i dont know why i bother......

[gnosis_within]

so, i hear that north korea has admitted to having nuclear weapons and bush is trying the 'diplomatic' approach. does anyone else see a problem here? bush demands that we go to war with a country that may have weapons of mass destruction, but attempts diplomacy with another country that admits to having them. what ever happened to the old 'you are either with us or against us' battle cry?

could it possibly be that the u.s. would have more to gain by conquering iraq than it would by conquering n. korea? how will bush lie his way out of this one? when will people finally become fed up with this bullshit and get rid of him?

i know, my forum mistress, that i post about bush too often for your liking, but, please, forgive me, i have a weak will and cannot control my hatred for this man's stupidity. [img]mad.gif[/img]

[SHATOUSHKA]

hmmm... i see the problem.

but, in some sort of half-asses attempt to be
defensive, i think there is a difference between
admitting you have them, and admitting a possibility
of having them.

what i see as a possible future problem:
countries 'claiming' to have them... just for
attention to other details.

[imported_Captain_Janks]

This does not resemble a topic re: philosophy, but I guess it's the best you people can muster.

N. Korea has admitted to having the technology to use an atom bomb. America has the same info... so diplomatic discussions ensue about not employing them.

Saddam is not coming to the table like N. Korea. He's not chatting it up like the neighbor who crows that he has a BMW too. Irag is a fucking lurker who can't be trusted. They might have a BMW and are not telling anyone and that shit just ain't cool. I say we carpet bomb Irag until they get a leader who admits to having Nuclear weapons so everyone can chat about it normally. Just my .02?

Barthes? Anyone????

[gnosis_within]

why should iraq tell anyone about the types of weapons they have? if iraq allowed u.n. inspectors in, and they found nothing, bush would still say that they had the technology but hid it away, and would use it as an excuse to attack. if iraq admitted to having the weapons, but wouldn't get rid of them, that would be an excuse to attack. if iraq admitted to having them, and did get rid of them, bush could still say that they didn't get rid of all of them and use that as an excuse to attack.

and what in the world does talking accomplish? what are they going to talk about? not blowing each other up? is that really something that has to be discussed?

and i apologize for not posting philosophical topics (at least what you consider to be philosophical), but give me time. i will go find a good quote from a book i haven't read, ask for people's opinion, and never seriously respond, but will insult them for not being on my intellectual level. better yet, i will simply ask a question that will go to the very core of your being, cap'n. one that, when you have answered it, will fully enlighten you as to the very nature of your being; here is the question on which you should meditate:

what is a dumbass?

[imported_Captain_Janks]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#25004f"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gnosis_within:
[QB]

and what in the world does talking accomplish? what are they going to talk about? not blowing each other up? is that really something that has to be discussed?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think if Saddam called a press conference and said "Hey, folks... we got nukes too" Russia and US and faggit Canada (used the word "faggit" b/c we are in the alternative section of hostboard instead of the science or religion section" would all sit down and listen to what the guy has to say. Walter Mondale could waddle up with his thoughts and the whole 9 yards. As it stands... Irag is asking to be bombed by the United States, no matter who represents as President. Looks like fair ass warning. If Mondale gets in there, he's gonna vote to bomb those fuck until they come correct.

Was Agatha Christie a Philosopher???

[SHATOUSHKA]

lol... you have a powerful use of adjectives, CJ.
you make funny everytime. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

[soulfilms]

the thing that i found disturbing was the fact that (some time ago) bush said that 'we are going to bomb your asses bare unless you allow UN weapons inspectors into the country' (paraphrasing here) to saddam. then when saddam agreed to allow unrestricted access to UN inspectors, the fabulous mr bush says 'reasonable folks all over the world knows that saddam is ... ... ... unreasonable. he's played this game for years, saying he says he allows inspectors in but doesn't really 'ALLOWING THEM IN'. it's obvious to me that it doesn't matter what happens, whether they find weapons or not, bush wants to go to war with iraq.

the thing that really pisses me off is that bush is trying to pretend he's the good guy here. fuck it! at least saddam makes no apologies for his actions. i would have more respect for bush if he said, i am going to go to war with iraq, conquer and kill saddam, turn the place into a democracy (lot of good that did for afghanistan) and guess who'll be in charge of the oil??! certainly not OPEC.

the difference between NKorea and Iraq is that NKorea is using their nuke knowledge or whatever as a bargaining tool to barter some sort of collateral into western society (for want of a better word). iraq's potential weapons are seen as that to be USED according to saddam hussein's commands. saddam is probably the only person of significance in world politics that doesn't bow to the sychophantic demands of the western world -in particular, the US. THAT is what everyone's worried about. a maverick with enough power and technology to challenge the established quarters.

onto a tangetal topic here: i find it somewhat interesting that whenever people speak about saddam hussein, they say "Saddam Hussein" or more commonly, " Saddam " never "Hussein" as you generally would say any other person like Bush, Nixon, Clinton, etc. and this occurs across the board - not just at a political/government level.

(kinda like the singer macy gray. you wouldn't say macy or gray, it's "MACY GRAY".)

[SHATOUSHKA]

it always amazes me how certain people have the
ability to say EXACTLY what i think in JUST THE
RIGHT WAY...

promps to you, SF.


and about that 'name' thing... i think it
all has to do with the subliminal power of
syllables and stressors (stress marks).

[soulfilms]

[img]wink.gif[/img] <H1> AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i used an emoticon!</h1> <h4> Deeply aghast!

[soulfilms]

one way of finding out if iraq has weapons.

1. bomb the city..bagdhad and call it a preemtive strike

2. if iraq responds with weapons and nukes, say...well we told you he had some! and bomb iraq even further.

3. if iraq doesn't respond, say have stunned them, better yet, say have successfully located their weapons factory and have 'Taken care of the Problem'.

blowing up the place is one way of knowing for sure whether they have weapons. because who gives a fuck if millions of people die right?? so long as they're only IRAQIES.