October 03, 2006

North Korea announces nuclear test. Only a few months after the series of missile tests, NK raises the bar. Neighbouring countries, who have mostly put in place economic sanctions after the missile testing, are understandably nervous. The announcement alone resulted in the Yen declining today.

North Korea said the test would bolster its national security in the face of US military hostility. What has been fascinating to me is that the only country North Korea tends to react to is the US, regardless of what the other countries in the region do. and smallish bear thinks he has problems with his neighbours... (~_^)

posted by gomichild 17 years ago
  • [This cannot be good]
  • Winter's coming. Kim needs a grain shipment. Business as usual.
  • If I was Kim, I'd announce this, buy up some yen, and then say "just kidding, hahaha!"
  • Agreed with Fes. This is business as usual. Kim is probably feeling a bit attention-neglected, and probably allowed this biscuit to be tossed out in efforts to re-focus attention on N. Korea.
  • I don't agree. Prior to the missile testing Japan and South Korea were really focusing on improving relations between them and North Korea. Support and aid was flowing in. NK even allowed some of the Japanese abductees to return. There was regular shipping between here (Japan) and North Korea. Promises were made, documents were signed. Post missile testing - sanctions are in place, shipping has been halted. Now threats of nuclear testing. It's escalating faster in the past few months than ever before.
  • If the aid has been halted, Kim needs the grain more than ever. He could play nice with Japan and South Korea - but why bother, when the US has been so accomodating in this regard in the past? He blusters, we placate. In these times, it is the one diplomatic relationship that works as as each side expects.
  • As long as they don't have WMD! It's really the axis-of-evil states with WMD that we're most . . concerned about . . umm . . waitaminit . . . 9/11 . . . freedom . . ummm . . shoot. I forget how this works. Cheney handles that. But don't misunderestimate it. The American people . . democracy and justice. *smirk*
  • Time to call Team America.
  • Apples and orange, pete. Kim may have nukes, but for all his bluster, he has acted in a way that indicates that he understands well both the balance of power in the region and the consequences of ever using them. And he hasn't used them - instead, he brandishes them and the US forks over some delicious food aid so that his people don't starve and start thinking about how ncie it woudl be if they rose up and murdered everyone in power. Hussein, on the other hand, used his WMD with relative aplomb, could not be persuaded by the US to do otherwise, and in general made a colossal regional ass of himself.
  • Gort! Klatu barada nikto!
  • Apples and orange Just to clarify, are you arguing that the US isn't threatening to invade NK because the dictator there understands the balance of power, whereas Hussein did not? I think it's not just a little bit farcical that NK actually, by all accounts, has WMD, whereas Hussein did not. We invaded Iraq under the (false) pretense that they had them, and yet NK shows them on TV, tests them, the whole 9 yards and can't even get the US Navy to come threaten them? Isn't that because BushCo doesn't care about black people defending the world from terrorism but instead wants control of oil and a refashioned Middle East? Isn't North Korea a prime example of how they (the Bush administration) don't mean what they say, and are by definition hypocrites and liars? That they went to war at least prematurely and under false pretenses? If I was Toby Keith, I'd be writing such a kickass jingoistic anthem right now . . .
  • Pete! Pull up your pants. Your sarcasm is showing. I'm sure if they do nuclear testing and need more supplies, we can eventually see that they get some. (Wait, who sold originally sold those WMDs?)
  • NK actually, by all accounts, has WMD, whereas Hussein did not. Not true. Hussein had WMDs and used them rather a lot - he just did not happen to have them at the precise time that the US decided to invade. Isn't that because BushCo doesn't care defending the world from terrorism but instead wants control of oil and a refashioned Middle East? I don't doubt that the region's oil stocks are far from this administration's mind. But if We wanted more oil, there are lots of other ways to get it than to start an unpopular war in a rather shitty place. And are we actually *getting* any oil from Iraq lately? Isn't North Korea a prime example of how they (the Bush administration) don't mean what they say, and are by definition hypocrites and liars? That they went to war at least prematurely and under false pretenses? Heh. OK, I'll stop. And for the record, I'm not still beating my wife.
