AGA...N. Korea...NUKES...Bush.
Celestial Tone Monztah
silly about it into alt.guitar.amps AGA: The Fox News Echo ;-).
The fact is, IF Pyongyang were ever to USE one, U.S. ICBM's launched
from a submarine would turn all pre-targets into a smoking ash tray.
Now _selling_ to any and all non-state parties interested in laying
waste to Western centers of commercial or political power...that's
a problem. Not a good time to live in Israel, D.C. or NYC.
Thank you George Bush & Co. Your Texas pin-head policy switch toward N.
Korea _really_ proved what a shitbird U.S. president you are.
"Lib" *this* you ignorant imbeciles.
Tony Hwang
Hi,
Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!
The Librarian
on the board of directors of ABB, a Swiss company that took part in
building the North Korean nuclear reactors, and Rumsfeld's lobbying for
the contract, includes the following paragraphs:
... President Bush was skeptical of Pyongyang's intentions and called
for a policy review in March 2001. Two months later the DOE, after
consulting with Rumsfeld's Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send
nuclear technology to North Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended
by Westinghouse and North Korean officials were held Sept. 14,
2001--three days after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil.
The Bush administration still hasn't abandoned the project.
Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending
letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the
reactors, which Markey calls "nuclear bomb factories." Nevertheless, a
concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse
sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in
October--shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium
program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making
plutonium. The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of
nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep
the project going.
The Librarian
coreect link
The Librarian
which North Korea would give up its missile and nuclear programs in
return for aid and normalized relations. But President Bush was
skeptical of Pyongyang's intentions and called for a policy review in
March 2001. Two months later the DOE, after consulting with Rumsfeld's
Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send nuclear technology to North
Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended by Westinghouse and North
Korean officials were held Sept. 14, 2001--three days after the worst
terror attack on U.S. soil.
The Bush administration still hasn't abandoned the project.
Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending
letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the
reactors, which Markey calls "nuclear bomb factories." Nevertheless, a
concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse
sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in
October--shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium
program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making
plutonium. The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of
nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep
the project going.
Sooner or later, the outspoken Secretary of Defense will have to
explain his silence.
DGDevin
news:8ZAWg.121078$R63.27532@pd7urf1no...
> Hi,
> Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
> Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!
You conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton's method of bribing NK not
to build nukes had already failed as NK simply broke the agreement when they
had milked it enough. The UN Security Council doesn't dance to the U.S.
tune much these days, yet they voted their condemnation in record time, but
of course some folks will still try to blame it all on the U.S. KJI has
starved to death a tenth of his own population trying to build up his
military, is Bush to blame for that too?
Celestial Tone Monztah
> "Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:8ZAWg.121078$R63.27532@pd7urf1no...
>
>> Hi,
>> Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
>> Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!
>
> You conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton's method of bribing NK not
> to build nukes had already failed as NK simply broke the agreement when they
> had milked it enough.
100% false Stalky.
It was working. Bush came along in 2000 and *completely* fucked up
realpolitik.
Now go to FoxNews and let them pump you full of more opinions to
echo. Bes sure to "LOL" / "Lib" it under your other socks :-)
Celestial Tone Monztah
> Bush has had SIX YEARS and his idea of foreign policy is to not talk to
> people. It's not working.
Soon enough, neither will he and his imbecile posse be ;-).
Celestial Tone Monztah
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:54:34 GMT, "DGDover" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> I make the mistake of imagining no one sees me for a sock talking to myself.
> Now if you'll excuse me, we have to tune into FoxNews and have opinions
> pumped in for AGA echo purposes. It's no longer Fair and Balanced, it's THE
> MOST POWERFUL NEWS CHANNEL. <click click HEIL!>
Elvis Kabong
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:uAGWg.12184$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
See if this can sink into your brain:
BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your evasive deflecting refusals to address the immediate issue by
bringing up something only partially related of the past is just as
intellectually dishonest as retardicons bringing up hypothetical scenarios
like "If Hillary were president, the liberals would want her to let
NK to nuke us." or some other horseshit like that.
You don't think Bush has been acting like he thinks
he's King of the world with his flatulent, arrogant,
pre-emptive striking under false pretexts war-mongering
and refusals to have diplomacies with alleged enemies?
You mean to tell us you've been unaware of
his sabre rattling and belligerent prodding with
a bully-like rhetoric with policies to match?
Evidently to you, that's only a minor issue that needs
to be ignored so you and the retardicons can bring up
Clinton for the fucking billionth time.
Sheeks!
DGDevin
news:b3NWg.57387$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> See if this can sink into your brain:
>
> BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT
> ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See if you can grasp this, a failed policy is a failed policy, it doesn't
get washed away when an administration's term ends. Clinton in effect
bribed NK to keep them from pursuing nukes, NK broke the agreement, you
cannot blame that on Bush and keep a straight face.
The rest I'll spare you the humiliation of responding to.
DGDevin
news:r5gmi219od0js977o...@4ax.com...
>>You conveniently leave out the fact
>
> You make the mistake of imagining they know any of them, or even care
> to.
Zealots of both sides will happily ignore anything inconvenient to their
argument, our resident sufferers from Bush-phobia will blame a rainy day on
Bush if they can. That a brutal dictator with a long history of aggression
and savagery only developed nukes because Bush took office is a claim that
does not survive serious examination. Bush deserves plenty of blame, but
not on this.
Rick N. Backer
did courageously avow:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:54:34 GMT, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>news:8ZAWg.121078$R63.27532@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
>>> Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!
>>
>>You conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton
>
>I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention Clinton.
>Pathetic. Is there NOTHING that Bush can be held accountable for???
>
>Bush has had SIX YEARS and his idea of foreign policy is to not talk to
>people. It's not working.
It would probably be worded more appropriately this way; if there was
any idea, like a policy, it would be foreign to him.
--
Ken Wilson
DGDevin
news:t0kni2pr9oi2gadrq...@4ax.com...
> It would probably be worded more appropriately this way; if there was
> any idea, like a policy, it would be foreign to him.
