I saw both Tony Blair and President Bush on hellivision today. President Bush has got the look of a man on a mission about him. PM Blair just looks plain tired. It seems that he finally gets to talk to the Americans in the near future about “things and stuff” (probably Iraq). The question is are the US asking for Mr Blair to help them or telling him?
Why is everything about politics these days concerned with the question “what’s in it for me?” Or has it always been this way? God save our little island….
White Rose

Links for someone who I know, reads this site.

Chicago 911 Hot jobs

Free Police exam

Could you Police? (Uk site)

Get a job abroad.

To call the attacks on the US an ‘intelligence failure’ is to misunderstand the nature of intelligence, says former MI5 chief Stella Rimington

The nuke-free guided tour of Iraq

I thought any article I posted was for others to ponder on, but I find myself still thinking about world leadership, their styles and their characters.
It’s true that history shows us there are conquerors and when they come they come like a flood spilling over into lands that are not their own, setting up massive kingdoms only for them to fall back into ruins before the next big guy comes along.
What do I look for in a conqueror if I can’t see him at the moment? History would tell me he (not she) would have to be abundant in leadership qualities if not fair of face. He would need the backing of cronies bent on their own needs and who are not bothered about who fronts it up. A great deal of money would be handy, especially if you want a good army to put your point across. All these things may perhaps get you in charge of your own country, especially if that country was apathetic politically speaking and ran a psuedo democracy. However, this is not what I am looking for.
It was said that Hitler could persuade men and women in his country to do anything. People (still!) frequently tell of this power that he had, that it was unusual and that it was compelling. This is what I am looking for and I have to say I don’t see it yet. You can’t tell me Saddam has these qualities, especially the latter. Whoever the next big guy is, it’s not him. - White Rose

Look out of your windows, watch the skies
Read all the instructions with bright blue eyes
Were W.A.S.P.s, proud American sons
We know how to clean our teeth and how to strip down a gun
We’re the 51st state of America

Our star-spangled Union Jack flutters so proud
Over the dancing heads of the merry patriotic crowd
Tip your hat to the Yankee conqueror
We’ve got no reds under the bed with guns under our pillows
We’re the 51st state of America

Here in the land of opportunity
Watch US revel in our liberty
You can say what you like
But it doesn’t change anything
‘Cos the corridors of power
Are an ocean away
We’re the 51st state of America

- New Model Army

It is getting close to the first remembrance of the deaths last Sep 11th and I suppose, America’s innocence. I am sure that many, many people are wondering whether a repeat performance is being planned and it is easy to predict how the media will cover and recover all that happens, be it peaceful or otherwise.
Last night the BBC screened a documentary retelling the day as experienced by the top players in the US Government and the military personnel directly involved. The programme showed that it was evident that many lessons were learnt that day and I expect it has taken a lot of courage by those who participated in the documentary to admit that they were powerless to stop the attacks and it was not until the last plane heading for Washington crashed, that America was getting to the point where it could start taking a realistic defensive stance towards whatever came. By the end of the programme I was truly saddened as if the day had only just happened. It is certainly burned in to my own memory as one of those historic moments you remember where you were at the time it happened. The attack itself began a rolling stone that has gathered more and more momentum towards a never-ending story that will ultimately cause events like Sept 11th to become commonly active retaliation by lesser foes as they punch holes into the defences and structures of western countries. There isn’t a cure for this. There isn’t a way to rebuild a happy medium where life can revert to supposed freedom of liberty without sacrificing the ability to head off terrorist attacks before they happen. This is the price everyone pays. Regardless of who or where you are you are put into one category or another. For being British I am as likely a target as any American and vice versa are other nationalities keenly watched by our own security forces.
I have thought long and hard about what to do, or what I would consider doing if in the position to actually make a active decision and can only speak of what I know and not what could be. Obviously I am not subject to knowing the intelligence that is collated by governments, but I found through debate with others that everyone picks a side to fight for in the end. Should we enter into a war, no one will be so safe that they could carry on regardless. This isn’t just about the now, nor is it about to end if directed into Iraq and then victory won by toppling Saddam. It will be interesting to see how much people will change because they themselves feel threatened, and each generation in its current stage will dictate much of what happens in the future. War breeds anger. It does not secure peace. This post has no ending, its just a rambling from me.

Yo Rosie White lady. Nice to see that Mob made space for you.

Is there only so much history can tell us? Because something has always happened that way do we have the right to assume that’s the way it will go in the future? Could be!
Let me be honest with you. The reason I have posted previous ideas about Iraq may have been out of a desire for peace at any cost. I let my own personal fears get ahead of me. But what about the greater good?
The idea of a world entirely without strife seems unlikely. So why get Saddam? Aren’t there more out there just like him? Is the only option to kill everyone we think is a threat? In WW2 there was really only the one person to go after. It seems to me that we face more than one these days… are we really going to take them out one by one?
I used to think I was good at history but one thing it does tell me it is that when the world has been rocked by conflict only single names stand out… Alexander, Rameses, Caesar etc. Is Saddam really in this class of warrior? I dont think so. History tells me that there is always “the one” to look out for. I dont see him yet. (And funnily enough, there is usually one name that stands up against him too…)
White Rose