waider

Ireland v. Israel World Cup Qualifier: The match starts with an English official marking off one quarter of the pitch, giving it to Israelis, supplying their defence with anything they need, while the Irish run around at random, often into each other, and score several goals against themselves. Well, it would have been more entertaining than what actually happened.

So, after 11 minutes, we're two goals up, and everyone's predecting a place in the World Cup Final and the rest of that. Then we give away two very, very, stupid goals - both via fouls, one a free kick and the other a penalty - and spend the rest of the game not scoring. Ireland 2, Israel 2, but on the night I think it's safe to say that Ireland were the losers.

Israel scored bang on the 90 minute mark. We played a second half full of lousy decisions, stupid fouls, and the occasional lucky break ending in nothing. As a result, we'll be fighting for our chance to make the next World Cup. Bloody YAY IRELAND, not.

I'm not clear what the Israeli band did to our national anthem, but it's certianly the most unusual version of it I've heard.

I'm rather surprised I had to go to source for this: gung-ho talk about Syria (search for "Syria") specifically the same charges that are being trotted out all over, viz. WMD programs and sheltering terrorists. Whoopee. All I can say is I'm looking forward to seeing yet another pointless war that leaves the US sufficiently overstretched that, heck, Jim Bob's Two-Bit Terrorist Agency can waltz into 1600 Penn. and have tea with Barb.

The other choice news item this morning is the US' veto of a draft UNSC resolution forbidding Israel from removing Yasser Arafat. You will note it starts out by referencing no less than 7 resolutions which Israel is already disregarding. There are four items on the resolution: stop the violence (undirected, or, directed at both sides of the argument), don't touch Arafat (directed at Israel), and two more-or-less pointless statements that the UNSC supports the ongoing peace efforts and remains "seized of the matter" which I take to mean that they're maintaining an interest. The US' stated reason for vetoing this resolution is that it doesn't condemn terror. What the hell has that got to do with forbidding one nation from attempting to remove the head of another nation?