Did you see the language China used to condemn NK's nuke test? Their
statements are never casual, every word has a specific meaning, and they
used words to refer to NK that in the past China has used only in reference
to nations they consider hostile. But this is somehow all the fault of
Bush? Bush forced KJI to starve his own population going back to long
before Bush was elected, Bush is responsible for a nuke program NK has been
working on for many years? Get real.
Rick N. Backer
did courageously avow:
On the other hand look at it from this perspective. Over time you and
I have had our fill of each other for various and sundry reasons.
While we may not be in agreement we are both able to live in this
environment without going postal on each other. Why, because we
engage in dialogue. Therefore:
1) Ken & DG have differences
2) Differences can sometimes lead to violent or catastrophic actions
amongst people.
3) Ken & DG talk out their differences
4) Ken's & DG's differences don't to lead to violent or catastrophic
actions.
Therefore, talking out differences leads us away from violent or
catastrophic actions.
George W. needs to talk to these people. You can't operate in a
vacuum, particularly when it begins to give people the possibly
mistaken perception of whose ears the vacuum exists between.
--
Ken Wilson
Elvis Kabong
"Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message news:ag2oi29iqhdhsl68o...@4ax.com...
Somehow I don't that will apply to Devie's warped sense of logic.
The Librarian
well Bush oughta be asking Rummy a few questions and since he isn't,
I'd say yes.
The Librarian
let me repeat - Rummy sold these folks nuclear power. Sweet, huh?
DGDevin
> On the other hand look at it from this perspective. Over time you and
> I have had our fill of each other for various and sundry reasons.
> While we may not be in agreement we are both able to live in this
> environment without going postal on each other.
So if I demand that you buy me a PRS double-cut or I'll set fire to your car
and you catch me hanging around your house with a can of gas, how long will
this friendly chatter continue? How many threats do you yield to before you
decide I've pushed my luck more than enough?
The regime in NK assassinates foreign diplomats, bombs airliners, kidnaps
the citizens of other countries and hold them literally for deacades,
starves a tenth of its own people to death to divert resources to building
up the military and defies the United Nations by developing nuclear weapons,
they also walk away from the six-nation talks intended to find a way to
convince them to stop their nuclear weapons program, and all this is on
Bush's head? Their only friend with any clout in the world is China and
even China is pissed off at them, that's Bush's fault? The UN Security
Council set a speed record condemning their nuke test and is considering
sanctions, but it's *Bush* who is backing NK into a corner? Just how many
kicks at the Cat does KJI get before the liberal half of the world figures
out maybe it's him that is the problem?
DGDevin
>
> Somehow I don't that will apply to Devie's warped sense of logic.
Gosh, you're right there Elvis, somehow sending more aid to a mass-murdering
dictator so he can stage huge military parades and plot his latest attack on
South Korea doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.
Hell, now that he's fired missiles *over* Japan and has nukes to put on
those missiles, Tokyo will probably take care of the problem anyway. Might
be a good time to take out life insurance on KJI.
When I Want Your Opinion
Dover...
Pacification w/ heating oil under Clinton worked. Bush was illegally
crowned prince of dollar land and pulled the plug on all back channel
prior agreements. Thereafter, NK ramped up missiles and nuclear weapon
development. "...a failed policy is a failed policy...".
Your ignorance will continue to amuse :-)
When I Want Your Opinion
ignorance.
When I Want Your Opinion
> "Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message
> news:t0kni2pr9oi2gadrq...@4ax.com...
>
>> It would probably be worded more appropriately this way; if there was
>> any idea, like a policy, it would be foreign to him.
>
> Did you see the language China used to condemn NK's nuke test? Their
> statements are never casual, every word has a specific meaning, and they
> used words to refer to NK that in the past China has used only in reference
> to nations they consider hostile.
*Public* statements are fool food, -imbecile.
> But this is somehow all the fault of Bush?
Acceleration began with Bush hostility*. Prior admin. had pacification
working.
> Bush forced KJI to starve his own population going back to long
> before Bush was elected, Bush is responsible for a nuke program NK has been
> working on for many years? Get real.
Bush, Cheyney and Rove miscalculated that N. Korea was one gasp from
collapse and if they reneged on U.S. diplomatic efforts extended
(albeit with lemon face) by Clinton admin., they'd cause immediate
NK collapse the neocons could take credit for.
They miscalculated.....
"Slam dunk"
"Mission Accomplished"
*
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall October 9, 2006 02:00 AM
The Bush-Cheney policy on North Korea was always what Fareed Zakaria
once aptly called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots." It
failed. ...
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010275.php
North Korean Foreign Policy and the Bush Administration
Kim was visiting the US to seek Bush's support for the so-called
"Sunshine Policy" of peace and reconciliation with North Korea, a work
which won Kim the ...
www.hereinreality.com/news/koreanflipflop.html
Asia Times - News and analysis from Korea; North and South
But for now, three years in, we finally know what the Bush
administration's North Korea policy is. It is a shambles, and a
disgrace. ...
www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EK26Dg01.html
Why the Bush Policy Is Failing in North Korea
Bush’s reelection brought word from North Korea that it would be “quite
possible” to resolve the crisis if the United States moderated its
policy. ...
hnn.us/articles/10400.html
Bush, Kerry & North Korea - CBS News
Kerry says diplomacy is compromise, inferring that Mr. Bush's policy
with North Korea is responsible for "letting a nuclear nightmare
develop," as Kerry is ...
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/politics/main643242.shtml
TIME.com: Why the US Changed its North Korea Stance -- Page 1North
Korea's nuclear initiative has exposed a crisis in the Bush
Administration's Korea policy dating back to February of 2001, shortly
after President ...
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,405876,00.html?internalid=ACA
"Rolling Blunder" by Fred Kaplan
How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes. ... a memo to
Bush, calling for "regime change" as a policy toward North Korea. Bush
seemed to agree. ...
