Holy Sh*t!

[HeinekenMan]

I'm not going to blame the Republic Party and George W. for causing me to **** my pants this morning. When I heard that North Korea was talking about firing nuclear missiles, however, my first thought was to punch the first Republican I see today.

My heavens! Could we be in a more ****ed up situation? Is this real enough for you? Or must you have the damned tip of the missile lodged in your sphincter before you realize what a horrible bunch of leaders we have.

Let's start by acknowledging that the Democrats are so weak and pathetic that they can't even seize power from a crew of thugs, bullies, convicts and, gulp, sexual predators. But let's then look at the folks who will be handling this impasse with North Korea.

1. George W. Bush: This would be a C student who failed an impromptu foreign affairs test during his first election campaign. This would be the man who dared terrorists to "Bring it on." This would be the man who, under false pretenses, sent the country into a war in Iraq that has no clear purpose and no clear end. This is a man who can't even pronounce "nuclear."

2. Donald Rumsfeld: Here we have a guy, apparently, who even Bush no longer wants leading the Defense Department. According to recent reports, most people think he's a nutjob. He was the lead man in the Bush WMD fiasco, which featured so many untruths that plugging the words "lies" and "Rumsfeld" into Google spits out almost five million hits.

3. We have a Republican-led Congress that insists that gay marriage is a key political issue while Georgie Boy keeps reminding us that we'll all be nuked to high heaven if we dare elect somebody other than him.

4. We have a Justice Department listening in to some 85-year-old Sudanese-American women's phone calls hoping to catch a tip while allowing the world to become more and more enraged as American troops interrogate people by nearly drowning them.

Hell, I could name at least a dozen other people: Bolton, who has a track record of not getting along well with others, Rice, who is about as warm-hearted as an Arctic toad, Katherine Harris, who seems to be a method actor stuck in the Baby Jane role, George "Macaca" Allen, Dennis Hastert, who can't seem to understand that his party has proposed a $200 million party to celebrate victory in Iraq at the same time that North Korea is threatening to launch nuclear missiles. Meanwhile, one of their leaders is hunched in his office yanking on his meat and asking a 15-year-old boy if he likes to take it in the ass.

These things are disturbing, to say the least. Many rate far higher than the apparent outrage after it came out that Clinton had an affair with an intern.

I'll grant you that he created a damned fine act to follow. But, suddenly, as I sit here and consider that there may be a nuclear warhead about to explode somewhere in the world, the little things that have been making my skin crawl for several years seem much more important.

Okay, I have to end this rant. After all, I need to dig a damned fallout shelter and stock up on pork and beans. After all, it's highly unlikely that the government will respond to any sort of disaster, whether it be homelessness, hurricane or health care, when it doesn't have some sort of financial incentive to it. I mean, they might send out a memo, but that would just be to ensure that everyone has purchased duct tape.

Anyway, thanks to all of you fine Republicans for putting into office the least qualified and least capable president ever to be elected. Now you know how Bill Buckner feels.

 

[HeinekenMan]

HM, I'm not going to argue about the republicans, but if you think having all dems in office would me a ****stain of difference in what the North Koreans will do, you're as out of your gourd as the North Koreans.

Let's focus on who the real whacks are, shall we?

I totally see your point. This is, to some degree, something that was going to happen regardless of who was in charge.

But, if you're about to be knocked into next week by the fat kid from sixth grade, I'd much rather the old lady teacher come over and scold him and tell both of you to behave like gentlemen than to have the beer-bellied custodian walk over with his assistant and announce that he's betting $10 that the fat kid goes down. I mean, whether republican, democrat or Hitler, I'll take the guy who just shuts his trap over the guy who says "Bring it on" any day of the week.

 

[pallister]

my first thought was to punch the first Republican I see today.

What an idiot.

 

[alleyallen]

I sympathize with your fears/concerns and even your assessment of GOP figures, but if you think the Clinton administration would have made a more positive impact in Korea, you're mistaken.

 

[EStreetJoe]

Here's an example of Bush's inconsistency with his foreign policy:

Iraq - Saddam Hussein has (biological) weapons of mass destruction that he might sell to terrorists we must invade as he's a threat to world peace

North Korea - We know they sell nuclear technology to terrorists and that they just conducted a nuclear weapons test, but let's look for a diplomatic solution

Iran - We know that the 9/11 terrorists were allowed to pass through the country with forged passports with no problems, that their president held American citizens hostage in the 80s, he wants to obliterate our strongest ally in the region (Israel) and he's advanced his country's nuclear program ten-fold since Saddam left power, but let's look for a diplomatic solution to their growing nuclear program.

 

[e4]

i think HM's point is that korea is going to do what korea is going to do, but that America's leadership has already put this country in a position where it cannot, at least in the eyes of the international community, act in good faith. i.e., our foreign policy is so unpredictable and we've lost the moral capital to act as the world's police or to strike unilaterally when threats like this arise. bottom line: who should trust us, and why? and that's a scary thing, because it's not the weapons that make us a superpower, it's the threat of us using those weapons and the "bad guys" knowing what transgressions will elicit such force.

