Apparently, Tariq Aziz, at a Vatican press conference today, refused to answer a question about missiles by the “Israeli media.” To his credit, a German reporter asked if there’d an answer if he asked it. Reportedly, several reporters walked out, but the Vatican let the conference continue.

Pious XII became known as “Hitler’s Pope.”

It will be a shame, and another blow to the Church, if John Paul becomes known as Saddam’s.

[Update at 3:40 PST]

Here’s the story as reported by ABC. Apparently I was mistaken–it wasn’t at the Vatican–it was at a press club in Rome following a meeting with the Pope. Given the Pope’s position, however, my broader point remains.

I’ve been giving a little (but not much more than that) thought to what comes after the UN, once we give them their walking papers and boot them to Brussels, or Paris, or Lagos.

What we need is an organization of United Free Nations, and this one will have real admission criteria. There’s only one country in the Middle East that would currently qualify (guess which one), though in a few weeks, we may have another one, and much of Africa would be out in the cold. As would China.

France would be allowed in, but if it had a security council, they certainly wouldn’t be on it.

Anyway, I was just doing a little search, and ran across this piece by Barry Farber from a couple years back.

I also found a reference to the concept in a comment to this post last fall by Charles Johnson.

Here’s one more from the International Journal of Social Economics, in 1999.

So, I think it’s time to give this some serious thought.

Comments, anyone?

Or just useful idiocy?

Senator Levin (who every day I’m reminded of his existence makes me ashamed to be from the State of Michigan), has been complaining that we haven’t been sharing our intelligence with the “inspectors.” Here’s an example from a press release on January 9th.

If we prejudge the outcome of inspections or if we don’t furnish the arms inspectors with targeted intelligence, we will not be able to obtain the international support, as represented by a U.N. authorization for the use of force, that is so highly desirable and advantageous to us. Forcibly disarming Iraq without international support would be perceived as a unilateral attack by the United States and a few allies. International support is critical to reducing the short term risks, such as a loss of regional cooperation with resulting increased probability of U.S. casualties, and reduced likelihood of international contributions in a post-conflict environment. International support is also important to reducing long term risks, such as a loss of international cooperation in connection with the war against al Qaeda and increased probability of terrorist attacks against us.

In summary, January 27th is the first interim report. It is not decision day as to whether to attack Iraq. We must not prejudge the outcome of the very inspections process that we worked so hard to put in place as being highly relevant to the question of whether we launch an attack on Iraq. We must share all the information we can on suspect sites. If we don’t share our information with the U.N. inspectors or if we prejudge the outcome of these inspections, we will increase the likelihood that we will go to war and increase the risks short term and long term to our troops and our nation in doing so.

Just now, I was listening to the stench of crapweasels residing on the East River, and I heard the Iraqi ambassador whining about their innocence, and he said, “Even United States Senators claim that by withholding intelligence, they undermine the the mission of the inspectors.”

Thanks a bunch, Carl.

Jon Berndt, who works on the Shuttle, has written a lengthy response to Gregg Easterbrook’s Time article.

David Penberthy has John Howard’s denunciation of the Axis of Weasels, in his native tongue.

Good on ya, mite.

[Via the Aussie Oppressor, who’s running a translation contest, but the link is farked up]

David Penberthy has John Howard’s denunciation of the Axis of Weasels, in his native tongue.

Good on ya, mite.

[Via the Aussie Oppressor, who’s running a translation contest, but the link is farked up]

David Penberthy has John Howard’s denunciation of the Axis of Weasels, in his native tongue.

Good on ya, mite.

[Via the Aussie Oppressor, who’s running a translation contest, but the link is farked up]

Sean O’Keefe needs to have his attitude adjusted.

Even in the wake of the Columbia shuttle disaster, NASA needs humans to do things in space that robotic missions can’t do, space agency Administrator Sean O’Keefe told lawmakers Wednesday.

“We know the lesson from this terrible accident is not to turn our backs on exploration simply because it is hard or risky,” O’Keefe said. “As John Shedd wrote about the age of ocean exploration, `A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.’ ”

Nice quote, but as long as you allow people to continue to keep the debate on the basis of exploration, the robot guys are going to win every time. You need to start talking about space development, and civilizing the wilderness.

Sean O’Keefe needs to have his attitude adjusted.

Even in the wake of the Columbia shuttle disaster, NASA needs humans to do things in space that robotic missions can’t do, space agency Administrator Sean O’Keefe told lawmakers Wednesday.

“We know the lesson from this terrible accident is not to turn our backs on exploration simply because it is hard or risky,” O’Keefe said. “As John Shedd wrote about the age of ocean exploration, `A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.’ ”

Nice quote, but as long as you allow people to continue to keep the debate on the basis of exploration, the robot guys are going to win every time. You need to start talking about space development, and civilizing the wilderness.

Sean O’Keefe needs to have his attitude adjusted.

Even in the wake of the Columbia shuttle disaster, NASA needs humans to do things in space that robotic missions can’t do, space agency Administrator Sean O’Keefe told lawmakers Wednesday.

“We know the lesson from this terrible accident is not to turn our backs on exploration simply because it is hard or risky,” O’Keefe said. “As John Shedd wrote about the age of ocean exploration, `A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.’ ”

Nice quote, but as long as you allow people to continue to keep the debate on the basis of exploration, the robot guys are going to win every time. You need to start talking about space development, and civilizing the wilderness.