Bush and Blair rodeo
Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the United Nations, has recently stated that Iraq's passive co-operation has been good, [but] pro-active co-operation "has not been forthcoming." Did he just say what I think he said?
I'm assuming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his shoot 'em up rodeo must be extremely bewildered at the fact that the UN inspection teams have yet to find the smoking gun. Britain's definition of pro-active is "We can't find your weapons of mass destruction, so please construct some and point them out to us," should make us more than question their motives.
Here's a hint for Mr. Blair and his buddy Bush: maybe there isn't a smoking gun.
Could that even remotely be a possibility? Not for the Blair/Bush project.
They never intended to give Iraq a fair trial to prove their innocence in the first place. Their motto has always been guilty, regardless of being innocent.
Why else would the United States and Britain begin to amass tens of thousands of soldiers along the Iraqi border? Do you think they're doing it for fun? It costs millions of dollars to organize, equip and transport all those soldiers, yet the UN inspectors have not even published their report. Now, even our very own Minister of Defense, John McCallum, threatened to jump on the Wild Wild West bandwagon.
Hey, don't look glum. Here's the alternative happy ending: the inspectors find nothing in Iraq, the U.S. and Britain are thrilled at the fact that they averted their beneficial war and wasted millions of dollars to transport soldiers and equipment, they pack up their bags and spend millions more sending the boys back home. I'll see you when you wake up.
Software Engineering III