hidden treasures
Geez, I go out to pay a few bills during lunch and when I come back, Saddam has nuclear warheads.
"The evidence is mounting, and while inspectors went in with a stiff upper lip it is now more clear by the day that things are not going nearly as well as the public has been led to believe," one official said.
News flash, buddy. A good portion of the public never believed that crap for a minute. In fact, the only ones who did believe that everything was going hunky dory and Mr. Blix would announce soon enough that Saddam is clean and fresh as a summer breeze were the people who think Scott Ritter is a national hero and who hail Michael Moore as their spokesman.
That ain't me, babe.
Another day, another violation. How soon before all those troops that have been sent out already make quick work of Iraq, its foul regime and those who have presented themselves as human shields?
"We try our best to make the inspections effective," Blix said, "so that we can have a peaceful solution." But, he warned, "the other major option, as you know, is the one we've seen taking shape in the form of an armed action against Iraq."
Yes, the inspections are proving to be effective. But not as effective as destroying Saddam's regime will be.
Comments
How soon? Between 12 midnight and 4 A.M. Bagdad time 2 feb.
Posted by: Another unpaid Bill | January 16, 2003 02:12 PM
The comedy troupe known as Martin Sheen and Sharon Crow on Fox tonight.....this makes it more interesting....After this appearence we will vote to disolve the UN (I WISH) and replace it with actors and 'artists' and they will do the inspections and delegations......That will make the world a better place.
Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together and try to love a dictator right now.
Posted by: scot | January 16, 2003 02:42 PM
The article says that the inspectors found 11 "empty chemical warheads." Did I miss the part where it says Saddam has "nuclear warheads"? ducks
Posted by: wKenonymous | January 16, 2003 03:24 PM
Scott Ott should be writing for Saddam...his copy more believeable than what we hear/read in the press.
All the whiney asshole peaceniks demanding proof are not going to be happy campers. Wanna bet they will shift to another equally lame point of contention (for the Iraqi children) in a nanosecond?
Posted by: feste | January 16, 2003 04:04 PM
I believe the Iraqis on this one.
Posted by: blaster | January 16, 2003 07:44 PM
I grow tired of hearing 'violence never solved anything.' I must disagree in the strongest terms---in fact, naked force has solved more problems and stopped more injustices than any other method in history. Economic sanctions are sometimes effective, but only in a limited number of situations. Diplomatic condemnation is completely ignored. Saber rattling is usually ignored as well. But when stick a shotgun up to someone's balls and jack a round into it, that tends to focus your opponent's attention.
Posted by: James P | January 17, 2003 02:37 AM
Did you know that FDR felt tres remorse during WWII knowing that if he stopped Hitler using force he would have saved many lives.....
Posted by: Harry S Truman | January 17, 2003 09:01 AM
Yes, but according to an upcoming anti-war ad, he has no nukes but if we attack him we risk nuclear annihilation from...no nukes?
Posted by: Ken Summers | January 17, 2003 09:23 AM