Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

darobin (1316)

  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of darobin (1316)

Thursday March 20, 2003
11:02 AM

Why war sumary

[ #11126 ]

If you can read French (sorry, Freedom), I think this article from Le Monde is a good and simple analysing summary of "why".

I keep hearing people say that 45 countries support the US while only 6 oppose the war. This shows some high level of indoctrination, likely with some major media manipulating information. Le Monde published a map of the world with countries pro and countries against (which is what I was looking for online but apparently it is only in print), and without couting it's quite clear that part of Europe + Russia + China + the entirety of Africa (minus Ethiopia (pro), Rwanda (neutral), and Somalia (no official government)) + India + most of the Americas (minus the USA, Bolivia, and one or two small countries) adds up to much more than 6. But then CNN sees shuttles travelling at multiples of the speed of light and has experts smart enough to know that Ossama is "either dead or alive" so I wouldn't be surprised if simple arithmetics were well beyond them.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I don't know on what basis this could be considered a good summary of "why war." I think people who are FOR the action would be better suited to write a summary.

    Right off the bat he muddles his facts, saying that Bush "undoubtedly" (Babelfish translation :-) decided to attack Baghdad shortly after 9/11. In fact, it is common knowledge that Bush wanted to remove Hussein, by force if necessary, long before that.

    But even if the facts like this weren't wrong, I still can't see how someone against the war, w
    • Re:Huh (Score:3, Insightful)

      Going to Babelfish doesn't give quite as good a summary as the French one, but I'll try to address your points nevertheless :)

      Point one is that journalist isn't specifically against the war. In fact, he clearly states supporting a number of the reasons. So your arguments from §1 and §3 don't quite hold I believe. The point of having an analysis is precisely because what is publicly stated by the people that are pro-war isn't necessarily the real motivation. For instance the branch of the


      -- Robin Berjon []

      • When the people who are behind this war have been saying the same thing for 7 years, and have been consistent, and all their actions match up with what they have been saying for those years, it's pretty reasonable to take them at their word. That's all I am saying.

        I agree the message has been muddled, but underneath all the talk about terrorism and 9/11 and everything else, the case for removing Hussein because he is a threat -- to Israel, Saudi Arabia, oil, Kuwait, Kurds -- has always been there, has alw
        • Re:Huh (Score:3, Interesting)

          Well, amid the muddlement is the fact that Israel doesn't consider Iraq a threat anymore, and that a threat to Saudi Arabia and to Kuwait sounds like an ally to me... As for oil, I don't see the threat, the cost of war could finance alternative energies ;)

          The Kurds (and the Iraqi population) are a more complex problem, which calls for a Kosovo-style intervention (without the bombings of Chinese embassies or drops of fragmentation bombs on civilians, if avoidable). It would seem however that the onl


          -- Robin Berjon []

          • amid the muddlement is the fact that Israel doesn't consider Iraq a threat anymore

            That's a bit disingenuous. They didn't consider Iraq a threat *currently* because Iraq was being contained, and only for that reason. And we know that containment was a failure in Iraq, because without full cooperation with the UN, Iraq *did* continue to make NBC weapons, without our knowledge, without inspectors finding anything, until defectors told us where to look.

            One major point in the bitter discussions that led to