![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
headline of the day
Nov. 25th, 2003 03:30 pmWorld growing hungrier, says UN. I can't help but think of jsam's red meat strip.
let's go hunting WABBITS!
Sep. 17th, 2003 10:23 amI'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?
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?
well, it looked authentic...
Mar. 8th, 2003 10:59 pmWashington Post article in which the UN discover some of the proof of Iraq's nuclear weapons intentions is forged, and in which an unnamed US official says, "we fell for it". Interestingly, given the tone/bias/orientation/whatever of the article, they maintain the myth that the last UN inspectors were forced out of Iraq. They weren't; they left on the grounds that they weren't getting the cooperation they needed. But they left of their own choice; they weren't made to leave.
I just found list of UNSC Resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than Iraq (via Metafilter). You'll note a strong Turkish presence. Also highly featured is Israel. And Hey, India/Pakistan get a look in for - guess what - those good old "weapons of mass destruction". Now can we stop pretending that this business with Iraq isn't about oil and local influence in the Middle East?