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
Bush: N. Korea test 'unacceptable' - Today - MSNBC.comBush said that
North Korea was “one of the world’s leading proliferators” of ... The
North's move will "seriously affect" South Korea's policy, Roh said. ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15190745/ - 60k - Oct 9, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages
When I Want Your Opinion
woes Washington Post, United States - 2 hours ago
Criticism leveled at Bush policy toward N. Korea
Baltimore Sun, United States - 15 hours ago
... Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, defended Bush's policy of
avoiding direct talks with North Korea. The administration is willing ...
North Korea Drives Bush Into Outer Space
OpEdNews, PA - 10 hours ago
... threat from N. Korea and China. Back in the 2000 campaign - when
Iran was at the bottom of their fearmongering flow chart - Bush's
foreign policy team, the ...
Malaysia Star Democrats assail Bush's N. Korea policy
Seattle Post Intelligencer - Oct 9, 2006
... WASHINGTON -- Democrats seized on North Korea's brazen act to
criticize President ... rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate,
assailed Bush's policy as a ...
Bush warns N Korea but options are limited MSN Money
Bush has limited options in dealing with N Korea Financial Times
Kerry blasts Bush N.Korea policy at Boulder City campaign stop
San Diego Union Tribune, United States - 1 hour ago
... John Kerry said Tuesday that a nuclear test in North Korea is
evidence of the Bush administration's “failed policies,” and called for
the US to engage in ...
Bush wasted 6 years on N Korea: claim United Press International
Forbes
Playfuls.com Bringing N Korea to book, and table
Bangkok Post, Thailand - 3 hours ago
... the reluctance to engage in bilateral talks, it is too easy to say
the latest events are simply another foreign policy failure of the Bush
administration ...
PakTribune.com Bush and N. Korea - mistakes and double standards at
every turn ePluribus Media - 5 hours ago
... President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national
security ... word for it": The head of the Non-proliferation Policy
Education Centre in ...
The Age US rejects direct talks with N. Korea
Washington Times, DC - 5 hours ago
... test was evidence of a failed US policy, Mr. Snow ... of the war in
Iraq hampered the Bush administration's ability to dissuade North Korea
from developing ...
When I Want Your Opinion
> So if I demand that you LOL
DGDevin
news:19hoi25sfdmlg4q8n...@4ax.com...
>
> OK, more super-dishonesty from you. The previous post said nothing about
> aid, but talked about diplomacy.
Just when I think you've displayed the absolute depths of your ignorance,
you prove there's another area of history you know *nothing* about. Do you
*ever* do any reading before you jam your foot in your mouth, or do you
actually enjoy being the least-informed person in the room?
> We used to send aid to Saddam, did you bitch about that too?
Saddam was fighting a regime that much of the world considered a common
enemy. Oops, I forgot, the Iran-Iraq war is one of your many areas of
ignorance.
> Dream on.
And another sock-puppet hits the killfile. Don't forget to morph again
Capt. Cut n' Paste, 'cause we know you'd hate for anyone not to see your
sophmoric contributions.
Elvis Kabong
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message news:54foi294rmm4tp14t...@4ax.com...
They certainly are funny though. But just think of them
as Translations.
BTW, did you formerly post as EnRonic (RonSonic)?
DGDevin
> He has failed to even try to engage North Korea directly. He has no
> policy
> toward them at all, really. Bush doesn't believe in talking to your
> enemies, many consider that to be a mistake.
It's sometimes hard to accept that you could really be as ignorant as you
seem to be, but then you go and demostrate you really are.
Q: Which nation walked away from the six-nation talks?
A) The United States
B) North Korea
Tony Hwang
Read my two line sentence. Is there any Clinto or Bush mentioned?
Sounds like you are implying that Bush did not do good on this one.
When I Want Your Opinion
> On areas of history I know *nothing* about; Do I *ever* do any reading before I jam your anus in my mouth, or do I
> actually enjoy being the least-informed person in the room?
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall October 9, 2006 02:00 AM
When I Want Your Opinion
> It's sometimes hard to accept that I could really be as ignorant as I
> seem to be, but then I go and demostrate I really are.
>
> Q: Which nation walked away from direct talks?
>
> A) The United States
>
> B) North Korea
A.
Now warm the bridge of that cute 'lil nose in the crack 'O my crapper.
When I Want UR Opinion
October 09, 2006 -- 02:00 AM EDT)
We'll need to wait a few more hours for confirmation. But initial signs
suggest that the US picked up the seismic signature of the underground
nuclear test the North Koreans are claiming to have carried out. We've
been pretty sure for some time that the North Koreans had developed a
nuclear capacity. This would not only confirm that assumption, but the
decision to conduct the test will be interpreted as a sign of
belligerence that will send ripples throughout the region, probably
first through Japanese rearmament.
For the US this is a strategic failure of the first order.
The origins of the failure are ones anyone familiar with the last six
years in this country will readily recognize: chest-thumping followed by
failure followed by cover-up and denial. The same story as Iraq. Even
the same story as Foley.
North Korea's nuclear program has been a problem for US presidents going
back to Reagan, and the conflict between North and South has been a key
issue for US presidents going back to Truman. As recently as 1994, the
US came far closer to war with North Korea than most Americans realize.
President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart
agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of
plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear
reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of
diplomatic normalization.
President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted
to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North
Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise,
President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence
that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to
the bomb) as the final straw.
Remember the guiding policy of the early Bush years: Clinton did it=Bad,
Bush=Not whatever Clinton did.
All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North
Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots
and sticks.
Then in the winter of 2002-3, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq,
the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly,
utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.
Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on them.
But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been shuttered
since 1994, got unshuttered. And the bomb that exploded tonight was, if
I understand this correctly, almost certainly the product of that
plutonium uncorked almost four years ago.
So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his bluff
and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and all the
atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have done
essentially nothing.
Indeed, from the moment of the initial cave, the White House began
acting as though North Korea was already a nuclear power (something that
was then not at all clear) to obscure the fact that the White House had
chosen to twiddle its thumbs and look the other way as North Korea
became a nuclear power. Like in Bush in Iraq and Hastert and Foley, the
problem was left to smolder in cover-up and denial. Until now.
Hawks and Bush sycophants will claim that North Korea is an outlaw
regime. And no one should romanticize or ignore the fact that it is one
of the most repressive regimes in the world with a history of
belligerence, terrorist bombing, missile proliferation and a lot else.