  • And for the record, I'm not still beating my wife. Liar! Confess! CON-FEheeyyy wait a minute! Okay wait, now, except for the gassing of the Kurds (which I'm still not convinced is cut-and-dried as a story, but ok) how and/or when was Saddam using WMDs? and if he: did not happen to have them at the precise time that the US decided to invade then where were/are they (if they're not made up)? And why the disparity between dealing with NK and dealing with Iraq if not for some ulterior motive? GramMa, put on some coffee, this could take awhile. *loosens tie*
  • Heh. OK, I'll stop. And for the record, I'm not still beating my wife. When did you stop beating your wife so you could have more time to molest your kids?
  • What? Take off! It's my turn. Sorry Fes, your go.
  • While it's my feeling that this is just another Kim attention-tactic, I must also agree with Pete on the issue of how the US has dealt with, and continues to deal with N. Korea (and the great irony therein). If one looks at the reasons why we supposedly went to war in Iraq (not to mention a probable Iran war in the caldron), the intentions and corruptions of the current US administration are odiously displayed - at least I think anyway.
  • He gassed Iranians by the thousand during the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted like 12 years, if memory serves. Also the "swamp arabs" (can't remember their official name). He was a very gassy guy. And what exactly about stacks of dead Kurds is unconvincing? I'm pretty sure they weren't pretending. The very existence of Chemical Ali is testimony to Hussein's use of WMDs. then where were/are they (if they're not made up)? We've talked about this before: I think most of his stocks and capabilities were destroyed in Gulf War I. But Huissein hinted around rather freely that he had WMDs, he dicked around the inspectors, threatened to use them on Americans if they invaded Iraq, and imo generally wanted everyone to think he had them. I imagine he feels that this was, in retrospect, something of a mistake. And why the disparity between dealing with NK and dealing with Iraq if not for some ulterior motive? Well, for one, because their different situations in different regions with different histories and different political and diplomatic environments. But mostly, because we don't HAVE to attack NK to get them to do what we want. Food aid works! But like I say, I have no desire to impede the criticism of Bush's not going to war with NK. he is one wily Texan, that one.
  • But if We wanted more oil, there are lots of other ways to get it than to start an unpopular war in a rather shitty place. And are we actually *getting* any oil from Iraq lately? Heh. The key word here is lately. Fes, wish I could share with you the trove of documents my eyes scanned while I was with the IIC. But thanks for the after-lunch chuckle anyways.
  • Well, call me crazy, but I find it a little difficult to think that we went to war for oil that we aren't getting. Incompetence is one thing, but that's a little too Zen, even for Rumsfeld.
  • I wouldn't say it was oil alone, but it is a nice dallop in the bucket.
  • One thing that bugs me about the Kurd issue, is that the Kurds have had a long history of trying to separate from Iraq. They wanted their own country. Many countries do not accept separatist movements, even if it is an entire region, we didn't. We went to war over it. What is interesting here though is that, the same war crimes committed against the Kurds, were also committed against Iranians, but no one is bitching about that. Of course we supported that war, even if it did involve using chemical weapons against Iranians. Oh, right we gave Hussein the tech for that. And are we actually *getting* any oil from Iraq lately? Actually I don't think the administration was expecting this long of a battle. Ideally I think they were hoping for their puppet government to take power, and to use it as a base to attack Iran. I think it was Rove that said something to the effect of. "Once we take Iraq, we just have to decide to go left or right." Meaning Syria or Iran. I believe this was prior to the election. This implies two things. One: they expected and easy victory. Two: they saw Iraq as a base of operations. So their ability to get oil from the region does not mean that was not their intention. Just because the have been stymied, does not mean that was not their goal. Not true. Hussein had WMDs and used them rather a lot - he just did not happen to have them at the precise time that the US decided to invade. Yes but you miss a key issue here. He said he didn't have them and he opened his doors to prove that, he opened them wide. This administration could have peacefully established that he didn't have WMDs but that was not part of their agenda. this is only reinforced by the bogus intel they generated to support their motives. Remember the "Chemical Trailer/ Mobile Units" total fabricated bunk. This was Powell's political undoing, by the way.
