stop using marriage as an excuse to eat bariis, if you want food just ask for it He gets a woman, She gets a man....WE GET FED....and everyone is happy. But since you're not down with that, Nafta, abaayo inta is nooleesid, hook me up with a nice qado? basbaaska iyo mooska hailoowin.

Originally posted by Baashi: Maskax Taabte ah inta aad anniga libinta ila dooneyso ee aad gabdhaha maamuuska leh ee SOL ii raadinayso, awoowe bal addigu qallanjo soo xaree . Tuujiye, sheekadaada waa front-page... tabeele "For Sale" aan qoorta kuugu xireena. Summerkaan waa in bariiskada lacunaa. order bixi, saaxib, hadaan keenaa sadax oo aan weligood 'Oprah' maqlin. oo mid ee tahay dhegool, mabahadasho.

tuugiye Anaa Col iga sheegeeyse, saxib, xaladaada wexee mareey in qajaruufo, iyo dhacas iyo basuuke laguu waato. gabdhahaan wax aa ushegtay ma aqaani laakin adba waa ogtahay melahaan kashifaad iyo run sheegow hadaa bilaawdid waxa noqonee wanted sidii xariifki 44gi yuhuuda fornooyiinka sidii rootiga ugugure odegi carabka garka dheeray buuraha oo kijiro boos karaadso.

Yeah, she's Somali. I believe she also holds the position of Kenyan Ambassador to Switzerland. Ms Amina Chawahir Mohammad. Also MR. MAHAMUD MOHAMED MAALIM, AMBASSADOR for Kenya to Egypt

^^^^ OG cool down...looks like af-somaaligi markaa xanaagtid waa dumaa....masee faraha aa kajareene

Shaqo la aan aa ita idin kabadatay aa hada waxaa keenten in magacyadii wejiyo loo raadiyo. tuugiye, "col aan kaa ahay" maxaa kawadaa, saxiib. dad kale aa igu kaldee aan umaleena. Safaradada agteeyda diplomatic immunity ee kaleedahay, lakin Radar-ka hadii lagugu sii arko cunoqabateen aa la bilaawa.

STYT, is deji abaayo. difaac xoog aah aa gashey. If you get home after a Long day of Uni and are not in the mood for "Poverty n sh!t" waa ujeeda topica magaciisa, maxaa kusoo geliye hawadaan. Markaas aa inta soo gashey aa indhaha noo warwareegisey :rolleyes: . Its an informative topic, abaayo. If you know, there's people out there who don't. Xumaan ha uqaadanin laakin if you can't say something postive about the topic don't knock it then come back and ask me not to read between the lines.

And THAT'S the best comeback you could create.... TSK TSK TSK :rolleyes:

Lets call it a Lifetime Achievement Award in Uncreative Criticism That way no other nominees are required. SPEECH!!! SPEECH!!! SPEECH!!!!

I don't thing it should. Better Question is Should LOVE matter?

Its a very short list....

Originally posted by Amethyst: ^^ I nominate you for the weakest link . It's gotta be better than your nomination The most uncreative critic on SOL

Originally posted by juxa: i am really disappointed i was not nominated I nominate you The Most Left-Out Nomad on SOL

Sheh, In retrospect, that sounded angry....but I assure you it was said in a calm way.

Originally posted by sweeter_than_your_tea: do you 2 have to get this serious? Poverty n sh!t for goodnes sake it's FRIDAY ppl! :rolleyes: Sorry to bust up your "party on!!!" state of mind, but maybe after Salaatul Jumaa you might wanna throw a prayer towards the less fortunate ones.

HOW THE WEST STAYS RICH THROUGH UNFAIR TRADE The existing trade system dominated by the West is indefensible and unsustainable. It has generated intolerable extremes of prosperity mostly in the West and poverty elsewhere. 1. In May 2001, OXFAM published a 27-page report, Rigged Trade and Not Much Aid: How Rich Countries Help to Keep the Least Developed Countries Poor. Oxfam Senior Policy Adviser Kevin Watkins says: 'On trade, the industrialised countries have operated a policy of highway robbery masquerading as market access preferences.' The efforts of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to combat poverty have been 'systematically undermined' by Northern governments. In their rhetoric, governments of rich countries constantly stress their commitment to poverty reduction. The United States and Canada are identified as the 'worst offenders', with Bangladesh losing $7 from trade restrictions for every $1 it receives in US aid and five times that for every dollar it receives from Canada. 2. Trade restrictions imposed by rich countries are costing the poorest countries 'a staggering $2.5 billion a year in lost foreign exchange earnings', says Oxfam, in a report released in May 2001. There are very high tariffs in sectors of most relevance to poor countries. Tariffs on some agricultural products are more than 300% in the EU and, in the case of groundnuts, over 100% in the US,' it says. The Oxfam report concludes that the rich countries' performance on aid has been 'derisory'. In 1990, the OECD countries pledged to increase aid and reach a target of 0.20% of their gross national product (GNP) to the LDCs in development assistance. Since then, they have cut around $3.5 billion from their aid flows, which are now at their lowest level in per capita terms since the early 1970s. 3. At the same time, the rich OECD countries spend $1 billion per day on farm subsidies - roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product (GDP) of all the LDCs combined. The resulting surpluses are dumped on world markets, undermining the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in poor countries. While many LDCs are eligible for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, the report says, that many will emerge in an unsustainable debt position. Preliminary studies by Oxfam show that at least 13 LDCs - including Zambia, Niger and Senegal - will emerge from the HIPC Initiative spending more than 10% of government revenue on debt,'. 4. Keeping the Third World poor A mere 1% increase in share of world exports by Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America would result in income rise that could lift 128 million people out of poverty. In Africa alone, this would generate $70bn - approximately five times what the continent receives in aid. While rich countries keep their markets closed, poor countries have been pressurised by the Western dominated institutions, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to open their markets at breakneck speed, often with damaging consequences for poor communities. Powerful transnational companies (TNCs) have been left free to engage in investment and employment practices which contribute to poverty and insecurity, constrained only by weak voluntary guidelines. In many countries, export-led success is built on the exploitation of women and girls. Many of the rules of another west dominated body, World Trade Organisation (WTO) on intellectual property, investment, and services protect the interests of rich countries and powerful TNCs, while imposing huge costs on developing countries. This bias raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the WTO. Reform of world trade is only one of the requirements for ending the deep social injustices that pervade globalisation. It is ironic that while the rich states heartlessly exploit the poor countries (many of them former colonies), it is left to western NGOs and charities to press their own governments for decent trade rules, ethical practices in foreign policy, etc. Oxfam is campaigning to change world trade rules so that trade can make a real difference in the fight against global poverty. More in www.maketradefair.com 5. Globalisation tightens poverty trap On 19 June 2002, the Guardian under the heading '100m more must survive on $1 a day' reported an in-depth UN study just published into the world's 49 poorest countries. The study rejected claims that globalisation is good for the poor. It said the poorest countries are being left behind: as western trade barriers shut out lucrative markets, their survival depends on cash crops but prices for these have crashed over the last two decades. Living standards in these countries are now lower than 30 years ago. "Persistent poverty in poor countries is not due to insufficient trade liberalisation - for many LDCs external trade and finance arrangements are an integral part of the poverty trap." The 23 poorest countries have an unsustainable debt burden, says the World Bank. Servicing the debt swallows up foreign aid which therefore cannot be used for development. The study calculates that 307 million people live on a dollar a day and this number is set to rise to 420m over the next 15 years. In Africa, 65% of the population live on less than $1 a day, in Asia (mostly South Asia) 23%. In 1998, the major capitalist countries had a average income of $27,400 per head, in all developing countries, this was $1260 and in the poorest it was $287.

what ever it takes to get the job done.

after reviewing the question further...I see that no return trip considerations were made...so you would be correct with a mouth ful of grass in damascus

Try this method. The camel will only move in increments of one mile. you consume 19 kg to move the remaining 9981 kg 1 mile after 53 miles/trips you reach have 8993kg left and from that point need only 17 kg per mile. after 59 miles (112 total) it is 7990 -15/mile 66 more (178) will get to 7000 kg -13/mile 77 more (255) is 5999 - 11/mile 91 more (346) is 4998 - 9/mile 111 more (457) is 3999 - 7/mile 143 more (600) is 2998 - 5/mile 200 more (800) is 1998 - 3/mile final 200 (1000) needs 600 kg leaving you with 1398 kg

Nuune,Haddad and 3abeer Elward together get the right answer. Use nunune's theory but instead of 4 legs: 0km - 250km 250km - 500km 500km - 750km 750km - 1000km The lower you break down the distance and increase the trips, the more grass you'll get to Damascus.

sheherazade, so now you're in damascus with a mouthful of grass and no way to get back.

Khayr If you wanna get technical about things....It's 1762 BC and Hammurabi and the Babylonians have just finished kicking Shamsi-Adad's butt up and down the desert and have taken over Assyria.... so there's no refrigirated Heavy duty Benz Actros to carry you and your camel and the grass. There's no oasis with a Fed-ex pick-up location that delivers next business day

Haddad, you sound like you're on the right track...elaborate. Nuune, Did you take into consideration you only had 10,000 KGs to work with? I got lost going through your answer but you have exceeded the total amount of grass

I know we have some mathematical wizards in here: here something to ponder. The distance between Cairo and Damascus is 1000 miles. Your mission is to move a 10,000 kilograms load of grass from Cairo to Damascus using your camel, but you have two problems: 1) The camel won't budge unless you let it to continuously chew grass - it consumes 1 kilogram of grass per mile. 2)The camel's maximum load is 1000 kilograms. - Can you manage to get ANY of the grass to Damascus? - What is the maximum amount of grass that you can get there? First person to answer it correctly gets a pat on the back.

If you can't put up with the one's the have already been exposed to "working women" and "take-out dinner", how do you expect to handle the guy who expects to have canjeero on the table at the crack of dawn and clean pressed macawiis and dinner when he comes in? Will you be the ready to tell your friends "you can't come by after 6pm, my man is home...and I can't come over either"? Dream on ladies.