<big old grand mother voice>What a nice boy </big old grand mother voice>
The salt water gave me an idea. Lets pollute their prescious bodily fluids (Coca-Cola) with salt water. The natives seems to find it sacrite. We are sure to win then.
[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
Well, I suppose you?re referring to as to who got to be on top in the bedroom, the German officer or the young French maidens. I believe the French assumed the missionary position. Or was it the doggy position?
Do you really believe that? Because if you do, no one else does. I'm the one who started the thread that suggested the United States bomb North Korea's reactor. You're just blind I guess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not blind. I just don't make a point of reading every blessed word you post on these boards. Now, having read it, I noticed two things about your "suggestion": First of all, it's hard to tell how serious you were about it. You kept hedging and dancing about so much. Secondly, I notice you haven't repeated it in this thread. It's kind of hard to square with the way such a response would truly isolate us (by several orders of magnitude) more than anything the Bush admin has said. But maybe you're okay with that. If so, why aren't you troubling pfflam with your disregard for his concerns?
It's kind of hard to square with the way such a response would truly isolate us (by several orders of magnitude) more than anything the Bush admin has said. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the key I think. Bush has painted our country into a corner. Pushing for an attack on the reactor is probabaly the right thing to do, but our country is in no place to ask for that latitude from the international community. Had Bush been a little more careful leading up to this point
1) North Korea probably wouldn't have pushed the situation
2) If they had, the world would be in a less adversarial position with us, giving us the latitude to handle the situation properly.
As things stand, Bush would be smart to send Clinton to the Mid-East to revive talks. That might send a message that he's serious about peace in the region and the world and keep the focus off of his perceived war-lust.
That's the key I think. Bush has painted our country into a corner. Pushing for an attack on the reactor is probabaly the right thing to do, but our country is in no place to ask for that latitude from the international community...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The military option should be on the table but it should be the last resort not the first. Talk about war lust.
[quote]<strong>Had Bush been a little more careful leading up to this point
1) North Korea probably wouldn't have pushed the situation
2) If they had, the world would be in a less adversarial position with us, giving us the latitude to handle the situation properly.
As things stand, Bush would be smart to send Clinton to the Mid-East to revive talks. That might send a message that he's serious about peace in the region and the world and keep the focus off of his perceived war-lust.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clinton authors an agreement that the North Koreans didn't abide by and it's Bush's fault. And now we should send Clinton to the Mid-East to retry the same formula that failed in Northwest Asia? That's an amazingly dense argument you're making there.
edit: just realized I'm logged in under ny brother's account. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> (spaceman here)
Clinton authors an agreement that the North Koreans didn't abide by and it's Bush's fault. And now we should send Clinton to the Mid-East to retry the same formula that failed in Northwest Asia? That's an amazingly dense argument you're making there. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What it shows so clearly is the main reason why I started this thread: namely, the utter and complete lack of tact and the presence of blundering bluster where sophisticated, delicate, diplomatic, and circumspect thinking is needed instead.
We need to get our foot off of the gas pedal and stop for a minute: assess all of the possible options and work with the rest of the world
and I say this in two ways:
1. so that we will not do anything rash, and hurt innocent people and create uneeded enemies
and
2. so that we can continue to be the power that we imagine ourselves to be in the long run . . . bush doesn't have the mind of a Machievelli . . I think his prose is a sore third in comparison
<strong>Since when are we not working with the rest of the world?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might be an exaggeration to say we're not working with the rest of the world, but the reverse is true as well.
Our original positions with regards to North Korea and Iraq are good examples of why the world is frustrated with the US. In both cases we vowed that we wouldn't commit to talks. That's wrong. We softened our positions, but our arrogant attitude is frustrating. It's a waste of time for other countries to have to explain to us to actually go through the UN to handle Iraq and other people rightfully resent us for making them do so.
I've argued from the start that going after Iraq is the right thing to do, but the means by which we're doing it are abhorrent.
Comments
And yes, Mongolians don't know squat about horses...
ooooooh! and our WoMD can be Balloon Bombs filled with salty water!
Damn Yanks 'll be sorry
Ha! wheres ya Stealth technology now? Booga Mc Mad is armed and dangerous with his King Edward calibre Spud Gun!
<strong>
And yes, Mongolians don't know squat about horses...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hear u ppl make a pretty good meal from these..
The salt water gave me an idea. Lets pollute their prescious bodily fluids (Coca-Cola) with salt water. The natives seems to find it sacrite. We are sure to win then.
