28 September 2007
"Armed Conflict," she wrote. Brilliant!
targeting information: destroy on the ground; break it down.
a classic violation,
bias in her perspective,
beautiful articulation,
lying dogs!
nice car,
a lot of money,
obligations under international law: dropping the atomic bomb on both sides
what law are we talking about here?
the US invasion
was a legitimate use of force;
This is where you make your money.
I've only two minutes left
to say good morning,
any questions?
February 2008
We tried to formalize, strangely speaking
"NATO de facto"
explain all of that,
moving from Kosovo to Afghanistan,
criticism about international community efforts,
squabble & debates.
"combat operations," I'm afraid,
no longer has that enthusiastic positive note,
really objectively speaking.
This is high time.
narcotics, influence, provinces
that don't correspond with reality
NATO, ISEF, the United Nations
indeed, volatile coalitions forces,
posturing, opposing military forces,
blur the picture
nature has
the light of day;
corruption, government issues
are not solved overnight.
a number of operations
move battalions from one point to another,
liaising closely.
I dare say, a much more negative picture:
corrupt, illiterate actors,
pulled strands together,
launched its own mission.
we like to advertise,
to make that successful......
more and more civilians embedded
we must do more, harmonize
at the end of the day
at the end of the day
no secret
finally, we look,
measuring commitments through body counts;
perhaps, all of us made this mistake.
a noble effort
this reality has caught up with us
at the end of the day
clearly, clearly, a top operational priority
but, but, we must all undertake
clearly
at the end of the day.
