1
   

Weight

 
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2004 01:35 am
"U.N. will have a central role, as now, in developing the program and machinery for political transition to full Iraqi democracy," said Blair, adding that the two leaders would seek a new Security Council resolution to put the weight of the world body behind the shift.

Here, weight = preponderance; world body = UN; shift = turnover of the Iraq power.
Right?

======================================
Yesterday my 12 year old grandson said that he thought all the people trying or wishing American to be taken out were stupid. I asked him why he would say such a thing and he replied that he knew how to do it without airplanes. Just get a bunch of guys together in evey connecting state to start setting fires at the same time. It'd cost so much to fight all the fires that America would go broke in no time.

Here, state = nation = country ?
connecting = ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 796 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2004 04:08 am
The "shift" is that the UN, rather than the US & UK, will have the dominant role in the political transition in Iraq.

Quote:
weight of the world body
- The influence
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2004 08:32 am
State- eg Texas, California.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2004 10:04 am
Ah, Phoenix, that is to say that Bush and Blair seek a resolution that UN's influence will take effect only after the shift has been made -- but before the shift, please relax, we coalition can do anything effectively.
Right?

=========================================

Wilso, so "trying or wishing American to be taken out were stupid" means "trying or wishing American to be killed were stupid"? The boy has been cheated by some mofos...
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2004 10:12 am
Re: Weight
oristarA wrote:
======================================
Yesterday my 12 year old grandson said that he thought all the people trying or wishing American to be taken out were stupid. I asked him why he would say such a thing and he replied that he knew how to do it without airplanes. Just get a bunch of guys together in evey connecting state to start setting fires at the same time. It'd cost so much to fight all the fires that America would go broke in no time.

Here, state = nation = country ?
connecting = ?


??? Where did you find this inflamatory statement, I wonder?
0 Replies
 
Eos
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2004 07:44 pm
"Here, state = nation = country ?
connecting = ?"

he means that the arsonists should concentrate on the states that touch each other (ie, california and nevada) and not waste time starting fires in Alaska and Hawaii.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2004 08:54 pm
Eos wrote:
"Here, state = nation = country ?
connecting = ?"

he means that the arsonists should concentrate on the states that touch each other (ie, california and nevada) and not waste time starting fires in Alaska and Hawaii.


Of course, some knowledge of American geography was helpful in this case. Something that I lack.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 10:45 am
Re: Weight
Piffka wrote:
oristarA wrote:
======================================
Yesterday my 12 year old grandson said that he thought all the people trying or wishing American to be taken out were stupid. I asked him why he would say such a thing and he replied that he knew how to do it without airplanes. Just get a bunch of guys together in evey connecting state to start setting fires at the same time. It'd cost so much to fight all the fires that America would go broke in no time.

Here, state = nation = country ?
connecting = ?


??? Where did you find this inflamatory statement, I wonder?


The post is found in Russian Pravda forum (first, enter Pravda site, and then click its forum)
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=72112
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 11:02 am
Thanks Eos!
That is a stupid idea regarding terrorism. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 05:11 am
oristarA wrote:
Thanks Eos!
That is a stupid idea regarding terrorism. Very Happy


Are there any smart ones?
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 06:03 am
Wilso wrote:
oristarA wrote:
Thanks Eos!
That is a stupid idea regarding terrorism. Very Happy


Are there any smart ones?


Strategically speaking, all ideas from terrorism are stupid; but tactically speaking, we all know some terrorists are so insidious that we should keep an eye on them. Seen in this light, they are "smart".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Weight
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 11:54:43