  • We've talked about this before: I think most of his stocks and capabilities were destroyed in Gulf War I. Quit viss der jumping! It takes a long time to reload zis luger! Okay, ve get back to you on zat. This was Powell's political undoing, by the way. Falling on His Sword was a good article about Powell being used, hornswaggled, and fired. (He didn't quit, they say, and there's still that whole My Lai testimony business)
  • He gassed Iranians by the thousand during the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted like 12 years, if memory serves. Also the "swamp arabs" (can't remember their official name). He was a very gassy guy. And what exactly about stacks of dead Kurds is unconvincing? I'm pretty sure they weren't pretending. The very existence of Chemical Ali is testimony to Hussein's use of WMDs. Yes tech we supplied him with, with the support of Saudi Arabia, and some other Sunni dominated countries, that feared a Shia uprising. But Huissein hinted around rather freely that he had WMDs, he dicked around the inspectors, threatened to use them on Americans if they invaded Iraq, and imo generally wanted everyone to think he had them. none of this occurred unfortunately how do you argue delusional revisionist history. He did threaten the US, when all bets were off when the US would no longer listen to reason, when the inspectors were pulling out and the US was ready to bomb. Yes its called an empty threat, "Please don't invade me." Prior to this he had opened his doors and the inspectors were given free reign. we don't HAVE to attack NK to get them to do what we want. Food aid works! I am sorry isn't this thread about how they are about to test a nuclear weapon? Food Aid would have worked if One: the US did not label NK part of the Axis of Evil Two: the US would have not invaded two countries, consecutively.
  • he opened his doors to prove that, he opened them wide. I think that's being rather generous. But I'm a revisionist, as you say. Honestly, gents, this is ground we've covered already a lot. I think you all would criticize Bush if he gave out free eclairs to ever child on earth, you all think I'm an apologist for rapacious barbarians - at best deluded, at worst complicit, and most of you lean toward complicit. Neither of us are likely to change our minds on the subject, and few of us, if any, are in a position to change it for the better. So, I concede.
  • Lets not also forget that they also claimed, not only did they have WMDs (false), but they also said they supported Al Qaeda. Lets put this in some historical perspective here. Saddam offered his fighters to attack Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait, for two reasons. He didn't want a US presence in the Middle East and he hated Saddam Hussein, because he was a secular leader.(so once again false, and widely known) On top of this they also claimed that he posed an imminent threat to the US. How? No one really knows, since Iraq had no delivery system for these "Weapons of Mass Destruction." NONE WHAT SO EVER! One lie on top of the other!
  • Correction Saddam Osama offered his fighters to attack Iraq
  • *serves tea and crumpets for everyone* Ah, some 玄米茶 for gomichild!
  • he opened his doors to prove that, he opened them wide. I think that's being rather generous. But I'm a revisionist, as you say. Yes you are. Lets look at the freedom they were granted. they would wake up in the morning, not knowing where they were going, and they would hop in their car and go wherever the hell they were told to go, absolute free reign in the country. I wonder if the US would grant the UN those rights to inspect our chemical weapon stockpiles? And we have a lot! I mean seriously they were given unimpeded access to the country. Prior to this, after the Gulf War, yes Saddam did have some sort of issue with inspectors, but this was years before the current invasion.
  • Having already conceded, yet without caring enough to wade through the Mofi archives to find the post where I addressed this very topic and point, and observing that it doesn't matter even in the slightest little bit anymore, I respectfully disagree.
  • *doffs hat to Fes the Civilized*
  • Having already conceded, yet without caring enough to wade through the Mofi archives to find the post where I addressed this very topic and point, and observing that it doesn't matter even in the slightest little bit anymore, I respectfully disagree. I am sorry this bugs the hell out of me. With 50,000 confirmed civilians killed and hundreds of thousands in general killed, not to mention the hundreds of thousands maimed in this war, with no end in sight, my civility is thrown out the window. This war wasn't civilized, and those that advocated it bore the guise of civility over their barbarous nature. This war was barbarous, and disgusting. I am sorry if my tone is not "civil." I would rather be indignant. As for you "not caring enough," I am sorry to bore you with the growing numbers of dead people, which the administration you support caused. I had an entire rant after this going into detail covering the nature from which your ideology stems, but decided not to go there because MoFi would find it offensive and it is too much of a leap for many to take. As I said before this country will take everything from us, and most will accept it. As much as I love the internet meme, and the light hearted garbage that goes on here, I know people like Fes will watch people like me go to jail, with a shake of the head, mumbling "he just didn't understand."
  • You are not alone glamajamma. On with the show!
  • Is part of the dilemma that we didn't supply NK with the WMDs in the first place and so we were cut out of the action? In terms of realpolitick, NK has zero street cred. They have nothing anyone really wants, they have no means of really getting anything anyone wants. All they really have is a weapon capable of making the price of taking them out much more costly. So as long as they're not too much of a pain in the ass (which, yes, they are) they can get away with it. Sharp contrast with Iraq.