​

 

[Ace]

my first thought was to punch the first Republican I see today.

What an idiot.

I agree. A kick to the junk would be the way to go.

 

[sportschick]

 

[Guybehindtheguy]

i think HM's point is that korea is going to do what korea is going to do, but that America's leadership has already put this country in a position where it cannot, at least in the eyes of the international community, act in good faith. i.e., our foreign policy is so unpredictable and we've lost the moral capital to act as the world's police or to strike unilaterally when threats like this arise. bottom line: who should trust us, and why? and that's a scary thing, because it's not the weapons that make us a superpower, it's the threat of us using those weapons and the "bad guys" knowing what transgressions will elicit such force.

​

Amen. I've been telling my wife that for months. Unless we got pictures of Kim Jong Il riding a nuke into downtown Tokyo, we've got no recourse _ military, political or otherwise _ than to hope the Chinese get pissed off enough to do something about it.

 

[User 1019]

When I heard that North Korea was talking about firing nuclear missiles, however, my first thought was to punch the first Republican I see today.

I'll bet you're just a big old *****.

 

[alleyallen]

Doesn't posting that pic count as a visual d_b? Can't anyone come up with anything new?

Maybe a pic of Mr. Ill Jong 2 or whatever his name is, with a mushroom cloud in the background?

Doesn't cracking on the photo constitute a D_B as well? Maybe no response at all would be more appropriate.

 

[sportschick]

I figure that photo is part of my schtick. There are a lot of other pics along the same lines. I just figure other folks could look 'em up and post them.

 

[dog428]

When I heard that North Korea was talking about firing nuclear missiles, however, my first thought was to punch the first Republican I see today.

I'll bet you're just a big old *****.

3bf, come on, man, with all the macho bull**** you've laid out there over the last few years, you shoulda been the first to let that go.

I've said this before and I'll say it again about Kim Jong, the guy ain't gonna attack anybody with a nuclear weapon. He wants a seat at the big kids' table so he can alleviate what he views as unfair trade restrictions. To an extent, he's right. And to an even bigger extent, the Bush administration has been wrong in completely cutting off talks with the guy.

The previous two presidents were forced to deal with him and managed to accomplish some decent things. Yeah, Kim Jong broke the deals. He always does. That's his thing. It only means one thing -- he wants more than what he's getting in the current agreement with the US. That's it. The guy knows full well that he can't attack the US. Before he even got the launch codes in, there'd be nothing more than a big-ass hole where NK used to be.

But damn, you've got to talk to the bat**** crazy little *******. Give him a little something, calm him down and move on. Why is that so hard? A simple little insignificant concession of some sorts woulda made the guy go away for a few years. Again, why is that so hard?

 

[Inky_Wretch]

i think HM's point is that korea is going to do what korea is going to do, but that America's leadership has already put this country in a position where it cannot, at least in the eyes of the international community, act in good faith. i.e., our foreign policy is so unpredictable and we've lost the moral capital to act as the world's police or to strike unilaterally when threats like this arise. bottom line: who should trust us, and why? and that's a scary thing, because it's not the weapons that make us a superpower, it's the threat of us using those weapons and the "bad guys" knowing what transgressions will elicit such force.

​

Amen. I've been telling my wife that for months. Unless we got pictures of Kim Jong Il riding a nuke into downtown Tokyo, we've got no recourse _ military, political or otherwise _ than to hope the Chinese get pissed off enough to do something about it.

Well, China might be coming around to doing something...

China's Foreign Ministry vented its anger against its communist ally over the test for a second day, with a spokesman saying that relations had been damaged.
"The nuclear test will undoubtedly exert a negative impact on our relations," the spokesman, Liu Jianchao, said at a routine media briefing. He said Monday's test was done "flagrantly, and in disregard of the international community's shared opposition."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061010/D8KLRCEG2.html

 

[Bubbler]

It's a concern that North Korea has nukes, but this is not the Cuban Missile Crisis. They have no way to deliver one.

And I agree, even as someone who detests Bush's policies, the North Korea situation has little to do with partisan politics on our shores.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Here's an example of Bush's inconsistency with his foreign policy:

Iraq - Saddam Hussein has (biological) weapons of mass destruction that he might sell to terrorists we must invade as he's a threat to world peace

North Korea - We know they sell nuclear technology to terrorists and that they just conducted a nuclear weapons test, but let's look for a diplomatic solution

Iran - We know that the 9/11 terrorists were allowed to pass through the country with forged passports with no problems, that their president held American citizens hostage in the 80s, he wants to obliterate our strongest ally in the region (Israel) and he's advanced his country's nuclear program ten-fold since Saddam left power, but let's look for a diplomatic solution to their growing nuclear program.

Your entire post is based on a faulty premise: that you need to be consistent in your foreign policy. You don't treat every country, even the dangerous ones, the same. To draw an analogy to parenting, my father once told me that being a fair parent doesn't mean every kid gets treated exactly equally. It means you treat that child fairly in the context of the circumstances. You can justifiably criticize Bush's actions in relation to each country, but claiming he needs some kind of consistency is foolish.

