All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
pudge (1)
(email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)
I run this joint, see?
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iraq
There's a lot of nutty talk going on about Iraq these days. Should we attack? Should we first get a coalition and allies to back us? Is Iraq about to strike us?
Let me state a couple of ideas to cut through some of this crap:
- We should only attack Iraq if it is necessary to do so to protect ourselves or our allies; in other words, only if an attack by Iraq is in process, or imminent.
- In such a case, where an attack is in process or imminent, approval by allies or backing by a coalition is moot.
All this about when we should attack is crazy talk, unless there is the possibility of us attacking unnecessarily. If someone is questioning whether now is the right time to attack or not, the answer is No. When it becomes necessary, we should attack. And not before. People talking about coalitions are sidestepping the real issue.
The question is, though: is Iraq attacking?
Part of the problem is that I don't believe for a second that Iraq is going to directly attack the US or its allies. If they did today, they would be gone tomorrow. As noted, we won't wait for allies or coalitions in such a case. And we won't hold back our wrath. So what's the issue?
I think that Iraq is most likely behind much of the terrorism against the US, Israel, and much of the West, including the first WTC attack by likely Iraqi agent Ramzi Yousef, and perhaps even the September 11 attacks, that Iraq is providing weapons, money, and in some cases personnel, and that Iraq is working hard to keep evidence of its involvement in these matters secret, so it is difficult for the world to make a case against it. And I think that the US government is scramnbling furiously to get the scarce evidence together.
Whatever the case, I think it's unreasonable for the US to go to war without providing the evidence to its people. But even if the evidence is provided, unless Iraq is actively engaged in attacks against the US or its allies, a military strike against Iraq is unreasonable; and if it is engaged in such attacks, the US has every obligation to respond militarily. The evidence is the key.
because that's exactly how much difference there is. :-)
--Larry Wall in <10209@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
The problem is double standards (Score:2, Interesting)
Then we know that the USA, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, China and India all have Nuclear and/or chemical weapons. But iraq and other countries are of course not allowed nuclear weapons because they are 'bad guys'.
This has nothing to do with iraq ever attacking the west - it has no interest in doing so, it has interests attacking Isreal because it is an aggresive neighbour funded and armed by a
@JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
print reverse @JAPH;
Re:The problem is double standards (Score:2, Interesting)
They have an Electrical College in Iraq? What?
(Seriously, I found your swipe to be unnecessarily wrong, but preferred replying to moderating.)
Re:The problem is double standards (Score:2)
(Seriously, I found your swipe to be unnecessarily wrong, but preferred replying to moderating.)
Thanks for saying so. Me too.
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re:The problem is double standards (Score:1)
Unlike zimbabwe's elections, iraqs were reasonably fair, and unlike the US elections the party with the most votes got it.
@JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
print reverse @JAPH;
Re:The problem is double standards (Score:1)
That is one form of democracy. That is never how America's election for President has worked, and yet it's always been called democracy.
Unlike zimbabwe's elections, iraqs were reasonably fair, and unlike the US elections the party with the most votes got it.
That is incorrect. The candidate with the most votes for President -- George Bush -- won. Individuals do not vote
Re:The problem is double standards (Score:1)
I don't see what your point is. The USA and UK didn't lose a war, the terms of which required them to subject themselves to inspections. They can quibble all they like, but I couldn't possibly care less. Inspections are not because they are bad guys, but because they lost.
Now, in addition to UN-mandated inspections, yes, they should not have the bomb because they are bad guys. Complain about
Re:The problem is double standards (Score:1)
the same as Brazil, Australia, or Mozambique.
Since the genie cannot be put back in the
bottle, there is an international consensus
of no nuclear proliferation. Heads of state
were certainly not pleased to wake up to a
nuclear club with two new members (India and Pakistan).
Were that I say, pancakes?
Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
- Iraq has engaged in and is likely continuing to engage in developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. These are offensive weapons, designed to inflict civilian casualties, not achieve military objectives.
- Iraq has been at war with the US, and is likely to be at war with the US again. Future engagements are also likely to be in the form of state sponsored terrorist acts.
- Iraq has also resisted and ignored UN mandates to allow weapons inspectors to verify that these "weapons of mass descruction" are being destroyed. Iraqi claims that the US used the UN inspection program to bring spies into Iraq may be founded.