  • Perhaps if more people were civil and less willing to toss cordiality and politeness by the wayside in service of touting their political opinions for the benefit of their little mutual admiration societies, and make accusations about others, their beliefs and what sort of political thought they support that are untrue, unfair and insulting - if more people were a bit more solicitous to their fellows, as opposed to assuming they have some divine pipeline of truth that dissolves their responsibility to not be a dick - then perhaps we wouldn't be having this pitiful, shrilly impotent excuse for a "conversation" at all. Again. Ad infinitum. I'm going to take a walk for a few weeks and remind myself the utter futility and masochism of my participating in these sorts of threads.
  • So... how 'bout that North Korea, eh?
  • It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.
  • So... how 'bout that North Korea, eh? Whoah, indeed. It didn't occur to me when I posted that this would turn out this way. I guess it's down to perspectives and mine is more Asia-centric. It wouldn't occur to me to compare the situations between North Korea and their current activities and the situation in Iraq - unless the theory you have would be that NK is making noise at the US specifically and citing the Iraq situation as the main reason they fear US military power. I realize that Kim Jong Il isn't playing with a full deck of cards - but I have been unable to reason out why they are taking this position. I have been unable (even with the power of the firc) to find decent statistics on how much aid various countries have given of late, but it is suggested that China, South Korea and Japan have given a considerable amount, and those 3 countries are also among the most significant trading partners. Although the US has made considerable aid contributions to North Korea, the country has been propped up by its neighbours. Missile testing and the threat of nuclear testing has alienated NK from the very countries which have been trying to improve relations and which essentially have been trying to make sure that the country doesn't wipe itself out. I fail to understand what NK hopes to achieve with this tactic. I don't think it can be easily explained with that they want more aid from the US so they are making a "fuss".
  • It's funny how Lord Foetus turns up in these threads to play cheerleader to glammajamma. Special friends? Sock puppet?
  • It's funny how tracicle turns up in these threads to discuss banning someone or deleting posts. Barnacle-encrusted giant squid with ten limbs? Monster of endless horror that dwells beneath the oily waves?
  • Yikes! Bannicles!
  • Come back soon, Festus.
  • He's run off again? I told you to shut the gate! *sigh* now he'll ruin his good shoes. FWIW though, although I think it's worth making the point that Bush's lying-through-his-teeth run up to invading Iraq was in heavy contrast to his administration's position on NK (I doubt he himself could find it on a map), I agree that this thread shouldn't have been strictly about Iraq, and that these recent nookyular tests are very odd, even if your local dictator is not the most well-adjusted fellow. What is the closest thing to an international community telling a given country to just grow up? Sanctions? Should the US and Japan just tell China to go for it and take 'em out on their dime? The analogy is that this kid keeps bringing a gun to school. What are we gonna do about it? The role of "we" in tonights performance will be played by members of the international community
  • The role of "we" in tonights performance will be played by members of the international community NK can longer trust "we" because the US has already shown how it disregards "we." Iraq is pertinent for due to the following, first Bush named three countries as the "Axis of Evil," Iraq, Iran and North Korea. He has already invaded one of those countries. Second there have been rumblings of invading Iran. Rove prior to Bush's election into office said he would have to decide on if he should invade Iran or Syria after Iraq. NK is the only other country on that list. You are being threatened by the most powerful army on the planet. Nuclear Missiles make armies irrelevant. This is all very cut and dry.
  • Which part?
  • I'm wondering if Kim-Jong-Il is going to sell tickets. Will this be an aboveground or below-ground display? Can I expect some nice auroral effects? I hate to be pollyanish, but as long as we are maintaining nuclear stockpiles, allowing our allies to maintain nuclear stockpiles, Iran and North Korea have every right to feel threatened by us. And this is regardless of how you feel about the merits of democracies vs. isolationist dictatorships. These countries at some level want to protect themselves and are taking the shortest path to it. If you don't like it, we should in cooperation with the rest of the free world, abolish all our nukes, and be prepared to, with the entire international community, not just the hypocritical United States, move en mass with extreme predjudice to disarm anyone who ever develops another of these devices. This is the only way to handle this situation without being abject hypocrites.
  • I also feel that China, Japan and S. Korea have much more interest in a non-nuclear NK than we do, and we should support them instead of taking it personal that NK is developing nukes. We can annhilate that tiny country 20 minutes from the moment they launch something towards us on a ballistic trajectory. Mutually Assured Destruction. We just don't like losing the leverage of our conventional forces.
