Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Most of this news coverage has taken the form of Tony Blair speaking on behalf of Parliment, and Parliment speaking on behalf of the British people.

    Tony Blair is deliberately misrepresenting British public opinion. The opinion polls are mostly showing the majority of the British population don't support the war (at least, not without another UN resolution).

    On what grounds are the British people not supporting war in the gulf?

    It's not just in the UK. Much of Europe seems to have the same doubts. Ther

    • As to it being "clearly just about the oil," what do you mean by that? Do you mean the US is trying to steal the oil; if so, why didn't Bush 41 and Cheney march into Baghdad when they had the chance? If not, what do you mean?

      As to stability, the whole point -- one which the UN Security Council has agreed with on many occasions -- is that Iraq is a threat to the stability of the region until it is disarmed. And all of us know that Iraq has not, for a decade now, been cooperating with disarmament.

      As to rights: the US, and the UN, fought a war with Iraq. We won. They lost. We had a choice at that time: we could forcibly remove Hussein and his regime and do what was necessary to disarm them, or we could allow them to disarm themselves. As a condition of the cessation of hostilities, we allowed them to disarm themselves. They have -- again, as everyone knows -- failed to cooperate with the UN disarmament process. That Iraq has continually violated the terms for the cessation of hostilities precisely means that the US has a right to go in and fix the problem, removing Hussein if necessary.

      Think of it as Iraq being on parole, and violating the terms of its parole. We revoke parole, sending them back to jail. Plan B (parole, self-disarmament) failed, so we go back to Plan A (jail, forced disarmament).

      I suppose you might claim the UN, not the US, was at war, but that isn't how we see it.
      • As to it being "clearly just about the oil," what do you mean by that? Do you mean the US is trying to steal the oil; if so, why didn't Bush 41 and Cheney march into Baghdad when they had the chance? If not, what do you mean?

        This is what I mean. There are many countries around the world with human rights violations on their records, or who have weapons of mass destruction, or who have repeatedly ignored UN resolutions. So the obvious question is why pick on Iraq? And the answer that most easily comes to

        • You are not actually saying anything there, you are insinuating, and I do not know what you are insinuating. Is America going to take Iraq's oil fields, something the Bush administration has said in no uncertain terms it will not do? Is it trying to get lower oil prices, despite that war will increase oil prices for the forseeable future? What exactly are you insinuating?

          Further, that the answer comes most easily to your mind isn't exactly compelling. More to the point, you have completely disregarded