That's all assuming that there is a legitimate justification to go to war with Iraq. There's another set of scenarios where Shrub is playing a "Wag the Dog" card to go to war to increase his chances of reelection, or some other set of reasons not directly tied to Iraq attacking (or about to attack, or potentially attacking) the US.On the one hand, there's a case to be made for a preemptive strike. On the other hand, a preemptive strike will very likely destabilize the delicate political balance in the Persian Gulf, leaving an even bigger mess. On the third hand, there's the political fallout of going to war (and failing to lead the nation). Or not going to war (and failing to lead the nation).
The only clear issue here is that this is a very complex situation that can't be simplified down to "yes we should attack NOW!", "no we shouldn't attack", "we should wait until we are attacked", or "we should wait until we have evidence".
Or, more concisely, there are no simple answers here, no matter how you look at it.
Reply to This
Re:Politics (Score:1)
Despite the apparent implication, "simplistic" is not a synonym for "incorrect."
* Iraq has engaged in and is likely continuing to engage in developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. These are offensive weapons, designed to inflict civilian casualties, not achieve military objectives.
I agree with all of this except for the "is likely." "Is possibly," yes. But I should clarify the point: I am not against action against Iraq in such a case,
economist article (Score:2)
The Economist has a thoughtful article this week, America's Iraq Policy [economist.com]. Personally, I don't think they'll do it as it would provoke too much backlash both foreign and domestic but it is a nice platfrom from which to make a lot of noise and distract people from noticing that after all the money spent on the current 'war' we still haven't apprehended OBL.
In the sage words of Deep Throat, "Follow the money."
Re:economist article (Score:1)
But the point of my journal entry is that foreign and domestic backlash is and should be irrelevant: we should not attack unless it is necessary to do so. If is it necessary to do so, then what anyone thinks about it is, at best, secondary. Talking about the possibility of attacking Iraq in terms of backlash is
Re:economist article (Score:2)
Well, the backlash will come from attacking without necessity. Of course, the US will attack Iraq and I'm just hoping that W waits until I'm out of the US before doing so.
Re:economist article (Score:1)
Then we shouldn't talk about the backlash, but the necessity, or lack of it. That's what is important.
And frankly, not one of us has any real idea of whether or not an attack is necessary. We only have, at best, weakly educated guesses. I hope it is not necessary; I hope if we do attack, that it is necessary; I hope if it is necessary, we are all presented with at least some of the compelling facts before action is taken.
Re:economist article (Score:2)
With the prevailing prevarication I doubt anything will be presented to the public in clear realistic terms. The stage for this foregone conclusion has been set for quite some time and the necessity will stem from that rather than any compelling evidence of provocation on Iraq's part. I hope the US doesn't attack Iraq without just cause either but, then again, hope is for those who can ignore history and why wars are fought.
Re:economist article (Score:1)
I sincerely doubt it. But, we shall see.
The question is: what will happen first, a baseball strike, or an attack on Iraq? And which will we care about more?
I hope the US doesn't attack Iraq without just cause either
Look at the monkey (Score:2)
The republicans are in tough place. There are mid-term elections around the corner and the economy is in the crapper. What's more, the House and Senate are very evenly split. The Republicans really want a majority in the senate, but voters can be so uncooperative about voting for the dominate party when they don't have jobs.
What can the GOP do?
Start a war! Everyone loves a war. American's gather around the flag, watch "Black Hawk Down" and get misty-eyed about the "valiant sacrifices our boys make defen
Re:Look at the monkey (Score:1)
Israel is mostly a good friend to us, and without our support, they very well may all die. It would be in every way wrong to turn our back on Israel merely because other people don't like it.
As to Saudi Arabia, while I don't like them much, it's not like we are controlling their country's destiny, like we did with Iraq and Ira
Cool bluff (Score:2)
My opinion? It's a bluff to get Saddam to make the first move. Lot's of talk. Lot's of press. Scare the bejesus out of Saddam. Get him rattled. Try to make him do something stupid to give us a casus belli
Why do I think this? I haven't heard about any real troop movements. No mass C-130 migrations. No reserves being called up. I just hea
Re:Cool bluff (Score:1)