Friday, January 24, 2003

FOREIGN POLICY UPDATE: In a stunning change of White House foreign policy, the United States has decided to "not have enemies" following the insightful comments of singer Sheryl Crow.
NO BLOOD FOR OIL: Thomas Lippman correctly refutes why this is not a war for oil.

The only issue at hand is whether Saddam Hussein is a threat to the Western world. As of now, I would argue no, but he is certainly not complying with UN resolutions and even threatened by death any Iraqi scientists who spoke with the UN outside of Iraq about their past weapons programs.

Very suspicious, no?
"OLD EUROPE" RESPONDS: And they're not happy.

But it's still hilarious.

Thursday, January 23, 2003

-Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, on how he feels about Germany and France not supporting any military action in Iraq.

UNASSUMING BUT HILARIOUS QUOTE OF THE DAY: "As far as we're concerned, war always means failure."
- Jacques Chirac, President of France, on why he is not willing to support a military campaign in Iraq.

How true. War certainly means failure and defeat if you're the French.
INSPIRATIONAL QUOTE OF THE DAY: "With my family, I felt I needed to make it," he says. "No matter what else was happening, every time I stepped on the court, I just did whatever I wanted to do."
- Amare Stoudemire, forward on Phoenix Suns, after being asked how he motivated himself to become the top rookie player in the NBA despite never attending a semester of college and having a family history of drug problems and jail sentences.

Wednesday, January 22, 2003

THE STUPIDITY OF SOME OF THE ANTI-WAR LEFT: I'll repeat, I am against the war myself until there is substantial proof that Saddam Hussein is a true threat to the United States. However, with that said, I will never march in an anti-war protest with some far Left whackos because they're well...just so damn stupid. Rachel Lucas explains it better than I can:

It's one thing to be averse to war and to question the president. It's a different planet altogether to hysterically compare Bush to Hitler and proclaim that Iraq has anything resembling "elections." Remember, if you vote against Saddam, you just might get killed. And it is good to have debate - but these protests, my friend, resemble debate about as much as dog shit resembles a glass of champagne.

I'd say that's about right.
A NEW SUPER BOWL: This is hilarious. And shows how stupid affirmative action really is.

Which reminds me of a question a friend posed to me. Why don't we have Jewish affirmative action in the NBA?!? Jews have been oppressed from basketball since day one!
FRANCE NOT HELPING OUT: Is anyone else surprised by this news?

After all, France has never been supportive of anything the US does and seems to have a visceral hatred of it. While war should certainly be the last option, Andrew Sullivan illustriously explains how a UN veto of a war on Iraq essentially makes the United Nations null and void:

Is this the League of Nations? The answer, I regret to say, is yes. If France, Germany and China succeed in ensuring that the war to disarm Saddam doesn't have the sanction of the United Nations, then the U.N. is effectively dead as a viable international body. It will be shown to be palpably uninterested in ensuring that its own resolutions are enforced. Am I exaggerating? I wish I were. But it seems to me that our European allies' current position is one of spectacular intellectual dishonesty. They declare that the U.N. inspectors merely need more time. How much more time? They don't say. There is no deadline. There is never any deadline. Eleven more months, perhaps? They key premise to this argument is that they are satisfied so far by Saddam's compliance. So let's recap: vast gaps in his declaration to the U.N., discovered plans for a nuclear capacity, chemical warheads found that are unaccounted for, no real interviewing of scientists by U.N. officials. But the French are just pleased as punch. Do they have any proposals to make such inspections actually work? A vast increase in the number of inspectors, perhaps? Nope. Do they intend to support the military pressure on Saddam with their own troops? Nope. Germany has specifically disavowed such a course of action - ever. I'm left with the impression that they don't want to do anything serious, but they don't want anyone else to do anything serious either. Paris and Berlin know full well that the chances of the inspectors actually finding what Saddam has spent so much effort concealing is next to zero. And they also know that by delaying the potential war until the autumn, they will help keep the U.S. economy depressed (investment being crippled by uncertainty) and help the growing appeasement movement gain more strength. By then, war will become an even greater political risk for London and Washington, which is, of course, part of the Europeans' plan. Schroder and Chirac want regime change - in Washington and London, not Baghdad. And they are using every ounce of their diplomatic influence to achieve that. You see? They can get off their butts now and again, if they need to. The time is surely coming, alas, when the U.S. and the U.K. will have to acknowledge that these European powers are now de facto allies of Saddam. Because they sure as hell aren't ours.

He's right. After all, what is the point of making resolutions if they are not going to be enforced. The United Nations is quickly becoming nothing more than a mouthpiece and proving once again that "international law" seems to be a figment of the imagination.