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.
  • by malte (1708) on 2003.02.16 11:54 (#17104) Homepage Journal

    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 helped us if we had invaded Afganistan prior to 911 to prevent the terrorists attacks on New York...None". He uses this to make his point on attacking Iraq. But the logic is flawed. Bad things happen, but doing bad things to prevent other bad things, is not justified. Preemptive action lies in Gods hands (if there is one) but certainly not in Mr. Bush's. (Hint to Mr. Bush: god like rhetoric does not turn you into a god.)

    You want an option to war: Make an exit plan for Saddam. Take away his power but let him keep his title (It worked with the Queen of England). Whatever you do, don't let him look bad. Let him keep his honor and he will be your friend. Maybe he doesnt deserve such treatment, but if it saves some lifes, that price seems quite low.

    ->malte

      • 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.

      Oversimplistic. New York City and Washington DC takes away all guns, yet gun crime is very high in these areas. I guess we just have to periodically search all homes and persons for guns and imprison anyone who has guns?

      • The whole notion of Preemptive War is wrong.

      We don't need to use preemption as a reason for this war. This is just a continuance of the Gul

      • Oversimplistic. New York City and Washington DC takes away all guns, yet gun crime is very high in these areas. I guess we just have to periodically search all homes and persons for guns and imprison anyone who has guns?

        I neither said it was easy, nor that it it could be achieved fast. (Besides id you can still drive to say New Jersey and buy your gun there bans in limited locations are pointless).

        I agree that you might not need preemption; however, if you wouldn't need it why would the administration p

          • I agree that you might not need preemption; however, if you wouldn't need it why would the administration put it forward?

          Did you not read what I said?

          Now may be a good time to do it because it also provides preemption. We must do it eventually, or the International community loses all credibility. Mad dictators like Saddam will have a green light to develop these weapons and invade their neighbors when there are few consequences.

          That's why.

          • There it is, the _Fear_.
            • But, "fear" is not the main point. Twelve years of Iraqi frustrating its obligations under Resolution 687 is the main point. Bush is on record saying he wanted to deal with Iraq's disarmament well before September 11, 2001.
            • Fear is a motivation we do lots of things.

              Fear is why we don't allow children to play with firearms or explosives.

              Fear is why we avoid viscious animals.

              Fear is why we don't put our hands on a hot stove.

              Fear is why we eliminate threats before they eliminate us.

              No serious person really doubts that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. The UNSCOM inspectors found them and they are still unaccounted for.

              No serious person doubts that Al Qaeda would like to use those sorts of weapons on the US.

              W

              • The UNSCOM inspectors found them and they are still unaccounted for.

                Hans Blix said they have NOT found weapons of mass destruction. He said they have found prohibited missles, and that they have found evidence of weapons that has not been explained away (such as unaccounted-for Anthrax and VX), but that they did not find actual weapons of mass destruction.
                • Hans Blix heads up the UNMOVIC inspectors. UNSCOM was decommissioned some years ago and performed the last Iraqi inspection regime before being kicked out after identifying or finding substantial evidence of many banned weapons, including tons of Anthrax, Botulinum toxin, VX nerve gas precursors [planetark.org]. Note also the reference in this article to the fact that there is substantial reason to believe that Iraq has smallpox virus and was experimenting with weaponizing it.

                  Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC inspectors are no [freerepublic.com]

                  • Ah, yes, UNMOVIC replaced UNSCOM as a result of Resolution 1284; I wasn't sure you were distinguishing them, and I sometimes use them interchangably.
                  • Weapons inspectors were not "kicked out" of Iraq in 1998, they were withdrawn, at the US's request.
                      • Weapons inspectors were not "kicked out" of Iraq in 1998, they were withdrawn, at the US's request.

                      Fair enough! [fair.org].

                      Thanks for pointing this out to me. You'll have to forgive me that I only heard this from ALL the media.

                    • It's technically true, but some would say it is in essence true that they were "kicked out," in that they left only because Iraq would not let them do their job.

                      And the UN ordered it.
                  • And pointing to the Free Republic as a source of information, is like someone on the Left pointing to the ISO's latest propaganda piece.

                    Its not very credible, and its not polite to do in mixed company :)
                      • And pointing to the Free Republic as a source of information, is like someone on the Left pointing to the ISO's latest propaganda piece.

                      It would be an Ad Hominem either way. A good way to distract from the facts at hand, but not very productive.

                      Is Jane's an acceptable source [janes.com]? The CBC [www.cbc.ca]? How about the Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com]?

                      This last source is particularly interesting. It goes into great depth about the challenges of performing inspections. It can take years to find anything and it's doubtful tha

                    • Hans Blix has made it quite clear that Iraq is not cooperating.

                      And having read Blix's actual transcript, not a UPI or AP summary, and not the editted version which appeared on CNN, I disagree with your interpretation of what he said.

                      You can disagree all you like, but you are clearly wrong. "Many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for." Repeat Blix's words until it sinks in. Blix has been asking for evidence Iraq is required to give in regards to those weapons -- including VX and anthrax -
                    • Re:Fear (Score:2, Informative)

                      • Right now they are just a fairy tale, and there is doubt if they could exist, much less whether Iraq has the ability to build them.

                      Why do you say this? There is supposedly detailed defector testimony as to their existence. [washingtonpost.com] Read this article, even the sceptical Biological Weapons specialist, Raymond Zalinkas states:

                      "We know it is possible to build them -- the United States developed mobile production plants, including one designed for an airplane -- but it's a big hassle. That's why this strikes me as

    • 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: 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

        • 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