They'll also claim that the North Koreans were breaking the spirit if
not the letter of the 1994 agreement by pursuing a covert uranium
enrichment program. And that's probably true too.
But facts are stubborn things.
The bomb-grade plutonium that was on ice from 1994 to 2002 is now actual
bombs. Try as you might it is difficult to imagine a policy -- any
policy -- which would have yielded a worse result than the one we will
face Monday morning.
Talking tough is great if you can make it stick and back it up; it is
always and necessarily cleaner and less compromising than sitting down
and dealing with bad actors. Talking tough and then folding your cards
doesn't just show weakness it invites contempt. And that is what we have
here.
The Bush-Cheney policy on North Korea was always what Fareed Zakaria
once aptly called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots." It
failed. And after it failed President Bush couldn't come to grips with
that failure and change course. He bounced irresolutely between the
Powell and Cheney lines and basically ignored the whole problem hoping
either that the problem would go away, that China would solve it for us
and most of all that no one would notice.
Do you notice now?
Rick N. Backer
<ampsc...@tuneland.com> did courageously avow:
Don't fret your tuchis. I'm sure Mr. Devin will appraise me of his
thoughts on that.
--
Ken Wilson
Rick N. Backer
did courageously avow:
Surely you don't expect foreign policy to interfere with making a
buck. That would be un-American.
--
Ken Wilson
Rick N. Backer
beat it out of you"@aga.edu> did courageously avow:
Uh, not to be a buttinski, but don't you have to have a policy first,
before it can fail? [;-)
--
Ken Wilson
Rick N. Backer
did courageously avow:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:32:57 GMT, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>"Elvis Kabong" <ampsc...@tuneland.com> wrote in message
>>news:b3NWg.57387$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> See if this can sink into your brain:
>>>
>>> BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT
>>> ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>See if you can grasp this, a failed policy is a failed policy, it doesn't
>>get washed away when an administration's term ends. Clinton in effect
>>bribed NK to keep them from pursuing nukes, NK broke the agreement, you
>>cannot blame that on Bush and keep a straight face.
>>
>>The rest I'll spare you the humiliation of responding to.
>
>Bush has had six years in office, when will any buck stop with him? He's
>had six years to deal with whatever Clinton left him... every president has
>to deal with the state of the world when he takes office. Bush has done
>little to nothing about North Korea.
>
>On the other hand, looking at Iraq in comparison, maybe that's for the
>best.
Who knows. Maybe the voters are tired of the Republican whored always
running around going, "Clinton did it, Clinton did it". Maybe they
are ready to ask why, after six years, they didn't fix it then instead
of letting it get worse.
--
Ken Wilson
Elvis Kabong
"Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message news:63poi25a899fd2mln...@4ax.com...
Well done Ken. You must have cleaner water up there
than here thus your unpolluted brain.
DGDevin
> Don't ya just love out of context partial quotes?
That's the limit of Capt. Cut-n-Paste's abilities, quoting other people's
words, he can no more digest and explain those words than he can dance in
the Bolshoi Ballet.
> From the same article, even as absurdly slanted as it is from the
> editorial desk of the "World Socialist Web Site."
LOL, ain't it amazing how the leftoids squeal about Fox news and Limbaugh
and so on, then turn out around and quote a source like that?
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/nkor-d271.shtml
>
> "North Korea has made clear that it will only do so in return for a US
> non-aggression pact, as well as the lifting of economic sanctions and
> the provision of economic aid."
>
> Oh yeah,. it's the U.S.'s 'fault' for not acceding to NK blackmail.
> "give us everything we want, then we'll 'talk' about it."
>>Go ahead, kill file me again if you can't take the heat.
Bwahahahahaha! "The heat!" The lightbulb in my refrigerator gives off more
heat than this twerp's brain. This group has seen more than its share of
argument-junkies over the years (well, it's Usenet) but this character has
set a low-water-mark when it comes to a lack of original thought and a
childlike inability to see even the simplest historical relationships. This
cretin has just finished saying it isn't about aid, now he quotes a source
that says what everybody else knows, NK wants (and needs) aid to prop up its
brutal and incompetent dictatorship. Too funny.
Elvis Kabong
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message news:klooi250k415s01mt...@4ax.com...
>
> >BTW, did you formerly post as EnRonic (RonSonic)?
>
Then you *must* be LarrySB the rabid ankle biting sucky toady
#3 or 4 of Lard Valve's cell of 4 or 5 suckup sycophants!
If not, you might as well be.
So why haven't you followed your lips to where they want
to be - Lardo's fat ass?
When I Want UR Opinion
>
>
Well there went;
1. Are you not white trash?
2. Does sniffing man ass leave you limp?
DGDevin
> Surely you don't expect foreign policy to interfere with making a
> buck. That would be un-American.
>
> --
> Ken Wilson
Ever look into Canada's military exports over the years, including to
nations with nasty human rights records? Let he who is without sin cast the
first stone, Ken.
Oh, and which makes more sense, offer NK reactors that won't help them
develop nuclear weapons, or let them go on as they were, with a "power"
program that also happens to be the way to make weapons? Which makes more
sense to you?
It really doesn't matter what Bush does, if he insists on six-party talks
including (naturally) China and Japan etc. then he's somehow forcing NK to
go nuclear, but if he engaged in direct talks then he would be accused of of
bullying NK and trying to be policeman to the world, there is no literally
no course of action he could pursue that wouldn't be damned. NK has had a
nuclear weapons program for a quarter-century, they've used it as a threat
to get massive foreign aid to keep their rotten system going. Yet now
Bush's failure to continue bribing a brutal and aggressive regime is the
real cause for their long-standing nuclear program reaching it's logical
conclusion? Yeah, that makes a *lot* of sense.
DGDevin
> Who knows. Maybe the voters are tired of the Republican whored always
> running around going, "Clinton did it, Clinton did it". Maybe they
> are ready to ask why, after six years, they didn't fix it then instead
> of letting it get worse.
