At last! Someone starting to make sense out the Iraq situation

**Blogs are a nice way to practice another language. In this case, Engrish. Go Natsuko!

What a cute! Natsuko has a weblog! Hooday! My name is the Natsuko Murakami! As for me there is from Japan. I who investigate computer programming have lived in Ottawa, Canada. My English still it is not complete and therefore I practiced and began this webpage. The Blogging is large! Enjoy my place!

We five minutes found evidence exactly before!!!

In order to make the Americans for the war for Iraq, he is Mr. Powell the UN is some small-numbered thing which it should place in the mind when you lecture.

The Powell is sent in order to carry the water. As for him it is large: the conscience which gives the impression of the person then he takes that order. That is that role. In play of stage, he ends with respect to the thing where every good human everyone does the thing in other things.

Him: "Being to be before several months, if the Powell is in the team, the people must be correct!" You think!

Certainty, there is a supermarket on the sun. RIGHT!

Evidence of the Iraqi person whom the inspector of the weapon at that time moves, has hidden "the illegal material." Having found, as for the Hans Blix? You insist, it's denied!

He? Not finding the decisive evidence that Mr. Saddam kept accompanying the scientist of the Iraqi weapon to the interview person of escaping from the country, you call the Blix. The Iraqi representative being the scientist of the weapon shaking it denies the Blix. The inspection team of that weapon in addition as for him it denies permeating due to the representative of the Iraqi. The Bush of that state of onion message insisted both request.

After the public has known, if, making the opinion for the Iraqi war has died being the large quantity to be hard, if Whitehouse has died has known the large box which stacked the load, now, him, interest another item, it was soon grasped to the tidbit best the large box which stacked the load dying. The myth of the necessity which stacked the load of the large box which is supported between war of this " terrorism. "

Iraq vs. Monty Python

**A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame.

Sunday January 26, 2003
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden.

That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult.

Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security.

The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?

How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists?

These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say `Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

These Navy "seals" to spot anything fishy in the Persian Gulf

**Real seals are being drafted for special ops work in the event of a war in the Persian Gulf. Via Salon News:

Brought to the Persian Gulf to swim alongside naval vessels and key facilities in this kingdom, Zachary and the other whiskered sea mammals will guard against attack, providing early warning of enemy saboteurs.

``If there is somebody down there who shouldn't be there, the sea lions will find them,'' said Lt. J.G. Josh Frey, a spokesman for the Navy's 5th Fleet.

The need for the stealthy sea lion was highlighted after the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole. The bombing, blamed on al-Qaida, occurred when a seemingly harmless dinghy eased up to the destroyer and blew a hole in its hull, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

A sea lion patrol, had it been there, might not have been able to detect the Cole attackers because they were above the surface, but the bombing demonstrated the vulnerability of navy ships to small-scale assault.

The U.S. military has used intelligent sea creatures for three decades, including dolphins that patrolled Persian Gulf waters during the late 1980s. But it is the first time sea lions are being used in an operation.

Full article: Sea lions deployed to Persian Gulf with U.S. Navy

Byrd: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

**Senator Robert Byrd gave a speech on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 2003. The text of this speech was carried in some form on about 700 Web sites. Here's the first half of it:

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. inten-tions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Full text of speech

What if Saddam cries Uncle?

** Columnist Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune posits Saddam's last chance -- and why he'll likely take it.

President Bush has put a gun to Saddam Hussein's head, and no one doubts that in the near future, he will be happy to pull the trigger. So there is only one other choice left to the Iraqi dictator: capitulation.

No one seems to regard that as a possibility. But judging from his past, it would not be a total surprise to see Hussein choose humiliation and survival over death and glory.
. . .
If Bush is hoping to force Hussein into submission, he's handled this showdown perfectly. But he has to be prepared to take yes for an answer.

Full text of article: In the drive toward war, a last exit

Tom Petty is pissed.

** There's a great interview in Rolling Stone where rocker Tom Petty takes on radio, the record companies, TV and even music artists themselves and demands a firmer moral grounding.

Tom Petty's determined, sometimes defiant attitude has collided with the music business throughout the years. ... That same spirit is alive and well on Petty's latest album, The Last DJ, which takes a hard look at the lack of moral grounding in the music business. The title track has kicked up considerable controversy, with some radio stations seeing the song as a slap in the face and banning it. But Petty is not just biting the hand that feeds him. Music is only the beginning of what's pissing him off these days. "The Last DJ is a story about morals more than the music business," he says. "It's really about vanishing personal freedoms."

Toward an informed and balanced approach to war with Iraq

** The Christian Science Monitor summarizes "without fear or favor" the major pros and cons about the invasion of Iraq."
War against Iraq: questions and answers