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
In the near future, the probability is close to zero. In the distant
future, I'll be dead, and posterity can do whatever they like... :-) --lwall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Quite telling of what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I think it's a perfectly acceptable position that war is wrong, in all circumstances. It's not incumbent on people with that position to come up with an answer "answer", particularly since this whole goddamn war is a based on the idea that Iraq is a danger to the US, and that's hardly been proved at al
Re:Quite telling of what? (Score:1)
I think you'll find that this war never ended in 1991. A peace agreement was never signed, only an armistice. Iraq hasn't lived up to the conditions of that armistice. That's what it's 'based on'.
The war has been 'sold' using the fact that Iraq is a danger to the US. I think this is true. He's certainly a danger to his neighbors, otherwise why does he insist on developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (or failing irrefutable proof that he does, why does he play games with the UNMOVIC inspectors)?
As long as he's a danger to his neighbors, he's a danger to the US as the US stands between him and his aim of regional domination. If he has to ally himself with Religious Islamic Terrorists for a time to overcome the US and it's allies, he might.
Even if you consider this possiblity remote. The slightest chance of this, and the fact that we have all the justification we need based on Iraq's failure to follow the demands of the armistice, is enough for me.
Reply to This
Parent