Gautam wrote:Perception, by saying this, you are insulting thousands of Indians, Turkish, French, German troops which have been providing peace keeping forces for the UN.
Wrong Gautam, I said nothing about "Peace keeping". I think Saddam would want "Muscle" help, not peace keeping. Who would supply that?
Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor
Bush deputy gets $1m from firm with Iraq oil deal
Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html
Osama is. Isn't. The Brits are in. Maybe not. Howard has wide support. Oops. Seymour Hersch is a journalist. Nope, terrorist.
It is a crazy world. Let's take a merciful break from all this and switch over to the some light reading...a breakfast menu!...surely a welcome retreat from the maniacal...
Henceforth, french fries and French toast will no longer be served in the cafeterias of the House of Representatives' three office buildings. Instead, the cafeterias will offer "freedom fries" and "freedom toast." It has been so decreed by Rep. Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican who chairs the committee on House administration. No word yet on whether the House similarly plans to adopt the neologisms "freedom horn," "freedom doors," "freedom kissing," and "freedom tickler."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079975/
An InformationClearingHouse.info Special Report:
UK Expert's Analysis Reveals More Lies and Distortions from US and UK
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2053.htm
Report Casts Doubt on VX Gas, Drones and Other Claims
Dr. Glen Rangwala is the Cambridge scholar who discovered that the Blair dossier on Iraq was drawn largely from a plagiarized source 10 years old. Dr. Rangwala’s analysis is based on official sources from the US, UK, UNSCOM, IAEA, UNMOVIC, IISS and related.
Ahhh, so if an armed force is drafted for "peace keeping" then surely it must be lacking the "muscle" to fight ??
Sorry guys, been away a short while after posting the OBL flash.
I don't have a link
I heard it like this
I was watching out of the corner of my eye Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics, a BBC daily slot. Right at the end of the programme he was handed a bit of paper, quite literally hot off the press, and read it out. That was approx 12.55, but the Iranian broadcast he said was timed at 12.30 GMT (ok Helen UTC!)
He read out virtually exactly what I posted, (I thought you might want to know) that is Iranian radio is reporting OBL has been captured (presumably alive) in Pakistan.
BUT when I listened to the scheduled 1300 BBC news, NOT A SQUEAK! Perhaps someone shouldn't have given Mr Neil that bit of paper?
LOL
blatham-
change your diet:
pommes frittes- they are unhealthy anyway.
Doesn't sound like it happened. However, there was quite a bit of finger waving in the face about not keeping quiet, for as long as possible, about the capture of #3 last week. So, while I am inclined not to believe the Iranian report (how would they be the first to know, anyway), there is a crack still open of doubt.
Gautam
Ahhh, so if an armed force is drafted for "peace keeping" then surely it must be lacking the "muscle" to fight ??
The key word here is "drafted"---Drafted for "Peace Keeping" is one thing-----Drafted for combat is quite another. It seems that countries are very very careful about the exact duties to be performed by their troops and who will be in command.
I suggest you read the UN Charter (Google has it) you will comprehend why they are irrelevant.
Sorry about the editing but I thought it best instead of another post.
And what would it mean, if he was captured? Not much. Same stage but different player. I still have the horrible sinking feeling that this train has left the station.
perception - my problem is with the superior attitude displayed by US and UK. I do not accept them as global policemen. To suggest that only these two countries possess the "muscle" to fight is, and I repeat myself, insulting the brave servicemen of other countries, who have, even in the process of "peace keeping" have laid down their lives for the common good.
And btw, the UN charter no where mentions that US and UK are free to attack a sovereign power to further their own means
I believe it would be huge psychological blow to the world wide terror movement----Bin laden has been their spiritual leader and while he had money he was the financier ( some say his money has been cut off).
His Egyptian physician(supposedly the number two guy) is the brain behind Bin Laden according to Al Queda trackers. The number 3 guy(just captured) was the operational chief. As one expert said----he knew all the franchisees---meaning all the cell leaders.
It will be a further blow is they all see pictures of Bin Laden in handcuffs with out his white turban. If he is killed it's a different ball game. He will be reverred and turned into a saint by all Muslims.
Kara, and you grow more gorgeous as the days progress !!
This is what soldiers do. They lay down their lives for a "common good" that their leaders have determined. The point at issue is how legitimate is any particular country's leaders' determination of the common good?[/quote]
Never doubting that point. The point which I was making to perception is that even if US and UK decide not to support any "military" initiative by the UN - there are other, equally capable, and committed, if not superior, armed forces around the world which will do.
Gautam wrote:
And btw, the UN charter no where mentions that US and UK are free to attack a sovereign power to further their own means
You haven't read it carefully enough.
Damn
Wish I'd kept it to myself. I could have made some money
"In London, the dollar rose briefly against the euro and the Swiss franc, and equity futures in the United States were roiled by the report, originally sourced to an Iranian radio station and picked up by the BBC monitoring service."
Gautam wrote:
Never doubting that point. The point which I was making to perception is that even if US and UK decide not to support any "military" initiative by the UN - there are other, equally capable, and committed, if not superior, armed forces around the world which will do.
Would you care to be a bit more specific about---The other, equally capable, and committed, if not superior, armed forces around the world which will do.-------if there are--- they have been kept a very big secret from the world----maybe you know something the rest of the world does not know----please share it with us.