[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
Boy this thread went to shit really fast!
<strong> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Boy this thread went to shit really fast!</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because I forgot to turn on the pfflam filter.
We gotta move fast now. Head for White Tower
We srill need some small people
<strong>
Hahaha. You can?t be serious?!!
Well, I suppose you?re referring to as to who got to be on top in the bedroom, the German officer or the young French maidens. I believe the French assumed the missionary position. Or was it the doggy position?
[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blattant insults, lack of any substance, typical zMench posts.
No worth of arguing.
<strong>
Do you really believe that? Because if you do, no one else does. I'm the one who started the thread that suggested the United States bomb North Korea's reactor. You're just blind I guess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not blind. I just don't make a point of reading every blessed word you post on these boards. Now, having read it, I noticed two things about your "suggestion": First of all, it's hard to tell how serious you were about it. You kept hedging and dancing about so much. Secondly, I notice you haven't repeated it in this thread. It's kind of hard to square with the way such a response would truly isolate us (by several orders of magnitude) more than anything the Bush admin has said. But maybe you're okay with that. If so, why aren't you troubling pfflam with your disregard for his concerns?
<strong>
It's kind of hard to square with the way such a response would truly isolate us (by several orders of magnitude) more than anything the Bush admin has said. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the key I think. Bush has painted our country into a corner. Pushing for an attack on the reactor is probabaly the right thing to do, but our country is in no place to ask for that latitude from the international community. Had Bush been a little more careful leading up to this point
1) North Korea probably wouldn't have pushed the situation
2) If they had, the world would be in a less adversarial position with us, giving us the latitude to handle the situation properly.
As things stand, Bush would be smart to send Clinton to the Mid-East to revive talks. That might send a message that he's serious about peace in the region and the world and keep the focus off of his perceived war-lust.
<strong>
That's the key I think. Bush has painted our country into a corner. Pushing for an attack on the reactor is probabaly the right thing to do, but our country is in no place to ask for that latitude from the international community...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The military option should be on the table but it should be the last resort not the first. Talk about war lust.
[quote]<strong>Had Bush been a little more careful leading up to this point
1) North Korea probably wouldn't have pushed the situation
2) If they had, the world would be in a less adversarial position with us, giving us the latitude to handle the situation properly.
As things stand, Bush would be smart to send Clinton to the Mid-East to revive talks. That might send a message that he's serious about peace in the region and the world and keep the focus off of his perceived war-lust.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clinton authors an agreement that the North Koreans didn't abide by and it's Bush's fault.
edit: just realized I'm logged in under ny brother's account. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> (spaceman here)
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: Toebwon ]</p>
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen buddy! Mind your own business!!
<strong>
Clinton authors an agreement that the North Koreans didn't abide by and it's Bush's fault.
Read <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1732955"; target="_blank">this</a> if you're interested.
<strong>
Read <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1732955"; target="_blank">this</a> if you're interested.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who else are they going to blame?!?!?!
next we'll hear:
'its that Liberal media's fault'
What it shows so clearly is the main reason why I started this thread: namely, the utter and complete lack of tact and the presence of blundering bluster where sophisticated, delicate, diplomatic, and circumspect thinking is needed instead.
We need to get our foot off of the gas pedal and stop for a minute: assess all of the possible options and work with the rest of the world
and I say this in two ways:
1. so that we will not do anything rash, and hurt innocent people and create uneeded enemies
and
2. so that we can continue to be the power that we imagine ourselves to be in the long run . . . bush doesn't have the mind of a Machievelli . . I think his prose is a sore third in comparison
[ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>Since when are we not working with the rest of the world?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might be an exaggeration to say we're not working with the rest of the world, but the reverse is true as well.
Our original positions with regards to North Korea and Iraq are good examples of why the world is frustrated with the US. In both cases we vowed that we wouldn't commit to talks. That's wrong. We softened our positions, but our arrogant attitude is frustrating. It's a waste of time for other countries to have to explain to us to actually go through the UN to handle Iraq and other people rightfully resent us for making them do so.
I've argued from the start that going after Iraq is the right thing to do, but the means by which we're doing it are abhorrent.
<strong>
:eek: :eek: :eek:
This is scary
<a href="http://www.sanmothy.com/aicommunity/pics/new.jpg"; target="_blank">New</a>
<a href="http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1284/OrlandoBloom_DeGuire_298681_400.jpg"; target="_blank">Legolas alias</a>
A little PS and its the same person.
:eek:
And here I thought that I was sentenced to be Gollum...