  • “I'm going to take a walk for a few weeks and remind myself the utter futility and masochism of my participating in these sorts of threads.” - posted by Fes I thought your politeness was exemplary. I would point out two things that would probably have made your life easier however. First - in a concession you generally acknowlege defeat or even concur with a given point. In the sense you used it, you simply didn’t want to argue about it, which is more of a dismissal (I don’t mean that perjoratively of course). You simply didn’t want to argue the point vs. acknowleging whatever aspect of the issue or point is indefensible. Secondly - after making that concession, you continued to disagree. In essence infering that although you were right - or in whatever case not wrong - you didn’t wish to acknowlege other arguments. That is rude. However, given your tone, I suspect you did not mean to be (unless you’re passive aggressive, and I haven’t had the time or experiance to form any opinion on that whatsoever) but that’s how it looked to me as a somewhat neutral observer. Somewhat neutral since I was interested in any rebuttle you might have had to some counter arguments. Certainly it went far afield and certainly it is a complex issue - but I suspect making that point rather than asserting in essence ‘we cannot come to some common ground so why try’ sort of position would have saved you some grief. There are indeed clear facts and certain evidence in any discussion on Iraq and policy decisions concerning Iraq that are irrefutable despite one’s political stance. Certainly individuals of whatever political spectrum have their perspectives colored by that focus, but while there may be excellent and cogent within one’s own reasoning - without expressing that reasoning, no one is given the chance to compare it to what we all know or our own thinking or what have you and are thus forced to refute policies and positions held by the administration. Policies which - albeit certainly in retrospect - are quite obviously flawed and perhaps much more. Certainly that is all debatable, but then that’s why were here - to examine our reasoning in the light of other perspectives and grow in the re-onsideration accordingly. Boy that Kim Jong Il is a bastard tho. Isn’t he? South Korea sent him some cement and food and such. He’s like the crazy guy with a knife on the subway that’s not worth taking down because he’s not robbing you, but asking for change. “GUDammit gimme FORTY CENTS!!! Grrrr!” “Uh, I’ve got a dollar...here’s a dollar...” “Need FORTY CENTS for a Buh GMAC! Dogs!” “Ok, I’ll just leave it here ok? Bye.”
  • You simply didn’t want to argue the point vs. acknowleging whatever aspect of the issue or point is indefensible. Not to speak for someone who is quite capable of speaking for his bad self, but if I read it right, Fes was just saying he didn't want to argue the point again, and we have before . . in some other thread . . or, more likely, several. I'm pretty sure I disagree with Fes' arguments Re: Iraq & WMD, but I'm also pretty sure he's made them before and it does get pretty tiring finding the same links and tapping out the same lengthy rebuttals, etc., that one has made before. In short, I hear you saying you want Fes to make his case Smedleyman, and I'd like to see it again too, but he doesn't want to so, y'know, okay. Besides, glama's arguments are bombastic and hardcore and his butt smells and he likes to smell his own butt. Maybe I can find the ol' "Iraq and WMD" thread (or one of 'em anyway). If whomever posted the FPP set it up right it should be easily searchable.
  • For what it's worth, I agree with most of what Fes said in this thread. Believe it or not, people, it is possible to simultaneously disagree with Bush's policies and think Hussein was an evil tyrant (or even Kim, for that matter, since this was once a thread about North Korea). But before I become the new punching bag for the less-hinged among us, I'll just pin on this BUSH IS HITLER button and melt into the crowd...or walk a while with Fes.
  • It's funny how Lord Foetus turns up in these threads to play cheerleader to glammajamma. Special friends? Sock puppet? You belittle your own creation, and you, Mrs. all-powerful, probably know more of glamajamma than I. This website is a wondrous place to be. The fact that I don't comment frequently [or by chance comment in a thread where mr. jamma happens to comment] should not be held against me. Go ahead and mock! I, Lord Foetus, am not your sock. Hold a grudge do we? On with the show [what is left of it]!
  • rocket88, however, is a right bastard and should be chewed to tiny bits by evil dwarves.