So Clinton couldn't fix it in eight years, but he gets a pass. Bush hasn't
fixed it in six years, so it's all his fault. Okay, simple once you
understand how the system works, Democrats can do no wrong, Republicans can
do no right, it's easy.
When I Want UR Opinion
the incoming swish from this light in the loafers -"fella" ;-)
> DGDover wrote:
> dance in the Bolshoi Ballet.
> LOL,
> squeal n return
> non-aggression pact,
> blackmail.
> "give us everything we want, then we'll 'talk' about it."
>
> take the heat.
>
> Bwahahahahaha!
DGDevin
>>>Hi,
>>>Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
>>>Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!
> Hi,
> Read my two line sentence. Is there any Clinto or Bush mentioned?
> Sounds like you are implying that Bush did not do good on this one.
Umm, actually it's three sentences on two lines. Even with the spelling and
grammar corrected those sentences would make very little sense. NK has been
pursuing nuclear weapons for over 25 years, they've held out the promise to
stop when other nations were willing to bribe them heavily enough, but you'd
have to be a fool to think they were ever going to really stop.
You put all this on the U.S., totally ignoring the role of China, totally
ignoring the role of the UN. If the U.S. had continued bribing NK to go
slow on nukes it would only have been delaying the inevitable, is the U.S.
supposed to shovel billions at every crackpot dictator who threatens to
develop WMDs, paying for his palaces and his military parades while his
population starves? It's bad enough when the U.S. tolerates a dictator in
some South American state who at least doesn't attack his neighbors, is
there anyone foolish enough to think KJI never bothers anyone if he's just
left alone?
Whatever, this is the same old game, whatever America does (or doesn't do)
is wrong. Wait until Japan re-arms, then you'll really have something to
cry about.
When I Want UR Opinion
[Translated]
I self loathe. Neocons are anti-gay. I am therefore super neocon...make
that, croneocon!
History can not be changed. The stone incompetence exhibited by the
croneocon movement since 2000, was a radical departure from the
prior administrations means by which to work through differences with
the N. Korean Govt.
Result: Successful NK development of long range missiles and nuclear
weapons.
Type on, Dover :-). Entertain! C'mon, you never learned to play an
instrument or musician, you're a decent foil for the knowledgeable.
Amuse my mawnkey! I _command_ you. mvm
Regards,
When I Want UR Opinion
> So Clinton fixed it and all was turning + he gets a pass. Bush broke it
> immediately so it's all his fault.
That's largely it. Next topic?
When I Want UR Opinion
> DGDover wrote:
>Umm, actually
> 1. I'm ueducated.
> 2. I'm ignorant
> 3. I'm a self-loathing homosexual
Elvis Kabong
"When I Want UR Opinion" <"I'll beat it out of you"@-aga.com> wrote in message news:pJ%Wg.3223$v43.21@fed1read02...
Notice how fervently he plays his invisible guitar
while imitating SRV? My my, what talent, I must say.
Why he's a musical genius and such an expert
at ankle biting, just like a Rocketfart.
Elvis Kabong
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:bu%Wg.9993$o71...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
No, quite the opposite if you are dittoshithead which has
been driven into the airwaves for how many fucking years
by the Limpdick himself and all of his wannabee
parrots?
People are finally rising up to the smear campaigns of Rove
the dirty tricks slimeball.
As Susan Sontag once said (paraphrasing), "You really
don't need to know the facts to know what the truth is
if you apply logic and reason."
The Duhbya adminstration is a lying, cheating, sneaking, smearing
bribery driven greedy bunch of radical corporatists who want ASSURED
profits and NOT a truly free market place. They are monopolists
who could care less about the common American but use photo
ops and PR campaigns to pretend they do. If you can't perceive,
that, your bias is showing.
Yes I know many of the democrats in office are bought off
too, so we don't have to go there. They're not really in power
to provide checks and balances at this time, but maybe that
day will come when they are in power and hopefully they
won't get corrupted by the power. However, I realize that
is highly unlikely.
Elvis Kabong
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message news:lr4pi2tmu1vc9cfdo...@4ax.com...
Why? For Monica?
Teleologist
dgd...@invalid.invalid says...
> "Elvis Kabong" <ampsc...@tuneland.com> wrote in message
> news:b3NWg.57387$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> > See if this can sink into your brain:
> >
> > BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT
> > ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> See if you can grasp this, a failed policy is a failed policy, it doesn't
> get washed away when an administration's term ends. Clinton in effect
> bribed NK to keep them from pursuing nukes, NK broke the agreement, you
> cannot blame that on Bush and keep a straight face.
>
> The rest I'll spare you the humiliation of responding to.
>
>
>
So why isn't that Korean dictator dead??? We spend billions on
intelligence and the military and we're still not able to knock the guy
off? And why is Saddam still alive? Send Cheney over there, haul Saddam
out into the street and start shooting off body parts with his 28 gauge
sissy pop gun - that will bring the insurgents out into the street. As
for Iran, do what Reagan did in Libya and target that a-hole personally,
along with the ayatollahs and their families, summer homes, outhouses,
etc. Problem with this administration and many conservatives is they're
a bunch of chicken-hawks who like to play with their military toys and
think AK47's are only for target practice. Either that or the 'true'
foreign policy of this administration is to create chaos in the middle
east so the price of oil will triple and we can give lots of money back
to Haliburton and all the others who paid to put this bunch in office.
How did you spend 'your' tax cut?
When I Want UR Opinion
> Well Bush has had 6 years since he labeled NK part of the 'evil empire'.
> So why isn't that Korean dictator dead??? We spend billions on
> intelligence and the military and we're still not able to knock the guy
> off? And why is Saddam still alive? Send Cheney over there, haul Saddam
> out into the street and start shooting off body parts with his 28 gauge
> sissy pop gun - that will bring the insurgents out into the street. As
> for Iran, do what Reagan did in Libya and target that a-hole personally,
> along with the ayatollahs and their families, summer homes, outhouses,
> etc. Problem with this administration and many conservatives is
KEEL! KEEL! KEEL! AH WONT DAID BARNT BABIES LITTERIN THE SADWALKS 'N
TEEF SPATTERED LAK MARBELS EVERWAR! KEEL KEEL!
