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.
  • Stop the fear.

    Turn off Fox News and chill. I'm not afraid of Iraq and I dont feel that the United States is entitled to judge any other country in terms of disarmament as long as it's "death through firearms" rate is over 100 times as high as in most other developed countries. If you took away the guns you could drop a nuke on a small city every year and still have more people living than with the current situation.

    The whole notion of Preemptive War is wrong. Secretary Rumsfeld says "Who would have help

    • by pudge (1) on 2003.02.16 12:27 (#17109) Homepage Journal
      You are not at all addressing the points I am making.

      The UN has declared Iraq must be disarmed. The UN chose inspections as the means to disarmament. Inspections have been tried over 12 years and have failed.

      So I won't directly address your comments about comparing Iraq to the US, because it ignores the facts above.

      As to preemption: that misses the point too, but as I have not yet addressed it, I will do so now. There is nothing preemptive about this impending war. To say the coming war is "preemptive" makes as much sense as saying that the US, with thirty-four other nations at last count, is acting "unilaterally." The US is working to fulfil the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War, which called for the disarmament of Iraq, first by inspections, and if those fail, then by further steps.

      This is not preemption, this is fulfilling the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 687 [tufts.edu] (which Iraq agreed to in its entirety), section "I", measure 34.

      Saying this is preemption simply ignores the facts. Yes, the Bush administration has said many dumb things, it has provided many reasons for war, some of them pretty dumb. But I ignore all that and look at the actual facts on the table: The UN has declared Iraq must be disarmed; the UN chose inspections as the means to disarmament; inspections have been tried over 12 years and have failed; the UN has declared that further steps must be taken if inspections fail.

      As to your option: I would love for this to happen. But you say it as though it hasn't been tried. It has. And all attempts at this, including recent attempts by Saudi Arabia to get Saddam to voluntarily give up his power, to provide safe exile for him, and even to get his own generals to overthrow him, have thus far apparently failed. The Saudis have been working on it, the US has pledged that if Hussein abdicated power voluntarily it would not seek to prosecute or capture him. But nothing's come of it.
      • Saying this is preemption simply ignores the facts. Yes, the Bush administration has said many dumb things, it has provided many reasons for war, some of them pretty dumb. But I ignore all that and look at the actual facts on the table: The UN has declared Iraq must be disarmed; the UN chose inspections as the means to disarmament; inspections have been tried over 12 years and have failed; the UN has declared that further steps must be taken if inspections fail.

        This is he very point the world is not behin

        • You might count 34 nations, you won't find 34 people, though.

          If you want a serious discussion, please say things that aren't patently false.

          Even the people of GB is not behind the US on this.

          In every poll, the majority of Americans favor the disarmament of Iraq.

          There might be good ones, but you know, who lied once...

          This has nothing to do with choosing what to believe, for those who can do a little reasearch. The facts are all before us, and I clearly laid them out, and no one has even attempted
          • You might count 34 nations, you won't find 34 people, though.

            If you want a serious discussion, please say things that aren't patently false.

            So, please list some countries, except the US, where the people favor a war to do the disarmament.

            Even the people of GB is not behind the US on this.

            In every poll, the majority of Americans favor the disarmament of Iraq.

            You are not replying to my statement. I did not say anything about Americans.

            I believe your arguments are completely valid. Iraques behavi

            • Sorry, but I get this picture of so many people saying, "Please stop making weapons, Saddam. I'm going to count to ten." and they're all up to "Eight... eight and a half... eight and three quarters... eight and seven eights... eight and fifteen sixteenths...".

              No wonder he doesn't take the UN seriously. At least we're getting a good lesson in fractions.

              • Well, at least NATO is mostly decided, except for France, to protect one of its members. Talk about an embarrassment to Europe.
              • Sorry, but I get this picture of so many people saying, "Please stop making weapons, Saddam. I'm going to count to ten." and they're all up to "Eight... eight and a half... eight and three quarters... eight and seven eights... eight and fifteen sixteenths...".

                No wonder he doesn't take the UN seriously. At least we're getting a good lesson in fractions.

                That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from this whole Iraq mess. This is from President Bush's press conference [whitehouse.gov] following his address before t

      • Saying this is preemption simply ignores the facts. Yes, the Bush administration has said many dumb things, it has provided many reasons for war, some of them pretty dumb. But I ignore all that and look at the actual facts on the table:

        And the facts, as they stand now, are resolution 1441 doesn't given permission to the member states to attack and invade Iraq. That requires further approval from the UN Security Council who are currently seem unlikely to give it, despite considerable pressure to do so

        • And the facts, as they stand now, are resolution 1441 doesn't given permission to the member states to attack and invade Iraq.

          It is not about permission, it is about the UN Security Council enforcing its own resolutions; the question is, if it refuses to do so, why should anyone else take it upon themselves to do so? Because it was not just the UN that was at war with Iraq, it was the US and others.

          These nations were at war with Iraq, they require the disarmament of Iraq, and it is the UN's job to do en