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

    • 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 "preemptiv
      • 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

        • by pudge (1) on 2003.02.17 20:19 (#17193) Homepage Journal
          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 enforce that disarmament. And if the UN fails to do so, those nations feel they should take it upon themselves to do it. And there is nothing -- nothing -- in the UN charter or resolutions prohibiting these nations from doing so. "Permission" is not required. By implying that it is, you appear to be grossly misinformed.

          Either though incompetence of deceit the Bush administration has repeatedly misstated the case for war, and that is not something I can choose to ignore, even if you can.

          Whatever you want to believe, the only constant in the case against Iraq -- 12 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 2 years ago, last year, six months ago, last week -- is that Iraq must be disarmed by virtue of the resolutions.

          That the Bush administration keeps adding more to the list of why Iraq might be a threat, of what they have and could do wrong, doesn't change that the primary thrust of the last 12 years of dealing Iraq is, clearly to all who look at it, disarmament.