sexual_chocolate

UN inspections are doing quite a good job. It's what even most Americans are supporting now (66%, last poll I read)! But thanks for asking!

Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining. SexC, Had thinking like this taken root in the late 1930's, we'd all be speaking German or Russan by now. "Notions of right and wrong"? Would you have negotiated with Hitler? Face it SC; your sypathies will always lie with any nation or group that opposes America. Especially if they have socialist or communist ideals. There IS right and wrong, good and evil. And, as demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the best path to peace is through war. The light-water reactor has been under construction in NK for several years. There have been reasonable technical/political difficulties/delays in its timely completion. NK promised to abandon its "plutonium seperation" efforts. Clinton/Albright/Carter, dupes all, forgot(?) to tell NK that its uranium enrichment efforts were included in this. GW could withdraw us from the Iraqi borders tomorrow and I suspect you would proceed to blame him for allowing Saddam to kick the inspectors out of Iraq once again, and for all subsequent brutality perpetrated by his regime. I stand by my statement. You're no different than Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose, or the idiots that spat at our soldiers upon their return from Vietnam. You're doing it again. You're comparing Iraq to Germany. You're a bad and silly boy. I don't know why I waste time with you. I guess I'm just a sucker who gets baited really easylike. Silly me. So anyways, like I was saying, you're a bad and silly boy. Shape up. And until you can come up with something better than the WWII analogy, I'm done with you, cuz you're making yourself seem as silly as George the Dumb.

But Muffy, you support a war! Nice link, by the way.

I can't believe the reaction at the UN yesterday. The US is quickly losing its allies! Here's for Hope against Hope.

Today at 11:30 am, Seattle Center. Come one, come all. There's a few of us meeting at Cafe Ladro at the base of Queen Anne (Roy and Queen Anne) at 11 am, if you want someone to hook up with. Shalom.

Hey, Cunning Stunt was an awesome and thoughtful climb until it got bolted. I'm glad it got chopped. I think it was Collum's retrobolt; the guy's a bit bolt-happy.

You are SUCH a bitch. I'M wearing that outfit this weekend!

What kind of things would you talk about?

You should be learned to be a Rabbi, my friend. And Rabbis tend to practice humility as an antidote to ego centeredness. Plus, many of your opinions seem mis-informed, so your high-handed opinion of yourself becomes a bit laughable, given the context. But hey, nothing personal! Just pointing something out that might or might not be relevant. You be the judge.

Try the Kabala! Mmmm, delish. And kosher, too!

Just cuz he can have multiple opinions? Let me guess: ultra-orthodox?

It wouldn't have anything to do with sanc·ti·mo·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-mn) n. Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness. or condescension n 1: the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior [syn: superciliousness, disdainfulness] 2: a communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient [syn: disdain, patronage] would it?

Here's one. Some more context. China's input. Something very reasonable. I'd check the last link first, since it most clearly illustrates my line of thinking on this issue. Oh, and a correction, of course. US compliance within the framework of '94's treaty wasn't abrogated by our refusal to ship more oil, it had to do with assistance in constructing light-water reactors. My error.

Oh, so now you're gonna blasphemy Ramtha, are you? You obviously should have lined your underground dwelling with copper while you had the chance, cuz now the alien waves have polluted your mind. Heathen. Just keep an eye on Rainier, my friend.

SC, You say N Korea is hostile to us "for very good reason"? Are you off your rocker? If the depth of your America-loathing goes this deep, you are truly beyond help. Possibly even a...dare I say... traitor. Oh fairweather. Now I am a traitor. Do you even know what that means? Probably not. To the John Birch society, everyone is a traitor. Did you think Patty Murray was a traitor for stating the obvious about bin Laden? Probably, huh? My best understanding of the N. Korea crisis comes from a variety of news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters reports, Time, "left-wing" rags such as Z Magazine and CAQ, etc.. I like to read everything, so my ideas are a little more contextualized, with info and data drawn from many sources. Hey, I even listen to Rush Limbaugh, although I find him to be an annoying little pug. Oh, and now Debka.com is another source I occasionally look at. But I wander. Back to N. Korea. From what I have gathered, agreements were made in '94 that N. Korea would dismantle its nuclear program if its energy needs were met through importation of fuel... Some shipment began, as we all know, but Clinton couldn't get congress to approve the rest. (Why did he promise what he couldn't get from congress? I don't know, maybe he thought they'd come around, or just wanted to avert a disaster.) So for all these years since '94, N. Korea didn't get what it had been promised during negotiations. Put yourself in N. Korea's shoes for a minute. Try at least. You've been promised something, and it never materializes. You've been moving your country towards the direction of more openness and dialog with the rest of the world, and a new, quite bellicose administration labels you as part of an "axis of evil". Hey, you know and I know that you, and many others, would begin to immediately arm to the teeth, considering what's happening to the other "axis of evil" member, Iraq. I ramble. Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining.

The paranoia continues.... Ah yes, the Kittyhawk will certainly take care of any issues that might arise with North Korea. Tell that to the South Koreans. I'm sure they'll be impressed. Please don't even think for a minute that Iraq is better armed than North Korea. I'm not sure what they're telling you there in the service, but this flies in the face of all military "intelligence". So we have one country entirely hostile to us (I think for very good reason, I might add) in North Korea, with known weapons of mass destruction, including perhaps two or three workable nuclear bombs. Then we have another country entirely decimated by a previous war, whose armaments were systematically located and destroyed for a 7 year period AFTER the war. Some SUSPECT them to be in possession of chemical and/or biological agents potentially useful in war, although no factual proof exists. It is nearly universally agreed that they have no nuclear weaponry, nor the resources to make any. Oh, but the leader there tried to kill our president's father (let's forget our president's father tried to kill HIM)! And he also sits on the SECOND LARGEST known oil reserves on the planet! What a coincidence!And his country is strategically located, plus, he's an easy victim (limited military), AND at least a pre-text of justification for attack can be made, however weak it may be (UN resolution violations. We seem to violate them quite often; who threatens us with war?) We damn well know that he wouldn't be stupid enough to attack the US, for he isn't suicidal. Nor could he in a 100 years develop competitiveness militarily with the US or its allies. I think it's safe to say he'd be happy having his life and his palaces. I'm sure he'd LOVE to attack the US (wouldn't many countries?), but even arming "terrorists" would be too risky for him. Oh good god, this becomes more and more insane the more one thinks about it. Look, I know you have to feel justified in risking your own life and taking the lives of others; can't you just pick a better cause to die for than this? You're not doing anything to make the world "safe for democracy". You're just stirring the pot, helping to kill people you don't know, for people you don't know.

Jeez, Dwayner, I was agreeing with you! Now you need therapy for anger and paranoia issues, along with the others. How can I help?

Hey fairweather, I like how you're coming along with this anti-war stuff. See ya Saturday!

But I do drift, don't I? "1,2,3,4, We don't want your fucking war! 1, 2,3,4, we don't want your fucking war!" Or maybe "Hey hey ho ho, little shrub has got to go! Hey hey ho ho, little shrub has got to go!" Now doesn't that get you all excited?!?!?

They swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President, if I'm not mistaken. It shows you don't have a clue about the military community, Iain. It was already mentioned by Off White, but I thought I'd chime in. Nice idealism, greg, but many of our recent "war" engagements have had rather dubiuous constitutional underpinnings. Only the "obey all orders" section really speaks to reality. Remember: As a member of the military, you are a tool for the political establishment, plain and simple. The president, who is often elected by a majority vote, holds the keys to your future. Remember this when thinking about enlisting.

Oh trask trask trask, my little pony. What troubles your mind so on this bee-you-tiful evening? Something about NATO? A little premature to start war preparations when we haven't decided to have a war, right? Trask goes "Grr frrk arrr brrrphhh".

Ouch. The painful truth. I hate the consequences of what iain posted above, but how can anyone argue with it? Anyone in the military is simply the current administration's tool for implementing their version of foreign (and domestic) policy. This can't be argued. I have respect for individuals whose ideals lead them to service in the armed forces (depending on the ideals!), but I personally don't want to be ANY administration's tool. Plus, almost every military situation has a non-military solution, I believe. Violence only seems to beget violence, and I'd rather leave this earth having done my best to promote peace and understanding, instead of militarism and nationalism.

Hey, you're learning US foreign policy just fine! Saddam would appreciate your sensibilities....

Thanks, Bilbo. And Dwayner, of course I agree with at least part of what you say. There is effective protest, and ineffective protest. The more marginalized the protest, in terms of fashion and tactics, the more marginalized the results. But I'm not gonna sit here with a sanctimonious tone lecture to others about their chosen form of protest. Personally I'd like to see a businessman's protest, with major media and business and political elite in suits and ties, headed by Schwartzkoff (put your money where your mouth is!). I think this would turn some heads. But so will millions of people marching in many major cities world-wide. I truly believe it will make a difference, if not now, at least in the longer term.

Sounds like the only solution left. Will the battle cage be in your backyard, in the chicken coop next to the rusting El Camino?