Koffing Anus Daily Update
I’ve noted that Israel is “suspected” as having nukes. Until the Clinton/Gore Administration, only two nations wielded Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW’s) (read: Neutron Bomb there): the United States and Israel. But thanks to the DNC/Chinagate scandal, China is now known to possess neutron devices, and several other countries are actively pursuing this technology through this Chinese connection. And this is all old news now.
Interesting, no?
-Dan D,
CanuckistanDo we really care what the Koffing Anus and the rest of the UN have to say about anything? Considering their nomination of Zimbabwe to another 3 year term on the Human Rights Commission (http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2005/fa053_05.htm), is it not clear that the UN is a complete joke and nothing more than a boys club of tin-pot, third world dictators with an anti-American agenda and absolutely no moral compass whatsoever? Fuck these assholes and get them off American soil NOW!!!!!!!!
Note to the UN:
, you bunch of 
eating 
s.
India and Pakistan were very close to war (again) recently. The thought occurred to me that they didn’t actually go to war this time because both of them are now nuclear armed and the risks of escalating a conventional war to a nuclear exchange would be a real possibility that neither was willing to accept. There’d be no victor if they started tossing nukes around, only possible survivors.
Could the fact that both of them are armed with nuclear weapons have prevented them from a conventional war or am I hallucinating on the neon in the air?
I suppose that this is what kept the Cold War mostly cold. Neither side was crazy enough to start anything that could escalate to the point of risking a nuclear exchange. What armed conflicts there were were often fought indirectly or by proxies thus obviating the possibility of a nuclear exchange.
I don’t have any real hopes for sense to prevail with either North Korea, Iran or most of the other wannabe nuclear powers.
Now if we can get Kofi to STFU and go back to Ghana to run a different scam we can deal with the fact that the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty has no consequences to nations that withdraw from the agreement and proceed to proliferate, presenting a danger to their neighbors and the rest of the world.
Why is he addressing Russia and the Western powers when it’s NKorea and Iran that are breaking/ignoring/flouting the treaty and arming themselves? Could it be that he knows they’ll ignore him? Could it be that he doesn’t want to face the REAL problem (again)?
Take the hint, Kofi. Swallow the anchor, pull the pin, ride off into the sunset. You’ve built a fortune in your corruption, go enjoy it and leave the rest of us alone to clean up the mess.
I feel a lot better knowing that he is working on the problem (not.)
If Kofi wants to limit the spread, the obvious course is to limit the spreaders.
Not a lot of oil-for-food money in that, however. I forgot.
Israel - SUSPECTED of having nukes????
Oh, right. Remember Entebbe? I think Dubya is counting on Israel to take care of some things for him - as did Clinton during his stay in the big house.
One thing about the Israelis, they just do not fuck around. Korea farts and the Israelis laugh quietly, adjust themselves, spit… And wait…
Posted by Phoenix
05/02/2005 at 06:46 PM
Who made up the nickname Koffing Anus? It’s funny!
This reminds me of a date I had a while back with some guy I met online who turned out to be a total liberal moonbat. (I’m very careful of that kind of thing now.) For the life of him, he could not comprehend why the US could have nukes and other deadly weapons while rogue states like Iraq could not. If the man wasn’t buying me dinner, I’d have told him to his face that he was an idiot. So I calmly tried explaining that the US is a free country that does not gas and rape its citizens, while Iraq does. Then he went on about how we were in Iraq only for the oil. When I asked him then why we just didn’t take over Iraq or Kuwait’s oil fields, he just couldn’t answer. Oy! This city has far too many moonbats!
You should be ashamed of yourself, Lisa. Exposing a moonbat to reality using the deadly tools of truth, logic and reason is reprehensible. They’re quite delicate, you know.
Hope you got a good dinner out of it.
As much as I love a good sushi dinner, it’s no longer worth it for me to be involved with moonbat men. Now that I think of it, I probably should have nicely explained that I didn’t see a fit. Or maybe I shouldn’t have even agreed to a dinner, but rather, just coffee. The last thing I need is moonbat men on me like static cling. Life is too short.
Good for you, Lisa, and good luck on finding the right sort of chaps.
I-Non-C mentions Zimbabwe. Did you know that Murdering Mad Bob Mugabe apparently has ambitions for a black African atom bomb? Is this the choke-hold he has on Thabo Mbeki, who long since has had the resources and opportunity to put a stop to Murdering Mad Bob’s rigged elections and his use of the starvation weapon?
This would be a real reason for the Outer Limits music that Batty is now playing.
Why bother with a nuclear bomb for Africa. Malthusian Theory is taking care of that poor continent. They’d do well to spend the money trying to refute Malthus than building a bomb.
Posted by Phoenix
05/03/2005 at 11:18 AM
Did anyone else have to go look up Malthusian?
Interesting.
Thanks for the push towards edification, Phoenix.
Phoenix, what does Malthus have to do with Mugabe? Furthermore, does Mugabe represent all of Africa? Let me be clear - I have no lost love or special affectation for Africa, however, I have spent some time there and seen first hand some of the problems in albeit only one small section of the continent.
First, why bother trying to disprove a theory that has yet to be proven? Malthus was a shill for the British aristocracy of the time and wrote his essay as a reactionary piece to the social reform advocacy promoted by Marx and others; in other words, he had an agenda which had very little to do with pure science. Basically, the undertone of the broad overall perspective of his theory was to keep the British working class from reproducing. Malthus was as much a quack on one side of the fence as Marx was on the other. Trying to apply this theory to the people of Zimbabwe seems to suggest that they are the problem, not Mugabe.
There is no lack of land, only land made available to them by the Marxist scum Mugabe. Remember, Rhodesia declared itself independent from Britain twice before 1980 and it was the UN and the “international community” that chose not to recognize those governments, the second of which was headed by a popularly elected Christian bishop. In typical UN fashion (read: inept, corrupt, and misguided), to end the civil war, they and Margie Thatcher’s Britain chose peace at any cost, forcing an “election” that virtually put Mugabe in power. And it is the UN and the international community that keep him there and validate him by putting his nation on the Human Rights Council.
As for Africa in general, most of the problems stem from outside interference and subsequent withdrawl, leaving most of the continent in the hands of a few despots, warlords, and tyrants who do not allow for seasonal migrations of mostly nomadic peoples who have relied on that method of seasonal migration to sustain themselves for thousands of years.
I concur with INC’s brief history of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. Yes Maggie & co badly underestimated the degree of Murdering Mad Bob’s evil. The Foreign Office handed it to him on a plate, and the whites were arm-twisted into going along. ZANU-PF were responsible for 90% of the massacres of civilians, both black and white. Anyone with any common sense would have seen it all on the cards.
If anyone is creating a Hobbesian dystopia, it’s Mugabe. He’s the African Pol Pot.
Malthus was merely the first writer to write about Social Darwinism. Down that road leads eugenics, Fascism, etc.
05/02/2005 at 04:05 PM
05/02/2005 at 04:26 PM
05/03/2005 at 03:25 AM
Next entry: Leon Russell is going strong at 73 Years Old
Previous entry: Minor Little Accounting Error?