's maximum oil production capacity in SINGLE year. The reason being Iraq's current oil reserves will last close to 90 years at maximum production rate, not potential production rate that you've calculated. A country with huge reserves and a primitive oil industry that has been invaded twice in the last 15 years in order to bring it out of the dark ages and into rapid oil extraction, is what Iraq is. Saddam never got on the boat with the US. Always sneaky and always reluctant to become another king Fahd. If he had signed up, he'd have seen his oil production rise like you wouldn't believe. And do you really think the U.S. wants to stand in line with every Tom, Kumar and Wong waiting to buy oil on the markets. If you think that, you're not deluding yourself, you're brainwashed. The US doesn't beg for access to anything, it demands it and if that fails the bombs start to drop. So your argument that the US could just wait and see what Iraq does with its oil on the market is childish. It shows a lack of even basic understanding of how the world works. A classic symptom, indeed, of listening to talk-radio. Let me reiterate, your weak "buy the entrie yearly output" misses two crucial points that render it useless: 1) Access, competition and control. The US is unwilling (and incapable really) of competing with the rest of the world to get this oil. Specially when the sellers don't like the US, which is ofen the case. 2) Buying the oil in the US dollar as a currency keeps the greenback, undeservedly, the "official" currency of international commerce. There's absolutely no reason why that should be the case and the world (including Europe, South America and Asia) is quickly realising that. A change of such currency, the US knows, will bring the economic house of cards (a.k.a. the US economy) down within months. Something that the US will not allow to occur no matter what the cost to lives or to taxpayer. And this sense of urgency goes beyond just the Iraq oil reserves. The US needs a few more Iraqs to keep the mirage of the greenback going. Is any of this sinking in atheer? Realistically speaking, the world will not still be using oil as source of energy for the next 90 years. The oil age will come to an end much earlier than that and when it does they'll be plenty of oil still remaining in Iraq and other parts of the world. Since you've chosen to look into your murky crystal ball, let me respond by looking in mine: not while there's no investment in finding alternative sources of energy. The world will be using oil in this century if not the well through the next but certainly not in the current unsustainable rate. And the Iraq war is one of many to come in the quest for that resource. Historical precedence fatefully avows this since at the end of Stone Age there were still plenty of stones left . At the end of Iron age there were plenty Iron still remaining, same with bronze and so forth. Atheer for you to compare oil to stones and iron neither of which had the uses of oil shows your stone-age thinking. An absolute insult to me and to the gallery for you to even suggest such a comparison. Stones and oil? War ileen balaayo. When the Oil Age ends, there will still be alot of oil in the ground. From this we can be confident that not all of Iraq's proven oil reserves will ever leave the ground! A conclusion, I highlighted in bold, coming from the the stone and iron age comparisons shows, again, how flawed your thinking is atheer. You're right about one thing though, the reserves in Iraq will be there but you're wrong about why they'll be there. The oil in Iraq will stay because (IA) the US will be kicked out with its tail between its legs and not because the world has abondoned fossil fuels as the king of energy sources. Difference of $73.2 billion that the US has to spent OVER the total value of Iraq's max. oil output in a single year! So my point proven at this point. SB, I'm very dissapointed in you saaxib. All this time I thought you were a critical thinker that looks beyond the surface when addressing issues. To say I'm dissapointed is a miassive understatement. Still, I'll look at the rest of your arguments and respond later. But to tell you the truth, after reading that whole stone age comparisons, I don't have the stomach to read any more.

^ If you don't stop acting a fool in public, I'll publish your psycho private messages you sent me. And as a bonus, I will hunt you down on these forums like the Somaliweyn wacko that you are. Originally posted by Baashi: Yes you Castro do sit around and watch injustice prevail everyday. Awoowe, hoos hoos baad ii caashaqsantahay dee. If memory serves me right you called urself "da" man in another threat. Nevertheless I was simply making a tongue-in-cheek remark when I said "da" man. Btw anythinng I write in SOL screen say nada about me. I called my self many things awoowe. I'm surprised anyone pays any attention.

^ That picture was taken before the embargo. Yes, the problem does lie with Islam, it plagues the muslim Ummah. The Status of women has been abused by general scholars and those who authorate Islam. It is a grave myth if you think that womens inequality and other issues are not an islamic fault. Some mighty harsh words atheer. Care to elucidate?

^ :eek: Originally posted by Pi: ^LOL. Yo, get out your fat American Heritage dictionary and try to find the linguistic meaning of the suffix lypso. It's a rare ruby. You'd be surprised how colorful and rich the etymology of Lypso actually is. You'll learn alot, I promise. P.S. I didnt call her Callypso, so you need to relax and stop playing cop. I'm bored and I've also seen you do that before. I'm off your back.

Originally posted by Pi: is that so, Nadellypso ? Are you accusing naden of being or using Callypso's account? Coz if you are, you're in violation of SOL rules. Cut that shidh out.

^ It's not for you or I, atheer, but it is allowed in Islam. Those who abuse it will be punished for it. The supermen out there who can manage, good for them.

^ Very subtle, I see.

Originally posted by Khadir: The question which remains is, “If God is good and wishes good for His creatures, why did he legislate something which would be harmful to most women?†Divine legislation looks at the society as a whole seeking to maximize benefit. If a certain legislation benefits the majority of the society and causes some emotional harm to a minority, the general welfare of society is given precedence. So it's really a matter of take it or leave it? I agree.

Now you remember al qaatil wal maqtuul kuluhum fi naar and I'm paraphrasing the xadiith. Geesi u xiniinya weyn dagaal ahli waa doqon awoowe. Yes, but you can't also sit around and watch injustice prevail. Originally posted by Baashi: If you are less than 1% of the man Che was in his hayday why the call u "da" man in SOL crib sxb . And what that does say about Somali men in general? I dunno who calls me that other than you so what does that say about you awoowe? There's no Somali alive today that is 100% of Che. Not even 10%. If you disagree, name one.

^ You're hilarious today. Of course I know what geesi means, but what does it mean to you? Unfortunately, Che was killed at around the same age that I am now. And I'm not even 1% the man that he was.

I see. Well if you don't, who will? And what is a geesi? P.S. I think we scared away all the regulars here with all this "giving life" talk.

LOL. Answer the question.

Having said there is another dimension to Somalia's problems and that's the foreign hand that is all over the political lanscape of the country. This is a fact. It has its impact and one of its consequence is arming the warlords and thus prolonging their staying power not to mention the funding and political platform it gives them by elevating their status to regional level. Would you give your life for Somalia fighting these foreign powers and their puppet warlords? Who here would?