i just gets more and more confused: just listening to MSNBC and an "un-named pentagon spokesman" say we cant give the UN inspectors real smoking gun information because that would give away essential "targeting" information. Using what little logic i have leads me to thing that if we give away "targeting" information to the inspectors-they find/not find said targets, then there is no need for the targeting information anyway.
Does that mean they know where the mysterious cannisters of Anthrax are? They're planning on blowing them up? If they're near populations, why noT blow them up now? Ditto any gases in cannisters. Spreading all of that into the air at once would be be a comeuppance for sure. Wahoo!
Heck, I thought we stopped playing those games; I've got a secret, but I can't tell anybody.
c.i.
Welcome to the new old regime.
Meanwhile back in Blighty, the firefighters have gone on strike (again). So British troops will be undermanned in Iraq because at least 19000 will have to be retained to fight fires at home. If we can't put up proper battle field strength, we won't fight. If Britain doesn't fight, its doubtful that America will go it alone. So Bush may not get his war after all, courtesy of militant left winger Andy Gilchrist, leader of the striking British firemen.
If you have any messages you would like me to pass on to Mr Gilchrist, I would be pleased to do so.
Tell Mr. Gilchrist that we are much relieved that he and his cohorts were not in New York a year ago in September.
...and that given the shortage of available man-power for a cause so compelling as that which Prime Minister Blair and cabinet justifiably support, that he might suggest to these brave and noble fellows that they personally volunteer to saddle up and ride that first exciting wave into Baghdad, their Mercedes' already equipped with bullet proof glass for protection and sherry for sustenance.
The firefighters strike here is a bloody disgrace. The demanded a 40% increase (inflation 2.5%) with no strings, then walked out.
They demand professional status but leave people to bleed to death trapped in car smashes. (They wont allow Army personnel to use their kit)
They are not badly paid as it is (compared to many public service workers) and work a shift pattern that leaves them free 5 days in 8 to pursue hobbies or, most likely another job. (Like the lads roofing my neighbours house).
We can't get enough teachers doctors nurses. There are 30 applicants to every fire job. They retire at .... oh I'm not going to bore you with the details.
They don't realise how bloody lucky they are, meanwhile the Army are putting out fires on 2/3 or less their money.
Blatham you have the right idea. A suggestion that they do a little mine clearing in Iraq while Army people fight fires, would get them back to work quicker than they can pull on their rubber trousers.
UN to fly US spy planes over Iraq.
Rumsfeld says in the article that he understands why there are some who still don't understand why America should fight Iraq.
Is there anyone who believes it will be very clear, once the classified intel is released to the public?
I do.
Lash LaRue,
I hope so too. Let's not hold our breath. The reasons for actively engaging Saddam, and the DPRK, are not simple and clear. There are a whole range of reasons that a hard line must be taken. Perhaps no single reason will suffice to justify action, but the totality of reasons may be compelling. Those who try to explain may not communicate well, or in a manner that will convince the doubters who have already made up their minds. Every policy decision has multiple impacts, some obvious and others less so. Even if the direct and most obvious impact from a policy is clearly faulted, that doesn't necessarily mean that less obvious and remote impacts might not justify the decision anyway. I give up a knight to a pawn. Now that looks bad, right? What my opponent doesn't see is that four moves from now, I will achieve checkmate as a result. Foriegn policy is more complicated than chess.
Bottom line? Perhaps everyone will sigh and say, "Amen!", but probably not. Those who are convinced that Bush, the Republicans, the Conservatives, et. al., are either stupid or evil, or both will never be convinced of the necessity to stand firm against folks like Saddam and Kim.
I haven't read the link but suspect that if US spy planes fly under the UN umbrella it is a move that might be an attempt to bait Sadaam into calling the inspectors spies and not cooperating.
If he thinks the war is not only inevitable but aided by the inspectors (a position that is right along Sadaam's lines) he might crack.
Craven, The time Saddam will crack is when our troops begin the war. c.i.
Hmm, you just inspired a question c.i. (I'll post it in a new topic).
Anywho, what I meant is that he might do something dumb (like call 'em spies and kick 'em out) and jumpstart the war.
I agree Craven, he will make the mistake eventually, or Bush will! I hope for American's sake (the real people) that Saddam does the dumb thing!
If the UN inspectors stay in Iraq for many years, Saddam is bound to crack, or the inspectors will eventually find 'something.' He losses both ways, unless GW shoots his foot first.
Drop bombs lash now before the truth is know know!
What makes you think I want to drop bombs?
And the truth is know know?
You seem as though you don't want to know know the truth.
You take offense to me because I reported the news?
Well, get under the covers, alot of truth is going to be coming at you from Baghdad, and the press.
Yellow journalism is a trait of the right!
You been listening to Rush again?
