Biggus And I Discuss World Affairs And Nuts
3:27 PM me: amazing how diplomacy worked with North Korea
too bad we can’t do that anywhere else
Biggus: Indeed.
3:28 PM me: and Bush should get credit for that for the record. I’m into equal time. You saw how I cracked Obama in my post last night
“Gutless”
Biggus: I’m sure if we would only enter into five party talks involving a ginormous and influential power with Iran we could totally make this nuclear thing go away.
me: Russia
3:29 PM China
Biggus: You think Russia and China have pull with Iran?
me: both have vested interests in Iran
Russia does
China only because they buy their oil
3:30 PM Biggus: Yeah, I don’t really see it as the same thing as a looming neighbor.
Who, let’s face it, is the only reason you’re still in power in North Korea.
3:31 PM me: But I think Iran and America have more reasons to talk than we did with that little wormy fucker in Pyongyang
3:32 PM I just wanted to type Pyongyang and I actually spelled it right the first time
Biggus: Perhaps. I just think it unlikely that Ahmadinejad will give over.
Impressive, by the way.
me: Ahmadinejad is not in power in Iran
Biggus: Fine, the mullahs.
me: as you have often pointed out
Biggus: Either way.
3:33 PM me:
Khameneihas show the ability to throw MA under the bus
That’s what I’m calling Ahmadinejad from now on because I don’t want to type it
MA
Biggus: How about “The Mad Iranian”.
It sounds kind of fun.
3:37 PM me: He’s like Chavez, the more tenuous his position, the more he starts the “America sucks” thing because it gets a cheap cheer. It’s like saying, “Saddam sucks” here from 1993-2004
3:38 PM you and I have been through this and I know you disagree, but I think we’d accomplish more by just leaving the fuckers alone
Biggus: But unlike Chavez he doesn’t have to dismantle a somewhat democratic society, since it hasn’t been one, like, ever.
3:39 PM me: I think the youth would eventually win out. Like 65% of Iran is like under 30
Biggus: Actually, to an extent I do agree. I just don’t think that leaving them alone includes allowing them to build a nuclear facility.
3:42 PM me: then what?
3:43 PM they bomb Israel once they have a bomb (and a delivery system and miniaturization)?
Biggus: A bomb would theoretically be sufficient.
me: They would be willing to destroy the third holiest site in Islam?
3:45 PM Biggus: I was thinking more along the lines of Tel Aviv.
|
|
7 minutes |
3:52 PM me: They’re not that far away from one another
Biggus: Far enough that a nuke won’t destroy them both.
3:53 PM me: I think Kim was battier than MA and he sat on his nukes
They want these things as deterrent from being invaded by us
Biggus: Oh, the religious nut is always the nuttier nut.
3:54 PM Iran is the macedamia to North Koreas peanut.
me: What I said earlier aside, if we invaded I could see MA bombing Tel Aviv
Not a cashew?
Biggus: I just made my first ever nut metaphor.
3:55 PM Nah, I’m reserving cashews for the next, slightly less nutty middle eastern state.
Though I think peanuts are not technically nuts.
Loading ...
Ha ha ha! Thanks for letting us eavesdrop. Cashews are my favourite, so I’m curious who will get the distinction.
Biggus, according to Wiki, you are absolutely correct: “The plant’s name combines the morphemes pea and nut, causing some confusion as to the nature of the fruit. Although a nut in the culinary sense, in the botanical sense the fruit of the peanut plant is a woody, indehiscent legume and not a nut. The word pea describes the edible seeds of many other legumes in the Fabaceae family, and in that sense, a peanut is a kind of pea.”
And I also agree completely here: “The religious nut is always the nuttier nut.” Oh, so very true.
I’m leaning towards the Saudis as the cashews of the world, though Mugabe’s regime certainly deserves a nut to call its own. Perhaps Brazil Nuts. I may have to create a table.