We interrupt this post to bring you the latest school shooting....police
have surrounded----
DGDevin
>>It really doesn't matter what Bush does, if he insists on six-party talks
>>including (naturally) China and Japan etc.
>
> The "six party talks" were (and are) the only thing that had (has) a
> chance because 'one on one' talks always leaves NK the rhetoric of
> blaming it (whatever, take your pick) on the U.S., or flat out violate
> it like Clinton's 'framework' agreement. But they can't get away with
> that crap if China, Japan, and South Korea are all in on it too. Which
> is why NK does everything they can to avoid it, or make 'what they
> want' a pre-condition.
Ya know, I'm not exactly chairman of the Bush fan club, I'm actually looking
forward to someone else being President. But it's hilarious how our liberal
friends will change their tune on Bush depending on the circumstances.
Normally they would demand that the U.S. work with the UN and other nations
to resolve an international crisis, they decry unilateral U.S. action and
insist the U.S. is not policeman to the world. Except now, suddenly the
U.S. should sit down with North Korea and work this out between just the two
nations. South Korea doesn't get a say, China doesn't get a say, neither do
Japan and Russia, it's all America and the "democratic republic" of North
Korea and everybody else just gets to stand back and smile in approval.
It's actually okay with our liberal community that NK can refuse to even sit
down and talk unless the U.S. agrees to NK's demands first, Kim Jung-il
builds a bomb and it's Bush's fault for not bribing Kim heavily enough!
Talk about living in Bizzaro World.
DGDevin
>
> No, quite the opposite if you are dittoshithead which has
> been driven into the airwaves for how many fucking years
> by the Limpdick himself and all of his wannabee
> parrots?
What? If this is a reference to Limbaugh, I hate to disappoint you but I
don't listen to him, or any other talk-radio show either, sorry about that.
DGDevin
> BINGO! Give the man a cigar.
Just so long as it didn't come from Clinton's stash. ;^)
DGDevin
>>Whatever, this is the same old game, whatever America does (or doesn't do)
>>is wrong. Wait until Japan re-arms, then you'll really have something to
>>cry about.
>>
>
> With NK using Japan as a missile testing range it's almost inevitable
> now.
People in that part of the world should be sweating bullets over the
likelihood of Japan getting pissed off enough to decide they can't leave
their security to treaties and a token military.
Elvis Kabong
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:Ri9Xg.10083$o71...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Doesn't matter. His deceptive spinning "talking points"
gets spread all over the place by the corporate media,
especially on Fox and the networks often follow suit,
not to mention all of the conservapukes blather out
the same bullshit upon cue on a daily basis.
DGDevin
>
>> What? If this is a reference to Limbaugh, I hate to disappoint you but I
>> don't listen to him, or any other talk-radio show either, sorry about
>> that.
>
> Doesn't matter. His deceptive spinning "talking points"
> gets spread all over the place by the corporate media,
> especially on Fox and the networks often follow suit,
> not to mention all of the conservapukes blather out
> the same bullshit upon cue on a daily basis.
And anything you don't want to hear has to have it's origins in neocon
talking points huh? The Crane-Studds Congressional sex scandal that somehow
didn't appear on your radar didn't *really* happen that way, it's all
Rove-inspired disinformation, sure.
You know what the difference is between those Bible-thumping far-right
Republican lemmings and you? Not much, not much at all.
Elvis Kabong
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:F8aXg.5843$Lv3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Elvis Kabong" <ampsc...@tuneland.com> wrote in message
> news:pP9Xg.41596$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >> What? If this is a reference to Limbaugh, I hate to disappoint you but I
> >> don't listen to him, or any other talk-radio show either, sorry about
> >> that.
> >
> > Doesn't matter. His deceptive spinning "talking points"
> > gets spread all over the place by the corporate media,
> > especially on Fox and the networks often follow suit,
> > not to mention all of the conservapukes blather out
> > the same bullshit upon cue on a daily basis.
>
> And anything you don't want to hear has to have it's origins in neocon
> talking points huh?
It's really not a matter of what I want to hear or not want to hear.
In fact, many of these talking points are so absurd, they're comical.
Liberals don't even have to bother smearing those righties -
they make fools out of themselves by simply opening their
loud mouths full of hate, stupidity and methene.
But the fact remains that on a nearly daily basis almost
all of the conservapuke pundits, editorialists, hate-radio
log-heads, Congressional members, sometimes Duhbya
and sometimes also Cheney the Dick, the infotainment
glamour pusses and callers on C-SPAN parrot the
"talking points" of the day almost verbatim as if some
hive mind controls their tiny brains which seem to have
the inability to evaluate the validity of the points or are
too lazy to since it sounds "right" to them and fits
right into their own preferred sense of reality.
>The Crane-Studds Congressional sex scandal that somehow
> didn't appear on your radar didn't *really* happen that way, it's all
> Rove-inspired disinformation, sure.
If you wish to continue to put words in my mouth or
broadcast these false readings of my mind,
I'm going to visit you one night and put a bat
up your nightdress.
> You know what the difference is between those Bible-thumping far-right
> Republican lemmings and you? Not much, not much at all.
As you ASSume as you often do.
The Librarian
> The only thing you could 'bribe' him with is a better bomb.
how about some dog meat. I hear German shepard is particularily
desirable.
"Who are they to lecture us? We have 5,000 years of history, and dog
eating is part of our culture." - Kim Dong Soo
Eating Dog Meat Is a Sign of Advanced Culture"
By Song Hong Kun,
Chugan Tonga
June 6, 2002, p. 97
Professor An Yong Kun (Ann Yong Geun), a nutritionist, is known as "Dr.
Dog Meat" (Kaegogi Paksa). He has studied dog meat's nutritional
aspects and is its greatest booster. He has developed processed dog
meat products and even dog meat oil-based cosmetics. He says he regrets
that dog meat is so expensive he can't eat it everyday. Dr. Dog Meat is
furious at foreigners who complain about eating dogs in Korea, where
dogs are livestock, not pets. He says the French ate dog through the
1800s, and the U.S. even today kills up to 3,000 dogs a year to use in
puppy food.
