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.
  • War (Score:3, Insightful)

    I do confess to not understanding the lack of social unrest in the US when several young Americans are killed almost daily for government lies.

    Maybe this will help: even assuming everything that is said about lies by Bush is true, about lack of NBC weapons, about al Qaeda, etc., to me, and many other people, it doesn't matter, because that never had anything to do with why I favored military action against Iraq's government.

    Go back and look. I was skeptical about the actual existence of NBC weapons, and
    • by ziggy (25) on 2003.08.28 11:02 (#23616) Journal
      Citing breach of security council resolutions is a straw man. The US wanted to depose Sadaam Hussein, and the decade of noncompliance with the security council was a convenient justification, not a casus belli.

      As TeeJay will no doubt point out, other nations are not in compliance with UN resolutions or UN Security Council resolutions. Israel comes to mind, yet there's no US intervention on the scale that we have seen in Iraq. And let's not forget about the politics going on inside the UN -- the resolutions that weren't voted on because of certain veto by the security council, or resolutions that were vetoed due to one political agenda or another.

      Sorry, I'm not read up on specific instances, but we both know that this happens in the UN just like every other bureaucracy. For the most part, the UN is a mere shadow of what it was intended to become, and security council resolutions are empty pieces of paper.

      Except when they can be cited as justification for military action.

      • Citing breach of security council resolutions is a straw man. The US wanted to depose Sadaam Hussein, and the decade of noncompliance with the security council was a convenient justification, not a casus belli.

        You misunderstand what I am saying. Yes, the purpose of the war was to eliminate the threat of Hussein, but so was the purpose of the resolutions. The point is that because the resolutions failed to effect the desired result, further action was required (cf. clause 34 of Resolution 687 [fas.org] (1991)).