America, F*** Yeah!

[sal_amanda]

Now I'm not comfortable with North Korea having nukes, but what exactly gives us or other countries the right to have them?  Should North Korea not have them because their leader is a little on the crazy side?  Well, our leader is an idiot, and if he's not an idiot, then he's a very smart asshole.  I'm not sure anyone should have the right to have such a thing.  

Also, after all these years of everyone making fun of him publicly about it, couldn't Bush finally learn how to pronounce nuclear?

Comments

[datashade.livejournal.com]

One way or another, our Idiot President goes away in a few more years - impeachment or term limits, either way is fine by me.


North Korea is chaired by a violent dictator-for-life. When he dies, he'll be replaced by someone younger and probably no less crazy. NK is so crazy even other communist countries like China don't want them to have nukes.



But really, the reason why this story is news is this: the NK nuclear program was on ice for most of the Clinton presidency. Dubya took office and proudly, idiotically decided that EVERYTHING Clinton did, even the things he did right like help generate a budget surplus or represent our country well abroad, were wrong, and set about reversing them.

To most intelligent people, it's Item #2073 or so in an at-least-one-per-day list of things that show Bush is incompetent, but to people who like tax refunds and hate terrrs, this may be one of the first to break through.

And for it to happen, on Bush's watch, right before an already damaging election, may be the nail in the coffin, as Bush, according to media reports, is already throwing temper tantrums in the Oval Office about how bad things are going.

[i-am-solid.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing about his pronounciation. The people who make fun of him mercilessly are not the ones who voted for him. And the ones who voted for him don't realize he's mispronouncing anything. And apparently, there are more of them than there are of us. Now, if the confusion were cleared up in say...a Left Behind book, maybe they would catch on.

Kim is a LOT on the crazy side, and it suprises me that he didn't do this before now.

But on a completely random note - guess who just scored a Charlie Tuna phone?

[sal_amanda]

I would loooooooooooooove to see footage of one of those temper tantrums.

My problem with all this is that we are powerful so we get to decide that it's okay for us to have nuclear weapons and it's okay for the countries we like at least moderately to have nuclear weapons, but the ones we don't like, can't have them. But if someone came along and decided we shouldn't have them, well, how dare they?

[sal_amanda]

When we were in Italy, we had dinner with some nice Australians and it was right before the last presidential election. They were so sure that we all would be smart enough to send Bush packing in a landslide vote. We had a tough time explaining why we weren't so confident about that. The rest of the world really must think we're just as moronic as Bush.

Did you get your phone on e-bay? I got one a couple years ago from there. I had to fight for it and now it sits proudly next to my lamp.

[datashade.livejournal.com]

I'm sure the current administration feels entitled to decide who deserves them and who doesn't, but I think the long view might have been something like "nobody should have them, but we can't undo the past, so nobody should have any NEW ones, that's why we have a Non-Proliferation Treaty."

[(Anonymous)]

Just thought I would add that I agree with your question. (If that even makes sense). I have always wondered why we are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and others are not. Wouldn't it be nice if we could ALL get rid of our nuclear weapons? Or does us having them and no one else having them mean that we can control everyone? Because that seems less like democracy and more like some sort of world dictatorship.

[(Anonymous)]

Just a question - what exactly is wrong with tax refunds?

[sal_amanda]

Wait, where did this take a tax refund turn?

[wigglett.livejournal.com]

i agree. if people are going to complain they should be more knowledgable in the whole history. im not gonna lie, part of me is like "who are we to decide who has what technology, blah blah" but the other part of me says i dont know what im talking about. anyway its not just us saying "wait a minute, we should stop this" its too early for this.

[wigglett.livejournal.com]

im not sure we alone are deciding this. im not saying america doesnt have a certain arrogance to their diplomatic worldy decisions, but im not sure there is a country in teh world, well except NK, that wants NK to have nucs.

[wigglett.livejournal.com]

"its too early for this" is a run on. its supposed to be seperate, as in: "its too early to be having this discussion" bc its 7am on a sunday

[wigglett.livejournal.com]

see its probably more along these lines:

sometimes the intention can be a good one but the decision is still wrong and on the other hand (which is this situation) the intention can be all wrong but the decison be ok.

[datashade.livejournal.com]

It's hard to explain, but basically Bush's tax refund from right after he took office was a giant piece of pandering, appealing to the worst in people, turning Clinton's budget surpluses into giant deficits, allowing Bush to say "we're on the wrong track, look at he money we're losing, let's cut social security."

The refunds are almost EXACTLY like Iraq; no long-term planning, a lot of sleight-of-hand to rile up people's emotions and get them behind a bad idea, leading to a quagmire of (in this case, financial) problems that lead Bush to say things like "stay the course," or lobby for more drastic, and awful, platforms like plans for dismantling Social Security, cutting funding to youth and community services, and invading Iran.