there was nice piece in the ny times op-ed section today (well, yesterday if you’re going to get all pedantic and pissy. ok, it was yesterday.happy? are you enjoying this? watching me make a fool out of myself just because it was “”officially”” yesterday? oh, that’s right, there’sa journal entry to write here. and a serious one at that. forgive the distraction. sorry. but you could be a little bit nicer to me and not jump at the chance to humiliate me in public. did you ever think of that? huh? oh, why are we fighting. i hate it when we fight. especially on holidays. oh, that’s right. journal entry. sorry).
a nice piece in the op-ed section about arms-inspections in iraq.
the gist of it was that if arms-inspectors go back in under the same circumstances as after the gulf war, that the arms-inspections will be worthless and that they’ll get the run around as they did before they left iraq.
so the op-ed piece suggested that the arms-inspectors be accompanied by an armed un military presence to ensure that the inspectors don’t get the same run around that they had before.
this seems like a good idea, and probably the only way to ensure effective inspections, and more importantly the only way to avoid war between the u.s and iraq. cos if the u.n insists on business as usual with the arms inspectors then george w. and posse will invade iraq unilaterally and in a heartbeat and at therisk of causing great geo-political damage in the middle east and among our allies.
so send in the inspectors, but give them an armed military consort to make the inspections effective.
makes sense, huh.
that way we get effective inspections and a better chance at avoiding war.
just my 2 cents.
how do you make the ‘cents’ icon with these modern keyboards?
moby