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.
  • with many reasons for and against, none stand out as a clincher. None of the arguments for war stands out as a very good reason.

    Unfortunately many of the arguments against the war fail to clinch it either.

    When its a close call like this you have to be able to trust the politicians and intelligence with the information that they cannot or will not make available to you... but the politicians and intelligence have only managed to undermine any trust we may have had - dossiers compiled of propoganda copied

    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
    • most of the arguments for going to war against iraq apply equally well to a long list of countries

      Yes, but as I mentioned, I ignore many of the arguments for war (and some against war) as side issues. Conveniently, I suppose, many of the arguments I ignore would be the ones that would apply to other countries. Not a democracy? Human rights violations? Subjugating its neighbors? All of those, to me, are side issues. The U.S. leaders' job is to protect the U.S., which, IMHO, can be the only reason f

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.

        It may be a threat to Israel but that is not the concern of either UN directives or the rest of the world.

        You can't really call 'protecting the interests of an important military customer and diamond trade hub' self defense.

        Of course you can't expect Bush or Blair to admit this.

        I really want to see Iraq liberated, but NOT at ANY price. Currently that price seems to be turning a blind eye to turkeys oppression

        --

        @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
        print reverse @JAPH;
        • I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.

          I disagree, and many thinking, reasoning people disagree. You can't dismiss us all as idiots; some of us even know how to pronounce "nuclear."

          Maybe they are not a direct threat, but they have tried to develop weapons to inflict catastrophic harm, have indicated a lack of regard for human life, and evidence a particular hatred of the United States. Finally, September 11 showed forever that people like that will get themselves into a position to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians and will then do it. The idea that Iraq poses a direct threat is not foolish and was not made up. It's a reasonable conclusion given the evidence, although reasonable people may disagree. To state that one or the other position on this issue is "obvious" is dismissive of the reasoning of the many intelligent people on the other side.

          Maybe you mean Iraq is not an immediate threat to the United States. Perhaps, although again some people might disagree or counter with the idea that the risk of waiting is too great. If so, clarify. If Iraq's not an immediate threat, then waiting on weapons inspections might be a reasonable course of action. But, that's something reasonable people could disagree with, too.

          I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.

          Finally, just as a "sanity check" to make sure we're on the same page: if Iraq were a direct threat, and if it were obvious, you are saying it would then be okay to attack, right? You'd be first to stand up and declare the time for war had come? If not, then I guess it doesn't matter if Iraq is a direct threat or not.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • There is no proof or reasoning that Iraq is an immediate or direct threat to the US or Europe.

            There is only circumstantial evidence that Iraq is a danger to its own neighbours.

            Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones. That makes it fairly clear that it is not a direct threat or immediate threat to the rest of the world.

            There are no links between Iraq and terrorist groups, just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make

            --

            @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
            print reverse @JAPH;
            • No proof, but lots of reason to speculate.

              Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones.

              Neither did al-Qaeda. Iraq may not have missles, but they may very well have dirty bombs, smallpox, or worse, with an unforeseen plan to get them into the U.S.

              just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make it true

              I agree, but the anti-war side is taking the same tack on many points.

              Enjoying the discussion. As you can see, I'm

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers