Total Pageviews

Monday, December 18, 2006

Six Party Talks Dec 06


I once had a boss who insisted that it was a scientific fact that if four or more men got together to talk, within five minutes the conversation would turn to one of three topics; women, booze or bodily functions. I can assure you that yours truly, C.O. Jones has tested that hypotheses on an occasion or two. I found that it is accurate 99% of the time, the other one percent of the time one or more of the four men’s wives were within ear shot so I couldn’t accurately test the theory.

So what the heck does that have to do with the Six Party talks in Beijing to solve the North Korean Nuclear issue? Based on the above mentioned theory the talks will fail to accomplish the desired result, that is North Korea will abandon its nuclear program. Let me explain.

There are more than four men together to talk about something?
They have talked more than five minutes.
They are in the most populous country in the world. So you know there is a lot of “you know what” going on there. (WOMEN)
It’s friggin cold there, the men don’t have their wives with them, there is a lot of “you know what going on soooo they are drinkin. (BOOZE)
There is a lot of “you know what” goin on, they are drinkin, they are eating a lot of strange food with pencils. You know the bodily functions ain’t workin like clock work if ya know what I mean. In China they have the hardest damm squatting toilets in the world, and half the time there aint no paper in the bath room. These guys are talking about the size of the well……turds in the bunch bowl to be honest. (BODILY FUNCTIONS)
Their wives are not within earshot.

So this group of diplomats are off in Beijing spending other peoples money to solve a big problem and all they end up doing is a bunch of goofing off.

Trust me the theory will work in this case. The talks will be a failure, bank on it.

Oh yea I almost forgot, the North Koreans are liars. I heard one of them say he had a “double wrapper in the bowl last night.” You know that ain’t possible.

C.O.Jones

No comments: