Permanently Bewildered17 Dec 2007 09:36 pm
By Nelson
Let’s see according to this report if correct the Iranians gave up their Nuclear program in 2003.
Who was President of the US in 2003?
Why that would be George W Bush.
What was George Bush and America doing in 2003?
Why we were removing the International trouble maker and Dictator Saddaem Hussein and his thugs from power in Iraq.
So now the Iranians no longer needed Nuclear Weapons to protect themselves from Iraq.
Another Victory for George Bush and America making the world safer for all.
Ronald Dubbs, Florida, United States
Can you imagine trying to explain ANYTHING to Ronald Dubbs? You’d have to start every sentence by hitting him in the face with a spade.
27 Responses to “Do You See?”
Yes, but think how enjoyable that would be. The whoosh of the shovel-blade through the air, followed by a good, meaty thwack, THEN you say, ‘No, you’re STILL missing the point, Ron…’
Do you think Ronald has a picture of GWB next to his bed….
Father or son?
Well now, with logic like that I am at a loss to see why anyone would think otherwise.
But then, I am utterly wrong.
Hang on - is it so totally fatuous to suggest that the Iranians could have been reacting to the use of force in Iraq? Is it totally out of the question that they thought “Hmm, Bush is on a crazed mission, we don’t want to be next?” If it is out of the question - why?
I have just emitted a long sigh.
Oli, thank your lucky stars you don’t have a Logitech FaceSpade.
Unlike you, the Iranians understand that Iraq was attacked BECAUSE it had no defense. The US’s illegal invasions result in countries seeking to demonstrate that they CAN defend themselves against American aggression. You’re buying into the risible idea that attacking defenseless countries and bombing them to fuck somehow (even if unintentionally) contributes to world peace.
If Iran understood that “Iraq was attacked because it had no defense”, why would Iran then halt its nuclear weapon programme? (the report found the programme was halted, not that it never existed).
By the way, I think you meant “defence” rather than “defense”. Defence is an Americanism, funnily enough. Sigh.
Curses! What I meant was “Defense is an Americanism, funnily enough.” Wank.
I don’t know why Iran halted it’s nuclear weapon programme. I do know it wasn’t because they wanted to spend the money on icecream, or to prevent the US attacking them. Neither of those things would make much sense.
In fact, it would imply that Iran believed Bush and Blair’s lies that the invasion was about bringing peace or democracy. It would imply that Iran could somehow avoid all this if they’d only stop being so “dangerous”.
Do *you* take the Bush administration at their word? Or are you just being a contrary fucker?
I think you mean “its nuclear” not “it’s nuclear”. Also ice cream is two words.
No, I don’t take the Bush at his word, and yes, I am being a contrary fucker. Sorry.
I just think that Ronald Dubbs’ argument doesn’t deserve to be lampooned as if it was the normal outright fuckwittery you usually feature on here. I don’t see why it’s so outrageous to suggest that a country would stop producing nukes that they don’t really “need” other than for prestige, out of fear of reprisals by the US or UN. I think you’re the one seeing conspiracies for a change.
I think you might be a journalist with that sort of mastery of doublethink.
If you believe Bush/Blair and the whole media propaganda system then, yes, it’s a reasonable point of view. If you think for a few seconds about the REAL reasons that countries get invaded then it’s preposterous.
I think you mean Robert Dubbs’s
Very nearly spot on but dammit if you didn’t put Robert instead of Ronald. This whole comment thread proves that the Karmic Spelling Pixie is really fucking angry today. Perhaps we should let it go for a bit
Wrong. There’s no neeed to add a second s after an s which is followed by an apostrophe. It’s perfectly correct to write Jesus’ watch, or Ronald Dubbs’ opinions. There are certain cases where using s’s is obligatory, but these are only for where it’s a matter of historical customer, such as when you write St James’s (the area in London).
Raise your game (especially if you’re going to run a smug website poking fun at idiots’ poor use of spelling, punctuation and grammar).
Indeed. I try to avoid mocking poor spelling/grammar unless there’s something amusing in there too.
I’m far more interested in the effectiveness of the propaganda we are all subjected to. The sort of thing that leads otherwise intelligent people to be able to say things like “Of course I realise that Iraq was not a threat and it was all lies to get the public behind an unjust war” followed shortly by “I can see why Iran might abandon its nuclear programme in order to avoid being attacked”.
“America making the world safer for all.”
Isn’t America just making the world safer for America? If anyone else feels safer it’s just an unintended side-effect.
Whoosh! Thwack! No, you’re STILL… etc.
Eats shoots and leaves.
Oli, you should bear in mind that when using quotation marks to indicate what someone thought or said you should use a comma before the quote. So, “they thought ‘Hmm, Bush is…’” would become “they thought, ‘Hmm, Bush is…’” Also, I believe full stops should be placed within the quotation marks when the quote is at the end of the sentence.
Frankly, my grammar and punctuation are pitiful but if we’re going to be dicks about this we should at least do it properly. See if you can spot the deliberate mistakes in this post (I have no idea what they are but knowing my luck, they’re in there somewhere).
Oli, you should bear in mind that when using quotation marks to indicate nothing remotely amusing, you’re on the wrong website. You’re turning my joke-sanctuary into some kind of local radio graveyard shift. Maybe you don’t understand, i need this, I’m walking the line here.
Oh, OK, sorry guys. I just thought it was quite amusing picking people up on proper use of “spelling punctuation and grammar” when their website’s raison d’etre is partly to do with picking people up on bad grammar. Come on, doesn’t that make you smile just a little?
There’s a few instances of mistakes in posts and then ensuing comments. It usually raises a brief smirk.
I’m more interested in whether you take the point about your doublethink above? It’s something I see throughout the media and it frames the entire debate on (for example) Iran. The media is (sort of) allowed to talk about having been lied to over Iraq but is required to then take seriously the idea that Iran is actually a threat. It takes real intellectual discipline to pull this off with a straight face.
A blind man walks into Debenhams and stands there, seeming a little confused. Then he picks up his dog by the tail, causing it to yelp, and starts swinging it round his head like a lasoo. The unimpressed manager walks over and asks the man what on earth he thinks he doing to which the man replies, “having a look around”.
Sorry Rogan that one passed me by. Did you get it from inside a christmas cracker? A second hand one perhaps?
So… Is it OK to go to war with Iran or not? I think we should… Where do they get off staying in their own country with their own traditions and stuff? It’s about time we took a flag over there and civilized/civilised them!
It’s disgraceful that these people think it’s OK to prepare a defence/defense/ da-fence against idiots like Ronald Dubbs.
So just to be clear here…. the dog is a lasoo apso?
Oli - actually, Dubbs’ is incorrect. It should be Dubbs’s. Dubbs’ would be referring to a group of Dubbs. Oh fuck it, never mind.