Wednesday, April 23, 2003


So good of the French to try to convince the Security Council to lift sanctions - a reversal of their prior stance.

Just a question from a simpleton in Texas but - why, on God's green earth, would you continue sanctions against Iraq when the government that made them necessary is gone and the Americans are occupying the country?

The sanctions were put in place to try to get Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions regarding disarmarment. Do they fear that, having gone to war to remove the threat of WMD, the United States would leave the country without finishing the job? Is Hans Blix worried that the Americans won't be thorough enough in their investigations?

First off, France, Germany and Russia were violating the sanctions before the war and agitating for their removal when they thought they could profit by it. To suggest that the Security Council is (or ever was) interested in relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people has now been exposed as the treacherous lie that it always has been.

Second, how are they going to keep the sanctions in place anyway? Without US cooperation sanctions can't work. They can't stop us from selling Iraqi oil and they can't stop the flow of goods in and out of the country. Hell, they won't even be able to stop companies in their own country from trading with free Iraq if it can make them a buck (or a Euro).

So much for healing the rupture between the US and the weasels. Blair never really had much of a chance to convince Bush to alllow a lead role for the UN in reconstruction. But this outrage has hammered the last nail in that coffin.

Bon voyage, asshated weasels. Be sure to pack your sunscreen - it's almost summertime in hell.


I have no clue as to why my page is taking so long to load.

I haven't been messing around with the template or anything.

Blogger is really starting to hack me off.


The Sun Newspaper Online (via Tim Blair) has an opinion about George Galloway (which I happen to share):

THE world has produced some evil, twisted men throughout history. Saddam Hussein is one of them.

Treacherous Labour MP George Galloway is another.

This must come as a suprise to Diane Sawyer who has used him as a source for the opposition viewpoint for the war. I'm sure Phil Donahue is also dissapointed.

But nothing could distort the clear message he delivered in his interview last year with Saddam Hussein for a national Sunday newspaper.

The stomach-churning article made no reference to the callous acts of dismemberment and routine execution carried out under Saddam’s personal orders.

At no point did Galloway ask the tyrant about the torture chambers in the dungeons of Saddam’s palaces.

Or the systematic slaughter, rape and pillaging by his two psychotic sons, Uday and Qusay.

Instead, he remarked about the shy, gentle way Saddam greeted him, eyes downcast in his desert bunker.

The Saddam the Gentle (mass-murdering)Hero to the Iraqi masses.

George Galloway should be in prison. Its one thing to be a blithering idiot and unreconstructed Stalinist - but quite another to be on the payroll of a foreign government (and a hostile one at that) while serving in the British Parliament.

It is incredibly disgusting that this worm has been on television enough that I actually knew who he was when this story broke. How can responsible media types - er, well media types use the opinions of a vile pig like Galloway to illustrate anything?

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=