 

[gandhithegreat]

I'm not going to blame the Republic Party and George W. for causing me to **** my pants this morning. When I heard that North Korea was talking about firing nuclear missiles, however, my first thought was to punch the first Republican I see today.

My heavens! Could we be in a more ****ed up situation? Is this real enough for you? Or must you have the damned tip of the missile lodged in your sphincter before you realize what a horrible bunch of leaders we have.

Let's start by acknowledging that the Democrats are so weak and pathetic that they can't even seize power from a crew of thugs, bullies, convicts and, gulp, sexual predators. But let's then look at the folks who will be handling this impasse with North Korea.

1. George W. Bush: This would be a C student who failed an impromptu foreign affairs test during his first election campaign. This would be the man who dared terrorists to "Bring it on." This would be the man who, under false pretenses, sent the country into a war in Iraq that has no clear purpose and no clear end. This is a man who can't even pronounce "nuclear."

2. Donald Rumsfeld: Here we have a guy, apparently, who even Bush no longer wants leading the Defense Department. According to recent reports, most people think he's a nutjob. He was the lead man in the Bush WMD fiasco, which featured so many untruths that plugging the words "lies" and "Rumsfeld" into Google spits out almost five million hits.

3. We have a Republican-led Congress that insists that gay marriage is a key political issue while Georgie Boy keeps reminding us that we'll all be nuked to high heaven if we dare elect somebody other than him.

4. We have a Justice Department listening in to some 85-year-old Sudanese-American women's phone calls hoping to catch a tip while allowing the world to become more and more enraged as American troops interrogate people by nearly drowning them.

Hell, I could name at least a dozen other people: Bolton, who has a track record of not getting along well with others, Rice, who is about as warm-hearted as an Arctic toad, Katherine Harris, who seems to be a method actor stuck in the Baby Jane role, George "Macaca" Allen, Dennis Hastert, who can't seem to understand that his party has proposed a $200 million party to celebrate victory in Iraq at the same time that North Korea is threatening to launch nuclear missiles. Meanwhile, one of their leaders is hunched in his office yanking on his meat and asking a 15-year-old boy if he likes to take it in the ass.

These things are disturbing, to say the least. Many rate far higher than the apparent outrage after it came out that Clinton had an affair with an intern.

I'll grant you that he created a damned fine act to follow. But, suddenly, as I sit here and consider that there may be a nuclear warhead about to explode somewhere in the world, the little things that have been making my skin crawl for several years seem much more important.

Okay, I have to end this rant. After all, I need to dig a damned fallout shelter and stock up on pork and beans. After all, it's highly unlikely that the government will respond to any sort of disaster, whether it be homelessness, hurricane or health care, when it doesn't have some sort of financial incentive to it. I mean, they might send out a memo, but that would just be to ensure that everyone has purchased duct tape.

Anyway, thanks to all of you fine Republicans for putting into office the least qualified and least capable president ever to be elected. Now you know how Bill Buckner feels.

you certainly can look to talk story with this Republican. As for the administration in power now, they stepped on their dicks a long time ago. I can't defend them for anything they do including their policy toward North Korea.

However, I must take issue with your assertion that this is a Republican problem. In fact, it's rooted deeper from the policy's of Democratic administrations. So, that aside, the problem transcends politics. And we're talking about 40-50 years of American policy toward North Korea. If anything, it is a generational issue. The generation in power now has left the younger generation a huge mess to clean up.

 

[User 1019]

When I heard that North Korea was talking about firing nuclear missiles, however, my first thought was to punch the first Republican I see today.

I'll bet you're just a big old *****.

3bf, come on, man, with all the macho bull**** you've laid out there over the last few years, you shoulda been the first to let that go.

I've said this before and I'll say it again about Kim Jong, the guy ain't gonna attack anybody with a nuclear weapon. He wants a seat at the big kids' table so he can alleviate what he views as unfair trade restrictions. To an extent, he's right. And to an even bigger extent, the Bush administration has been wrong in completely cutting off talks with the guy.

The previous two presidents were forced to deal with him and managed to accomplish some decent things. Yeah, Kim Jong broke the deals. He always does. That's his thing. It only means one thing -- he wants more than what he's getting in the current agreement with the US. That's it. The guy knows full well that he can't attack the US. Before he even got the launch codes in, there'd be nothing more than a big-ass hole where NK used to be.

But damn, you've got to talk to the bat**** crazy little *******. Give him a little something, calm him down and move on. Why is that so hard? A simple little insignificant concession of some sorts woulda made the guy go away for a few years. Again, why is that so hard?

Sorry, guess I need to learn to write in the sarcasm font a little better.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

So people were crapping on Bush for being too unilateral, now they're crapping on him for being too multilateral.

Yeah, makes sense. :

For once, why don't we try putting the blame were it belongs? On Kim Jong Il.

 

[joe]

We got the Il communication.