  • U.S. warns North Korea against nuclear test WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. envoy to stalled North Korea nuclear talks says the United States will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea and has warned Pyongyang not to test a nuclear weapon. "We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea," Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill told the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University Wednesday. "We are not going to accept it." North Korea "can have a future, or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both," Hill said. Now I remember how the whole "Iraq and WMD" thing came up. By invading when and how we did, we shot ourselves in the foot when it comes to negotiating - or crotch-grabbing threats, or whatever this is - with other countries, specifically wacky-leader, WMD-havin' countries. (Pot to kettle, come in kettle) Speaking to lawmakers, Yu said such a North Korean nuclear test "could provide a pretext for Japan's nuclear armament." It would seem the Iraq adventure has made all the rest of foreign diplomacy very, very difficult. I'd say that Bush weighed that in his decision making, but I don't believe for a second that he did. This is one specific reason why invading Iraq with the flimsy slapped-together "evidence" Bush & Co. put together was a bad idea at the very least. So Kim wants to shake his nookyular phallus and shout, but he's not in a vacuum. It'll be interesting to see what this US administration that so badly screwed up in Iraq will do here.
  • “In short, I hear you saying you want Fes to make his case Smedleyman, and I'd like to see it again too, but he doesn't want to so, y'know, okay.” Which is what I said. Concession /= not wanting to make your case. Perfectly fine if he doesn’t want to. But he hasn’t conceded the point, and additionally - whether forced or fair or not - continued to somewhat defend the issue, not the fact that he didn’t want to make the case. So - just pointing out that by his own admission it was causing him grief - and that grief could have been avoided had stuck to one of the other. I think he otherwise handled himself well. And I agree that there was some acrimony directed at him. My dispute was with the idea Fes put forth that debate is pointless which seemed to result from getting drawn into further discussion on the issue rather than simply reiterating his desire not to get dragged into it. Other folks’ positions in the matter are fairly clear so I didn’t feel it necessary to comment on them. To me - more the merrier and the more diverse opinions, the better, whether I vehimently disagree with them or wholeheartedly endorse them.
  • So... how 'bout that- aw, screw it.
  • So who thought when Bush used the phrase "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union address it was a good thing? Okay, Toby Keith and who else?
  • What Mord said. China, Japan and South Korea should be the dudes carrying the ball on this one. Come to think of it, the US should pull its troops out of South Korea and Japan as well. These folks are growed up now, they should really look after themselves.
  • Possibly it's more a case that they maintain bases to have good positions for their military in the Asia region, rather than looking after the countries in which these bases are.
  • Is Fes back from his walk yet?
  • Last visit: 11:20PM on October 17 Looks like's he's peeking in on occasion. I see him online on IM occasionaly, perhaps I'll drop him a line...
  • Just to cheer myself up in the light of the way things are going, I watched The War Game on DVD the other day. It had a short extra item about the controversy it sparked, and I was horrified to hear the BFI commentator repeatedly using the word "nyoo-kyoolar".
  • He told me he was out for good, although I'd like to think he'll let his monkey curiosity drag him back to a thread or two.
  • Out for good? That's too bad...he'll be missed. I understand his sentiments about the ugly and personal nature of political discourse here, but I hope he changes his mind. Someone start a men's fashion thread, quick!
  • I sent Fes an email yesterday, but no reply as-of-yet. He hasn't been online as well (which in the past, he appeared to be online daily). Anway, I too hope he isn't out for good. We may not have been in agreement regarding a lot of political issues, but I, for one, refuse to base friendship on politics, religion, etc. etc... I always appreciated his intelligent and insightful dynamic to this community. Here's to hoping that there will be more of it after a break from this place...
  • Sartorial George: When I wear my black suit with my tan sneakers, should my socks be blue or white? That aughta do it...
  • I expect he'll pop up after the World Serious. I just hope he comments and sticks around.
  • That was classic (the sneakers/socks/slacks bit). I haven't been able to look at them the same since.
  • FYI - I received a very nice email from Fes. I'm confident we haven't heard the last from him. Indeed, he seems to have quite a lot going on in his life now, and a vacation from our poo-flinging community is probably for the best. *cues rocket to post a gym shoes Curious George thread in the new year*
  • Well we are safe from being bombed at the moment seeing as how Kim's son keeps popping over here to visit his favourite hostess bars..... This is freakier than you might imagine. Media crews follow him around constantly when he is here filming his every move. He will only speak in English and refuses to answer any questions. Even weirder is that we are shown all this footage of him saying "No comment"...
  • mmm cheap weapons.
  • They gotta buddy up with someone else in this world I guess. Now they've eaten the bunnies and destroyed their relationship with Germany
  • Around here it's suspected there's a whole Weekend at Bernies scenario being played out.
  • *bites tongue*