N. Loreans don't trust Bush, Announce Nukes
 

The statement, considered a definitive policy pronouncement, said that
North Korea is pulling out of the talks after concluding that the second
Bush administration would pursue the "brazen-faced, double-dealing
tactics" of dialogue and "regime change."

- - -

Ahh, yes...Bush diplomacy at its best. Still, the North Koreans are
right - you cannot trust Bush.

They said the same about Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon,
Kennedy, and Eisenhower. They have to have an enemy to rally the people,
and to blame for the poor living conditions so we are it.

Of course they have nukes. Clinton gave them $4 billion to help them get
'em.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:46:52 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:

They have to have an enemy to rally the people,
and to blame for the poor living conditions so we are it.

Hmmm, seems vaguely familiar.

NOYB wrote:
Of course they have nukes. Clinton gave them $4 billion to help them
get
'em.

So, because someone gave them money, you are 100% certain they used
that money for "nukes"? How so?

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Of course they have nukes. Clinton gave them $4 billion to help them
get
'em.

So, because someone gave them money, you are 100% certain they used
that money for "nukes"? How so?



Because the money was ear-marked for energy programs. And the North Koreans
used their "energy programs" to enrich uranium.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Of course they have nukes. Clinton gave them $4 billion to help them
get
'em.

So, because someone gave them money, you are 100% certain they used
that money for "nukes"? How so?



Because the money was ear-marked for energy programs. And the North
Koreans used their "energy programs" to enrich uranium.



Once again asslicker proves why he is "King of the NG idiots"

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Of course they have nukes. Clinton gave them $4 billion to help
them
get
'em.

So, because someone gave them money, you are 100% certain they used
that money for "nukes"? How so?



Because the money was ear-marked for energy programs. And the North
Koreans
used their "energy programs" to enrich uranium.

Hmm, so the money was "ear-marked" for something, means, in your narrow
mind, that it is 100% factual that it was used for ANOTHER purpose????
Whew....

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Of course they have nukes. Clinton gave them $4 billion to help
them
get
'em.

So, because someone gave them money, you are 100% certain they
used
that money for "nukes"? How so?



Because the money was ear-marked for energy programs. And the
North
Koreans used their "energy programs" to enrich uranium.



Once again asslicker proves why he is "King of the NG idiots"

I see you still aren't adult enough to post without childish name
calling, Grow up. Now, do you think, like NOYB, that because North
Korea said that they were going to use the money for a certain thing,
that that means, with 100% accuracy, that they used that money for a
certain OTHER thing???? If so, you are more ignorant than I previously
imagined.

On 10 Feb 2005 09:37:39 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


NOYB wrote:
Of course they have nukes. Clinton gave them $4 billion to help them
get
'em.

So, because someone gave them money, you are 100% certain they used
that money for "nukes"? How so?

Common sense.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes