Correct in bold.
THURSDAY
packers over LIONS
COWBOYS over raiders
giants over BRONCOS
SUNDAY
FALCONS over buccaneers
dolphins over BILLS
EAGLES over redskins
RAMS over seahawks
JETS over panthers
BENGALS over browns
TEXANS over colts
CHARGERS over chiefs
49ERS over jaguars
VIKINGS over bears
TITANS over cardinals
RAVENS over steelers
MONDAY
patriots over SAINTS
This week: 11-5
Last week: 12-4
Season: 118-58
vs. ESPN experts
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Week 12 NFL picks
THURSDAY
packers over LIONS
COWBOYS over raiders
SUNDAY
giants over BRONCOS
FALCONS over buccaneers
dolphins over BILLS
EAGLES over redskins
RAMS over seahawks
JETS over panthers
BENGALS over browns
TEXANS over colts
CHARGERS over chiefs
49ERS over jaguars
VIKINGS over bears
TITANS over cardinals
RAVENS over steelers
MONDAY
patriots over SAINTS
packers over LIONS
COWBOYS over raiders
SUNDAY
giants over BRONCOS
FALCONS over buccaneers
dolphins over BILLS
EAGLES over redskins
RAMS over seahawks
JETS over panthers
BENGALS over browns
TEXANS over colts
CHARGERS over chiefs
49ERS over jaguars
VIKINGS over bears
TITANS over cardinals
RAVENS over steelers
MONDAY
patriots over SAINTS
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
In other news, we will be in Afghanistan forever, Part 2
Hang on, I'm not finished trashing this purported new White House plan to throw another 34,000 troops at Afghanistan yet. And let me say here and now that my heart goes out to our soldiers who will have to fight in a war that has become ethnically entrenched and thus will be basically impossible to end. I really mean that. It's going to be a long haul in a faraway place for these brave young men and women. There. Now, anyone who says I don't "support the troops" can go fuck themselves.
Now, here's a good article from the Christian Science Monitor on what the plan will most likely entail. It'll have several points, which I'll take in turn.
Plan: More troops, to engage in combat missions and train the Afghan forces.
Possible problems: It costs tens of billions of dollars a year. Troop deaths will spike. The Taliban only have about 10,000 fighters anyway, so what makes them tick is that they've united the Pashtuns who feel largely left out of the new government. Throwing more forces at an occupation already 8 years old and counting is probably not going to win a lot of hearts and minds.
Plan: More civilians.
Possible Problems: According to CSM, there won't be enough of them because we're short on civilian experts for this sort of thing. Second, how do you go about building infrastructure in the second-most-corrupt country on Earth?
Plan: More Afghan National Security Forces.
Possible Problems: 400,000 security forces? How do we stop them from being clan-aligned? (We can't.) If we're training Hazara security forces to patrol Taliban regions, as we've done in the past, this is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. Since Afghanistan is so corrupt, who's to say that these guys won't exploit their position, as security forces nearly always do in lawless regions? And really, 400,000? That's 1.5% of Afghanistan's population. As far as standing armies go, this is getting into North Korea territory. I pity the day when the international community gets tired of paying these guys.
Plan: Deals with the Taliban.
Possible Problems: Probably the best part of this plan, though unlikely to work on ethnonationalistic grounds. For example, when the Sunnis aligned themselves with the United States in Iraq, they did so because they were being slaughtered by foreigners (AQI) in their own regions and by ruthless Shiite militias everywhere else. They fought a civil war and lost, and were facing political annihilation. (Sidenote: They still face this, which is why I don't think the surge did very much but delay the inevitable by a couple years at a huge expenditure.) The footsoldiers of the Taliban who are aligned for tribal reasons are pinched by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the Punjab-controlled government in Pakistan. They would be much more likely to throw in the towel if they were facing a crushing defeat at the hands of someone who didn't give a damn about human rights or international law, like the Iraqi Shiite militias or the Sri Lankan military. To put it mildly, I'm skeptical they'll swing, but I'm glad Obama's plan at least calls for trying.
Plan: More NATO contributions.
Possible Problems: Yeah, Britain's announced it's sending 500 more troops, but they're doing so against the will of their own people.
And mind you, this war is not exactly popular in, say, Germany either.
The problem here is that nobody really knows what to do, and the only real counter-argument to the McChrystal plan in policy circles right now is Joe Biden's airstrike-based counterterrorism argument. Targeted airstrikes do sometimes kill bad guys, but they also nearly always hit innocent civilians and pretty much never increase security. I think Biden's plan might actually be worse than McChrystal's plan.
As I've said, I don't think there is a good option in Afghanistan — that's probably why this policy review has taken so long — and with that in mind I'm for the option that doesn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars and get a lot of Americans killed before ultimately leaving us pretty much where we are now, except slightly more hated.
Now, here's a good article from the Christian Science Monitor on what the plan will most likely entail. It'll have several points, which I'll take in turn.
Plan: More troops, to engage in combat missions and train the Afghan forces.
Possible problems: It costs tens of billions of dollars a year. Troop deaths will spike. The Taliban only have about 10,000 fighters anyway, so what makes them tick is that they've united the Pashtuns who feel largely left out of the new government. Throwing more forces at an occupation already 8 years old and counting is probably not going to win a lot of hearts and minds.
Plan: More civilians.
Possible Problems: According to CSM, there won't be enough of them because we're short on civilian experts for this sort of thing. Second, how do you go about building infrastructure in the second-most-corrupt country on Earth?
Plan: More Afghan National Security Forces.
Possible Problems: 400,000 security forces? How do we stop them from being clan-aligned? (We can't.) If we're training Hazara security forces to patrol Taliban regions, as we've done in the past, this is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. Since Afghanistan is so corrupt, who's to say that these guys won't exploit their position, as security forces nearly always do in lawless regions? And really, 400,000? That's 1.5% of Afghanistan's population. As far as standing armies go, this is getting into North Korea territory. I pity the day when the international community gets tired of paying these guys.
Plan: Deals with the Taliban.
Possible Problems: Probably the best part of this plan, though unlikely to work on ethnonationalistic grounds. For example, when the Sunnis aligned themselves with the United States in Iraq, they did so because they were being slaughtered by foreigners (AQI) in their own regions and by ruthless Shiite militias everywhere else. They fought a civil war and lost, and were facing political annihilation. (Sidenote: They still face this, which is why I don't think the surge did very much but delay the inevitable by a couple years at a huge expenditure.) The footsoldiers of the Taliban who are aligned for tribal reasons are pinched by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the Punjab-controlled government in Pakistan. They would be much more likely to throw in the towel if they were facing a crushing defeat at the hands of someone who didn't give a damn about human rights or international law, like the Iraqi Shiite militias or the Sri Lankan military. To put it mildly, I'm skeptical they'll swing, but I'm glad Obama's plan at least calls for trying.
Plan: More NATO contributions.
Possible Problems: Yeah, Britain's announced it's sending 500 more troops, but they're doing so against the will of their own people.
So far the British military has lost 235 lives in Afghanistan, 98 coming this year alone. The British public is clamoring for an early withdrawal. British officials are beginning to look at exit strategies that could begin as early as next year. With the loss of support of a major ally in the War on Terror may come the necessity to send even more U.S combat forces into Afghanistan.
And mind you, this war is not exactly popular in, say, Germany either.
The problem here is that nobody really knows what to do, and the only real counter-argument to the McChrystal plan in policy circles right now is Joe Biden's airstrike-based counterterrorism argument. Targeted airstrikes do sometimes kill bad guys, but they also nearly always hit innocent civilians and pretty much never increase security. I think Biden's plan might actually be worse than McChrystal's plan.
As I've said, I don't think there is a good option in Afghanistan — that's probably why this policy review has taken so long — and with that in mind I'm for the option that doesn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars and get a lot of Americans killed before ultimately leaving us pretty much where we are now, except slightly more hated.
In other news, we will be in Afghanistan forever
Obama is set to announce an increase of up to 34,000 troops in Afghanistan. There are really no good options in Afghanistan but at least we could have chosen one that won't get as many people killed and cost as much as this will. Some questions to ponder:
1. How will pouring in more foreign troops end the civil war between Pashtuns and the northern tribes? Um, it won't.
2. How will this stabilize Pakistan? Um, it'll probably make Pakistan less stable.
3. How will this strengthen the central government in a country that basically has no central government and hasn't basically forever? Um, it won't.
4. How will it improve Pashtun representation in a government the Pashtuns think has no legitimacy? Um, it won't.
5. How will this solve the problem that we're allied with the country that backs our Pashtun Taliban enemies (Pakistan) and about to buckle down with more sanctions against the country that backs our Northern Alliance friends (Iran)? Um, it won't.
6. How will this improve transparency, infrastructure and livability in a country that's #2 on the world corruption index and #1 on the "sucks to be born there" index? Um, I don't see how it will do that either.
The only decent thing about the plan is that it contains "off-ramps," according to the articles I've read, for when -- ahem, if -- it doesn't work. I suppose that's better than nothing.
1. How will pouring in more foreign troops end the civil war between Pashtuns and the northern tribes? Um, it won't.
2. How will this stabilize Pakistan? Um, it'll probably make Pakistan less stable.
3. How will this strengthen the central government in a country that basically has no central government and hasn't basically forever? Um, it won't.
4. How will it improve Pashtun representation in a government the Pashtuns think has no legitimacy? Um, it won't.
5. How will this solve the problem that we're allied with the country that backs our Pashtun Taliban enemies (Pakistan) and about to buckle down with more sanctions against the country that backs our Northern Alliance friends (Iran)? Um, it won't.
6. How will this improve transparency, infrastructure and livability in a country that's #2 on the world corruption index and #1 on the "sucks to be born there" index? Um, I don't see how it will do that either.
The only decent thing about the plan is that it contains "off-ramps," according to the articles I've read, for when -- ahem, if -- it doesn't work. I suppose that's better than nothing.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sullivan is right on Iran
Andrew Sullivan argues that China and Russia have no real reason to care what happens with the Iranian nuclear programme, since they won't be blamed if Israel strikes Iran with US support and since they have much to gain from economic ties with Iran, especially if the West puts more sanctions on Iranian imports/exports. A good read.
The worst 10-0 team ever
As a huge Colts fan, let me say that I've never felt less confident about a 10-0 start ever. Last week, we needed Bill Belichick's 4th-down gamble to win a game, at home, where we were badly outplayed. (I'm actually am one of the few people who thought it wasn't a terrible decision, mostly because I was totally terrified when they lined up to go for it, which to me says Belichick was on to something.) This week, we needed Joe Flacco to throw a bone-headed pick when Baltimore was well within range for the winning field goal.
Against the Ravens, Peyton Manning threw two picks. Bob Sanders is out (notice how the Indy defense suddenly can't stop the run or the pass when he's hurt), the secondary is ravaged, the running game is nonexistent, the receiving corps is basically Reggie Wayne and a bunch of rookies with a knack for dropping passes in critical games, and we've won our last 4 games by a combined 10 points. Even our kicker is hurt. I have no idea how we beat Baltimore, no idea at all. Also, we've won our last 18 regular season games now... and lost our only playoff game in that stretch, to an 8-8 San Diego team. We've had a Super Bowl-caliber team 4 years running. In 2006, we won it all. The other 3 years, we didn't win a single playoff game, twice losing unconscionably at home. We seem incapable of beating New England, Pittsburgh, or San Diego in the postseason (1-7 against them since 1995, and the one was the '06 AFC Title Game, which required an 18-point comeback against a New England team with an exhausted defense and no wide receivers). In almost any realistic postseason scenario, we'd have to face at least one and probably two of those teams en route to a Super Bowl trip.
So 10-0 or no 10-0, I am not confident about these playoffs. Not at all...
podcast!
For the past three weeks I've taken over management of the Don't Worry About The Government podcast, a fun political podcast in which I and some fellow ne'er-do-wells discuss national and international news, with an eye towards the unusual stories like Hugo Chavez trying to control the weather and L. Paul Bremer taking up landscaping painting the Vermont. A fun time, and I recommend it. Our newest episode is up today.
And you can read all the fun/interesting/depressing stories we cover here.
And you can read all the fun/interesting/depressing stories we cover here.
Somalia and the Death of Responsibility To Protect
So Spain is now offering to lead an EU defense mission to Somalia to protect lives and restore order, prop up the UN-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and fight piracy. The Spanish will also propose an EU conference to "support the Somali peace process and stabilization in that country."
Just a couple of red flags here...
1. What peace process? The TFG is basically one group of tribes, warlords and businessmen allied against another group of tribes, warlords and businessmen that is vastly more powerful. It's an Ethiopia/Uganda-backed proxy government that controls a few blocks of the capital, while the rest of the country is either in chaos or controlled by Eritrea-backed al Shabab and various insurgent groups. (To wit, Uganda, which is on the Security Council, just circulated a draft resolution trying to severely sanction Eritrea for daring to prop up its own allies in the proxy war. Convenient, that.)
2. Every previous Somalia intervention in the past 2 decades has not only failed but backfired and made things worse. The UN is increasingly targeted militarily precisely because it takes part in things like this. And now Spain wants the EU to get involved? Check out this terrific article in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs on how Washington's Somalia strategy is completely wrong-headed and has been for years.
The real problem in Somalia is not a lack of Western intervention, but too much intervention from all concerned. Anyone who wants to throw down a $10 bet on an EU mission accomplishing jacksquat in the Horn of Africa in the next 5 years, please send your money to me. There's a recession on and I could use it.
Just a couple of red flags here...
1. What peace process? The TFG is basically one group of tribes, warlords and businessmen allied against another group of tribes, warlords and businessmen that is vastly more powerful. It's an Ethiopia/Uganda-backed proxy government that controls a few blocks of the capital, while the rest of the country is either in chaos or controlled by Eritrea-backed al Shabab and various insurgent groups. (To wit, Uganda, which is on the Security Council, just circulated a draft resolution trying to severely sanction Eritrea for daring to prop up its own allies in the proxy war. Convenient, that.)
2. Every previous Somalia intervention in the past 2 decades has not only failed but backfired and made things worse. The UN is increasingly targeted militarily precisely because it takes part in things like this. And now Spain wants the EU to get involved? Check out this terrific article in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs on how Washington's Somalia strategy is completely wrong-headed and has been for years.
The real problem in Somalia is not a lack of Western intervention, but too much intervention from all concerned. Anyone who wants to throw down a $10 bet on an EU mission accomplishing jacksquat in the Horn of Africa in the next 5 years, please send your money to me. There's a recession on and I could use it.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Week 11 results
Correct in bold
PANTHERS over dolphins
LIONS over browns
COWBOYS over redskins
PACKERS over 49ers
steelers over CHIEFS
NY GIANTS over falcons
saints over BUCCANEERS
JAGUARS over bills
colts over RAVENS
VIKINGS over seahawks
cardinals over RAMS
PATRIOTS over jets
bengals over RAIDERS
chargers over BRONCOS
BEARS over eagles
titans over TEXANS
This week: 12-4
Last week: 9-6
Season: 107-53
PANTHERS over dolphins
LIONS over browns
COWBOYS over redskins
PACKERS over 49ers
steelers over CHIEFS
NY GIANTS over falcons
saints over BUCCANEERS
JAGUARS over bills
colts over RAVENS
VIKINGS over seahawks
cardinals over RAMS
PATRIOTS over jets
bengals over RAIDERS
chargers over BRONCOS
BEARS over eagles
titans over TEXANS
This week: 12-4
Last week: 9-6
Season: 107-53
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wow! US believes in right to food!
The US is finally joining consensus on the annual General Assembly draft resolution entitled "The Right To Food." Previously, we'd opposed it on some various grounds, such as the fact that Cuba had drafted it, or the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food had said things that bothered us. Perhaps there was a bit of Objectivist thumb-nosing involved as well, if thumb-nosing is even a word. As in, "By golly, those people should have to work for their food! No work, no food! Nyeah."
This position by the US was so abhorrent that even the Marshall Islands, Palau and Israel couldn't vote with us. It was just us by our lonesome.
But no longer! This year, in the UN's Third Committee, the US is joining consensus. That's changed we can believe in!
This position by the US was so abhorrent that even the Marshall Islands, Palau and Israel couldn't vote with us. It was just us by our lonesome.
But no longer! This year, in the UN's Third Committee, the US is joining consensus. That's changed we can believe in!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Week 11 picks
Really, I'm gonna go back to blogging about world politics any day now...
PANTHERS over dolphins
LIONS over browns
COWBOYS over redskins
PACKERS over 49ers
steelers over CHIEFS
NY GIANTS over falcons
saints over BUCCANEERS
JAGUARS over bills
colts over RAVENS
VIKINGS over seahawks
cardinals over RAMS
PATRIOTS over jets
bengals over RAIDERS
chargers over BRONCOS
BEARS over eagles
titans over TEXANS
Last week: 9-6
Season: 95-49
PANTHERS over dolphins
LIONS over browns
COWBOYS over redskins
PACKERS over 49ers
steelers over CHIEFS
NY GIANTS over falcons
saints over BUCCANEERS
JAGUARS over bills
colts over RAVENS
VIKINGS over seahawks
cardinals over RAMS
PATRIOTS over jets
bengals over RAIDERS
chargers over BRONCOS
BEARS over eagles
titans over TEXANS
Last week: 9-6
Season: 95-49
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Week 10 results
falcons over PANTHERS
DOLPHINS over bucs
VIKINGS over lions
JETS over jaguars
STEELERS over bengals
saints over RAMS
TITANS over bills
broncos over REDSKINS
chiefs over RAIDERS
CARDINALS over seahawks
cowboys over PACKERS
CHARGERS over eagles
patriots over COLTS
ravens over BROWNS
This week: 9-6
Season: 95-49
DOLPHINS over bucs
VIKINGS over lions
JETS over jaguars
STEELERS over bengals
saints over RAMS
TITANS over bills
broncos over REDSKINS
chiefs over RAIDERS
CARDINALS over seahawks
cowboys over PACKERS
CHARGERS over eagles
patriots over COLTS
ravens over BROWNS
This week: 9-6
Season: 95-49
Week 10 picks
So I forgot to pick the 49ers-Bears game before it happened. So I'm going to be one short the rest of the season. Here we go:
falcons over PANTHERS
DOLPHINS over bucs
VIKINGS over lions
JETS over jaguars
STEELERS over bengals
saints over RAMS
TITANS over bills
broncos over REDSKINS
chiefs over RAIDERS
CARDINALS over seahawks
cowboys over PACKERS
CHARGERS over eagles
patriots over COLTS
ravens over BROWNS
Last week: 7-6
Season: 86-43
falcons over PANTHERS
DOLPHINS over bucs
VIKINGS over lions
JETS over jaguars
STEELERS over bengals
saints over RAMS
TITANS over bills
broncos over REDSKINS
chiefs over RAIDERS
CARDINALS over seahawks
cowboys over PACKERS
CHARGERS over eagles
patriots over COLTS
ravens over BROWNS
Last week: 7-6
Season: 86-43
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Maliki: I order you not to call me authoritarian!
So, surprisingly, it turns out that Nouri al Maliki is kinda sorta maybe turning into Saddam Hussein. Or so reports The Guardian. And Maliki's response? Well, he's gotten a court to order The Guardian to pay a 100 million dinar fine (that's about 52,000 pounds) for the offending article.
So basically, Maliki's response to a media report about him being authoritarian is to crack down on the media. Well done.
Hilariously, the article is almost sympathetic to Maliki's coming into his own as the new Iraqi dictator. It's like watching a baby grow up. "Oh, look, he's got his own intelligence service!" Oh yeah, here's the offending article on that:
I get tired of saying this, but... we went to war for this?
So basically, Maliki's response to a media report about him being authoritarian is to crack down on the media. Well done.
Hilariously, the article is almost sympathetic to Maliki's coming into his own as the new Iraqi dictator. It's like watching a baby grow up. "Oh, look, he's got his own intelligence service!" Oh yeah, here's the offending article on that:
Any self-respecting Iraqi politician who wants to build his own power base must first establish or acquire his own intelligence service. After a couple of weeks in Baghdad talking to politicians, members of parliament and intelligence officials I came to the conclusion that Iraq has seven separate intelligence units. Or maybe eight. No one could agree on the precise number.
I get tired of saying this, but... we went to war for this?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Week 9 results
FALCONS over redskins
BEARS over cardinals
ravens over BENGALS
COLTS over texans
PATRIOTS over dolphins
PACKERS over bucs
JAGUARS over chiefs
SEAHAWKS over lions
SAINTS over panthers
chargers over GIANTS
NINERS over titans
EAGLES over cowboys
BRONCOS over steelers
This week: 7-6
Last week: 7-6
Season: 86-43
vs. ESPN experts
BEARS over cardinals
ravens over BENGALS
COLTS over texans
PATRIOTS over dolphins
PACKERS over bucs
JAGUARS over chiefs
SEAHAWKS over lions
SAINTS over panthers
chargers over GIANTS
NINERS over titans
EAGLES over cowboys
BRONCOS over steelers
This week: 7-6
Last week: 7-6
Season: 86-43
vs. ESPN experts
Friday, November 6, 2009
another case of extreme Security Council overreach
Today the UN Security Council passed a press statement on the elections in Afghanistan. This statement went far beyond the Council's usual habit of just offering its opinion ("welcomes," "takes note of," "condemns in the strongest possible terms") and instead issued a blanket statement about how the world actually is which is demonstrably false.
See, that's just not true. Of course a terrorist act can do this. In fact, it has. Quite recently.
The correct word, instead of "can," ought to be "should." "No terrorist act should reverse the path towards peace..." Or perhaps, "may." The terrorists "can" reverse peace but they "may" not, because the Council forbids it and condemns it in the strongest possible terms.
"Can," by contrast, is awfully optimistic.
The members of the Council ... reasserted that no terrorist act can reverse the path towards peace, democracy, and reconstruction in Afghanistan.
See, that's just not true. Of course a terrorist act can do this. In fact, it has. Quite recently.
The correct word, instead of "can," ought to be "should." "No terrorist act should reverse the path towards peace..." Or perhaps, "may." The terrorists "can" reverse peace but they "may" not, because the Council forbids it and condemns it in the strongest possible terms.
"Can," by contrast, is awfully optimistic.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Week 9 picks
FALCONS over redskins
BEARS over cardinals
ravens over BENGALS
COLTS over texans
PATRIOTS over dolphins
PACKERS over bucs
JAGUARS over chiefs
SEAHAWKS over lions
SAINTS over panthers
chargers over GIANTS
NINERS over titans
EAGLES over cowboys
BRONCOS over steelers
Last week: 7-6
Season: 79-37
vs. ESPN experts
BEARS over cardinals
ravens over BENGALS
COLTS over texans
PATRIOTS over dolphins
PACKERS over bucs
JAGUARS over chiefs
SEAHAWKS over lions
SAINTS over panthers
chargers over GIANTS
NINERS over titans
EAGLES over cowboys
BRONCOS over steelers
Last week: 7-6
Season: 79-37
vs. ESPN experts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
How a bill becomes a lw, UN human rights style
1. The Human Rights Council asks Justice Richard Goldstone, a respected South African jurist, to write a report on human rights abuses by Operation Cast Lead.
2. Goldstone writes the report and submits it to the Human Rights Council. It says both Israel and Hamas violated international law. It calls on the Secretariat to give the report to the Security Council, and for the Security Council to force Israel and Hamas to investigate their conduct and to refer them to the ICC if they don't.
3. The Human Rights Council, after deliberations, passes a resolution calling on "all relevant bodies" including the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Secretariat to undertake their duties.
4. The Security Council talks about the report for 6 hours and does nothing. The Secretariat pretends nothing has happened.
5. Tomorrow, the General Assembly will vote on a resolution telling the Secretariat to give the report to the Security Council. You know, the report everybody already has.
6. Once told by the GA, which it is somewhat subservient to, the Secretariat will actually give the report to the Security Council.
7. The Security Council will probably talk about the report for another 6 hours and do nothing.
8. The heinous, inhuman crimes of the extremist Hamas terrorist organization/Zionist Apartheid Aggressor Regime will go unpunished.
2. Goldstone writes the report and submits it to the Human Rights Council. It says both Israel and Hamas violated international law. It calls on the Secretariat to give the report to the Security Council, and for the Security Council to force Israel and Hamas to investigate their conduct and to refer them to the ICC if they don't.
3. The Human Rights Council, after deliberations, passes a resolution calling on "all relevant bodies" including the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Secretariat to undertake their duties.
4. The Security Council talks about the report for 6 hours and does nothing. The Secretariat pretends nothing has happened.
5. Tomorrow, the General Assembly will vote on a resolution telling the Secretariat to give the report to the Security Council. You know, the report everybody already has.
6. Once told by the GA, which it is somewhat subservient to, the Secretariat will actually give the report to the Security Council.
7. The Security Council will probably talk about the report for another 6 hours and do nothing.
8. The heinous, inhuman crimes of the extremist Hamas terrorist organization/Zionist Apartheid Aggressor Regime will go unpunished.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Week 8 results
houston over BUFFALO
CHICAGO over cleveland
DALLAS over seattle
DETROIT over st. louis
BALTIMORE over denver
INDIANAPOLIS over san francisco
NY JETS over miami
ny giants over PHILADELPHIA
jacksonville over TENNESSEE
SAN DIEGO over oakland
ARIZONA over carolina
GREEN BAY over minnesota
NEW ORLEANS over atlanta
This week: 7-6
Season: 79-37
vs. ESPN experts
CHICAGO over cleveland
DALLAS over seattle
DETROIT over st. louis
BALTIMORE over denver
INDIANAPOLIS over san francisco
NY JETS over miami
ny giants over PHILADELPHIA
jacksonville over TENNESSEE
SAN DIEGO over oakland
ARIZONA over carolina
GREEN BAY over minnesota
NEW ORLEANS over atlanta
This week: 7-6
Season: 79-37
vs. ESPN experts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)