An has developed dog-based kimchi, soy sauce, koch'ujang (red pepper
paste), and other common food items. His Emulsion cosmetic line
contains 15% dog oil. He says dog oil is the best thing in the world
for healthy skin. An is finishing development of dog-based mayonnaise,
ketchup, hamburgers and meatballs. He says tests of dog burger reveal
it to be the tastiest burger yet. An's goal is to teach the world that
eating dog meat is a sign of an advanced culture. To that end, he is
developing a Website "Globalization of Dog Meat," in four languages. An
met foreign reporters in Seoul on May 25 to announce his new dog meat
products. He called on Koreans not to be embarrassed over eating dog
meat, and said he will lobby for formal legalization of dog meat.
Elvis Kabong
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message news:568ri296359v31ans...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:49:59 GMT, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
> >news:9f3pi2lo3hmlrr0ch...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>>It really doesn't matter what Bush does, if he insists on six-party talks
> >>>including (naturally) China and Japan etc.
> >>
> >> The "six party talks" were (and are) the only thing that had (has) a
> >> chance because 'one on one' talks always leaves NK the rhetoric of
> >> blaming it (whatever, take your pick) on the U.S., or flat out violate
> >> it like Clinton's 'framework' agreement. But they can't get away with
> >> that crap if China, Japan, and South Korea are all in on it too. Which
> >> is why NK does everything they can to avoid it, or make 'what they
> >> want' a pre-condition.
> >
> >Ya know, I'm not exactly chairman of the Bush fan club, I'm actually looking
> >forward to someone else being President. But it's hilarious how our liberal
> >friends will change their tune on Bush depending on the circumstances.
>
> these folks are parroting originates from people who want to be, or
> are, 'leaders' of one sort or the other it's down right scary.
>
> >Normally they would demand that the U.S. work with the UN and other nations
> >to resolve an international crisis, they decry unilateral U.S. action and
> >insist the U.S. is not policeman to the world. Except now, suddenly the
> >U.S. should sit down with North Korea and work this out between just the two
> >nations.
>
> 'one on one' talks anyway but they're a dictator's dream. All he has
> to do is say the magic word, 'talk', and they'll lap up the Kool-Aid
> faster'n you can pour it.
>
> > South Korea doesn't get a say, China doesn't get a say, neither do
> >Japan and Russia, it's all America and the "democratic republic" of North
> >Korea and everybody else just gets to stand back and smile in approval.
>
> that.
>
> >It's actually okay with our liberal community that NK can refuse to even sit
> >down and talk unless the U.S. agrees to NK's demands first, Kim Jung-il
> >builds a bomb and it's Bush's fault for not bribing Kim heavily enough!
>
Larry, you ignorant slut!
Elvis Kabong
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message news:qeari211255vbco9f...@4ax.com...
> use it with that woman... Lewinsky."
Looks like Larry aka fluffy found himself a new internet buddy - the
only one who will agree with him...boo hoo.
Soon he will be sending out some IMs with "suggestions".
The Librarian
idiot, KJI appointed to his job by his daddy Dick-tator. Rummy does not
have the authority to arrest and torture his opponents, KJI made that
authority to do so. Both are about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake in
tall grass and their methods are just about the same, except that Rummy
has a Press Corps to answer to.
The two faces of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear
reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil
and a target for regime change
In unusually blunt terms, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said
decades-old U.S. ally South Korea need not fear communist North Korea
as an immediate military threat. At a news conference at this missile
defense base south of Fairbanks, Rumsfeld said Sunday that North Korea
is a serious threat to spread ballistic missiles and other dangerous
technologies around the world. But he made plain that he sees the
North's conventional military strength eroding as its economy
crumbles. 'I don't see them, frankly, as an immediate military
threat to South Korea,' he said. His comment could be interpreted as
an effort to build a rhetorical case for further reductions in U.S.
troop levels in South Korea, already scheduled to be cut from 32,500 to
20,000 over the next few years. U.S. troops also are moving farther
away from the Demilitarized Zone that separates North and South Korea,
and Rumsfeld has sought to use Korea-based troops in missions outside
Asia.
Speaking of Rumsfeld, he also sent a letter to his ROK counterpart,
Yoon Kwang-ung, which stated that South Korea should take over
operational wartime control of its military by 2009 and that the U.S.
and Seoul should each pay a more "equitable" rate for USFK's
upkeep. This all just adds more fuel to my "USFK is drawing down"
conspiracy theory but I think we'll know a lot more after the October
Security Consultative Meeting.
Rumsfeld and The Liar's Club
January 8, 2003 11:19
By David H. Hackworth
Did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld misspeak last month when he said
that the Pentagon could duke it out simultaneously with both North
Korea and Iraq? Or did he join the SecDef Liar's Club?
Like most control freaks, Rummy picks his positions very carefully, and
you better believe a whole lot of strategizing goes down before his
carefully scripted weekly gig on national TV.
In this case, he surely would've been aware that the U.S. forces
earmarked for fires on the Korean peninsula are many of the same Army,
Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps units now moving at max speed toward
Iraq. He also had to know that despite the almost $400 billion 2003
defense budget, there's no way the USA can handle two major scraps at
the same time - not to mention the mother of all threats: al-Qaeda -
with forces at about half of our strength in Operation Desert Storm and
stretched to the breaking point in more countries than there are flags.
So in this old soldier's opinion, Rummy has just joined a club of cads
chartered by Louis Johnson in 1950 when he assured Harry Truman that we
had the right stuff to easily prevail over North Korea's blitzkrieg
into South Korea - an attack we were able to stop only after several
hundred thousand battered and brave grunts paid a hard price at the
Pusan perimeter.
Another charter member of the club is the architect of the Vietnam War,
Robert S. McNamara, who for eight years told the lies that kept us in
another war in which - he promised - we'd also "prevail." Those words
cost almost half a million American casualties in a bloodbath that
almost ripped our country apart and came close to destroying Vietnam.
