1. Sovereignty's all very well, but there is an International Court of Justice for a reason. The US might remember that it signed a Convention binding itself to said Court and it's one occasion where George W deserves some praise. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/751 0073.stm
(No fancy links in this post)
2. You want an extra clean car? Park it in a swimming pool:

Just make sure you have a crane handy to get it out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/751
(No fancy links in this post)
2. You want an extra clean car? Park it in a swimming pool:

Just make sure you have a crane handy to get it out:

- Mood:
irritated


Comments
Texas still retains the death penalty then, does it? ;-)
You'll be rid of Bush soon, but what you'll have in his place may be as bad or worse because neither candidate has much substance to him from what I've seen. Ah well, neither did George, and we all know how well he turned out.
Staggering, yes? The quote came from this article if you're interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washi
Is that the word outside the US, that neither Obama nor McCain have much to offer? Was Clinton considered the better choice? Inquiring minds want to know.
Btw, thought of you when reading this article today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_
I was reminded of the Swedish case re: the school invitations, i.e., how much intervention into private matters is OK. Although in this case I felt most sorry for the child in question, that she's saddled with such doofus parents. ;)
I was planning to write something about the potential leaders on offer. I don't know if many people share my views, but I do know that many share my views regarding the naivety of US Foreign policy in general. And no, Hilary would definitely NOT have been a better choice.
Obama is on a tour of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Europe at the moment. A tour I have vaguely followed. A lot of what he says shows he's a consummate politician and well up with the rhetoric of the day, but that he is certainly far from a leader who would be able to resolve anything in troubled regions. For instance, and to quote:
"Iraq now needs a political solution."
Meaning what exactly? They need elections - they've had them. They need non-corrupt politicians to take power and stop giving lucrative rebuilding contracts to primarily US firms? Most certainly. What did Obama mean, I think we should be told.
He has also pledged to resume peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. Talks such as these have been arranged many times, but it is never appreciated that the parties can not agree on some fundamental issues so the talks always break down. Why talk further when it is patently obvious that there can only be a solution if there is co-operation between the parties, which there wouldn't be. What I would do is look to the UN to impose sanctions on Israel (the recalcitrant party in the talks) until some compromises are made. This will never happen due to the strength of the Israeli political lobby in the US.
The UN should be respected more than it is.
The list could go on.
Just who is McCain? The media is focussing so much on Obama that he's a bit of an unknown quantity. All I've found out so far is that he's a bit of a philanderer who treated his first wife like a pile of vomit. When I've heard snippets of his speeches it could just as well be George talking. Isn't he trying to distance himself from George, because he should be. Unless George is popular there in the US, and I don't think that's the case.
The world needs a visionary in the White House and we'll have to wait for some time before we get one methinks.
Sorry if this seems like a rant, which it sort of is, but I do care for the world.