Thanks hombre.

Warmly,
G.N.C.

May 3, 2005 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

More proof that logic based upon false postulates can lead to some incredibly moronic conclusions.

By the way, why is that the only group that has data on “the latest Korean missile launch” is US Defense Intelligence Agency in Korea? Nobody else seems to have corroborating evidence for the launch. And Japan and Korea have both shrugged their shoulders at the news the US provided to them.

May 3, 2005 @ 4:53 pm | Comment

Soon we will see pictures of the crazy DPRK dwarf superimposed over a picture of Bin Laden. Also, I heard that some guy who knew some guy in al Qaeda had lunch at a Korean restaurant once.

9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

May 3, 2005 @ 5:03 pm | Comment

Tuode, very fiunny! Only I am not laughing, because I won’t put anything past the Bush administration.

May 3, 2005 @ 5:06 pm | Comment

The road to Mecca is paved with kimchi?

May 3, 2005 @ 5:35 pm | Comment

Tuode, very fiunny! Only I am not laughing, because I won’t put anything past the Bush administration.
Posted by richard

Curzon may be correct in assuming that war is inevitable with North Korea because there is an unstable leader involved, unfortunately he fingered the wrong guy.

You’d think it would be easy to see the lack of rationality in a guy who used an attack by Saudi nationals as a pretext to invade a completely unrelated country. (cf the leaked memo from Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London concerning Furious George’s decision to invade Iraq under false pretext by the summer of 2002)

May 3, 2005 @ 6:33 pm | Comment

Do you realize, Tom, that when you compare unfavourably, the elected President of the US with a dynastic tyrant in Pyongyang, you only sound absurd.

Anyone who really thinks that George Bush and not Kim Jong Il is the source of the danger on the Korean peninsula is addled.

May 3, 2005 @ 7:47 pm | Comment

What if someone thinks that both Mr. Bush and Mr. ill are sources of danger on the Korean penins(h)ula? Of course, I’ll throw in the obligatory “Mr. ill is ten times worse than Bush, four times as crazy, twice as smart (probably), and has an equal command of the English language.” Bush is taller and I’d rather go grab a beer with him, too. I hope that covers it.

May 3, 2005 @ 8:42 pm | Comment

“Do you realize, Tom, that when you compare unfavourably, the elected President of the US with a dynastic tyrant in Pyongyang, you only sound absurd. ”

It is absurd indeed, one is a dumbass brainless tyrant, the other is the Wolf in sheep’s clothing antichrist.

May 3, 2005 @ 11:25 pm | Comment

Get real people. You may not like Bush, but he’s not a tyrant.

As for the frequent accusations that he’s stupid … well, all I can say to that is “he beat you twice didn’t he, so what does that say about you?” Seems to me that one of the reasons for Bush’s victories is that his enemies insist on calling him dumb, and then believing their own propaganda.

May 4, 2005 @ 3:48 am | Comment

FSN9, Bush is certainly no tyrant, at least not in the Kim Jong-il mode. However, I won’t concede that he won the elections based on any intellilgence at all. He “won” the first thanks to James Baker and Karl Rove and he won the second mainly thanks to Karl Rove and his Swift Boat whores.

I do see Bush as tyrant material, content to impose a really ugly agenda (anti-gay, anti-right-to-choose, anti-freedom-to-speak-out, anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-middle-class), rip off the middle class and enrich his already super-rich cronies. It’s a subtle tyrrany compared to true monsters like Kim, but it’s definitely got elements of repression. When I think of those people being thrown out of taxpayer-funded social security “town halls” because their car had a pro-Democrat bumper sticker, I feel truly sick and truly ashamed. That is repression. Maybe they didn’t pull their fingernails off with a plier, but they were repressed in a way America has never seen before. Shameful.

May 4, 2005 @ 7:22 am | Comment

Where did someone say that Bush is a tyrant in this thread? I didn’t.

I guess I judge someone’s intelligence by things like the ability to reason, grasp of basic facts, the ability to use language above a third-grade level, and so on. Call me crazy.

Also, who exactly are “you people” that Bush beat again? I’m generally conservative, which is why I oppose Bush. If you think Bush is a “conservative,” you simply aren’t awake.

May 4, 2005 @ 8:34 am | Comment

Tuode … go back and read the thread again.

As for your comments … all I can say is that you better clarify you comments, as they don’t make much sense as they stand.

May 4, 2005 @ 9:25 am | Comment

No. 9,

You continue your usual tactic: throw out an unsupported charge and then duck when anyone questions you.

>It is absurd indeed, one is a dumbass brainless tyrant, the other is the Wolf in sheep’s clothing antichrist.

I assume this is the comment you were referring to.
Is Bush the tyrant or the antichrist? Guess it depends on your point of view. I assumed JR was calling Bush the antichrist.

As far as needing to clarify my comment, what exactly needs a clarification?

May 4, 2005 @ 11:34 am | Comment

Cheer up guys, it was meant to be a jape.

May 4, 2005 @ 12:45 pm | Comment

Bush is perilously close to a fascist, if he isn’t there already…

May 4, 2005 @ 5:11 pm | Comment

The danger with Bush is that he thinks that America can weather any storm and come out stronger than ever, and that everybody will turn to America for help once the storm breaks.

When a leader believes that he can win a war easily he is far more likely to start a war than if he believes that he might well loose.

If there is a war with North Korea, south Korea, Japan will be in the fireing line and good old Georgre bush will be there to pick up the peieces, making sure of course that they are put together in a way that suits American interests.

If Iraq could have blow Isreal back into the stone age with a nuclear strike, would Bush have been so eager to attack?

If Kim was the President of Mexico, and his misisles were aimed at population centers in California, you can be that Bush would be far more cautious when dealing with him.

May 4, 2005 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

Tuode … who exactly is ducking the question????

May 5, 2005 @ 8:33 am | Comment