Both Lyndon Johnson and McNamara walked. The perps did no jail time for
their perjuries despite rows upon rows of white crosses and stars
bearing witness to their deceptions and dereliction of duty.
Will Congress investigate Rummy's lie? Don't hold your breath. Most
members voted for war with Iraq and aren't about to allow a little
Pentagon political fast-and-loose to get in the way. Hey, they're just
patriotic Americans looking to be re-elected so they can continue
serving the people. And no way are they going to let planeloads of kids
returning home in body bags interfere with their Washington power trip.
They, the White House and all the president's men are now as locked on
the agenda as a pit bull with a squeaky Baghdad terrier twisting in its
jaws. Why deviate from a plan that's been in place at least since Rummy
marched into the Pentagon? Why take on the meanest chow in the East
when chomping Iraq will help sate America's appetite for oil?
Not to mention that Iraq, with its elusive bio/chem weapons and maybe
some nuke hardware "misplaced by the Soviets," is by far the easiest of
the Axis of Evil rogue nations to put down.
Iran is target No. 2. Of the three nations on the Axis of Evil list,
"Iran is the hardest and the toughest military and social adversary,"
reports a spook friend who knows where the bodies are buried because he
helped put them there. But, as he puts it, "Once we've neutralized
Iraq, we'll have completed the encirclement of Iran."
With Iran surrounded, it'll be payback time for Hezbollah and the other
terrorist horrors this vicious outlaw state has launched and supported
from 1979 until today. Not to mention how convenient it would be for
the USA and its double-talking war allies if another U.S.-appointed
shah ruled Iran.
That's probably why Rummy and his oil-obsessed chicken hawks prefer to
play nuclear poker and treat North Korea as a sideshow regardless of
the hard-to-hide facts: its nukes, long-range missiles, tons of
bio/chem stuff and a million hardcore fanatics now leaning forward in
their foxholes readying to banzai south.
Rummy is sounding more and more like Johnson and McNamara - and
continuing in the tradition of a long line of SecDefs who never
bothered to understand our enemies.
Elvis Kabong
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message news:gmari2pr6opq9u5eo...@4ax.com...
> if SK decided the same thing.
>
> And guess what the only likely alternative, besides blind faith in the
> 'good nature' of a madman, to either is: the anti-missile defense
> system the left has been trying to kill since day 1.
>
Why don't you just email him, fluffy?
You just might get a real live date.
The Librarian
Rick N. Backer
courageously avow:
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:33:40 -0700, rascal <ras...@shonuff.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:45:20 -0500, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>And guess what the only likely alternative, besides blind faith in the
>>>'good nature' of a madman, to either is: the anti-missile defense
>>>system the left has been trying to kill since day 1.
>>
>>That thing has never worked,
>
>Wrong.
>
>> and it is useless unless it works perfectly,
>
>Wrong again.
>
>>which appears to be impossible to acheive
>
>tautology. Nothing is 'perfect'.
I beg to differ. You are the perfect idiot. By the way, your village
phoned. They'd like you to come home now.
--
Ken Wilson
If'n I Want UR Opinion...
> it would be less expensive, no one would be getting killed.
KEEL?
FLIP THE SWITCH 'N SEN' THET THAR MUSHROOM TO THE MOON BABY! AH WUNNA
C BLOATED GUTS SPLATTERED 'N TWITCHIN' OWN FAR HA-DRANTS!!!! AH WUNNA
C ASSHOLES BLOWED OFF 'N SPLATTERED LAK CHEERIOS AGIN EVER STANDIN' BRIK
WAWL!!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!!! CUM THE RAP-CHUR!!!!
-AGA
The Librarian
flipper wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:19:51 -0700, rascal <ras...@shonuff.org> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:33:18 -0500, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"North Korea has made clear that it will only do so in return for a US
> >>non-aggression pact, as well as the lifting of economic sanctions and
> >>the provision of economic aid."
> >>
> >>Oh yeah,. it's the U.S.'s 'fault' for not acceding to NK blackmail.
> >>"give us everything we want, then we'll 'talk' about it."
> >
> >So you, like Bush obviously prefer an nuclear-armed North Korea.
>
> Tell me, why is the left so enamored with making moronic statements
> like that?
>
> > That's
> >not as important as agreeing to a non-agression pact, etc etc.
>
> And after you sign the 'non-aggression pact' and Hitler invades anyway
> what do you give away next?
>
> Oh, sorry. Substitute your dictator of choice in there.\
Flipper you moron, you fool, you id-i-yot!!! WE ALWAYS BACK THE
DICTATOR. We like friendly dictators.
And Grandy Bush DID back Hitler.
They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to
power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture.
Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US
agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their
armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism"
and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business
interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor
are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US
government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme
right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some
have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll
Nazi war criminals.
They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate
and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and
US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are
international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are
they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US
government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the
worst human rights violators in the world.
Friendly dictators
Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan
The Librarian
friends go around screaming WMDs like chicken little but dont' do
anything about those that actually do have WMDS. Also WE escalate wars
all over god's green earth cause our number one, two and three exports
are intruments of death. Our record of who we have supported in the
past and what they did with that support is shameful. That any of our
citizens (Rummy in particular) enabled North Korea to build a reactor
just shows how terminably greedy we are. Anyway it's to be epected on
account of our "record." Our government does the same kinds of things
over and over, and then you act surprised when little explosions happen
adn blame the other guy. One hopes for the end of Groundhog day.
TPS
"When I Want Your Opinion" <"I'll beat it out of you"@aga.edu> wrote in
message news:2yVWg.3158$v43.1026@fed1read02...
> DGDover wrote:
>
> ignorance.
He's not ignorant.
He can be kind of a dick, and he's sometimes mistaken, but when he doesn't
get sucked into the AGA pit of ad hominem mudslinging, he backs up his
arguments better than most in this NG.
Be grateful that (unlike some administration apologists on this NG) he
mostly stays on point rather than shifting to tangental arguments over
specific definitions, and (unlike some Neanderthaloid posters on this NG)
his main argument is usually not "nyah nyah nyah".