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.

Applying trauma 16 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • pudge n' me: http://use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=11139&cid=17022

    Basically, I say "First, do no harm." I think that people should work for changes where they are, because they have better access to information about local happenings. I doubt any use Perl; readers, for instance, have actually been to Afghanistan recently.

    Focusing on local problems also prevents local strongmen from distracting us from our problems by saying "Look! Over there!"
    • But again :), the UN Security Council has determined, and reaffirmed in dozens (?) of resolutions over 12 years, that Iraq must be disarmed. France has agreed, Russia has agreed, China has agreed. That Iraq must be disarmed is, in the UN Security Council, not a matter of debate. And your ideas, while interesting, do not address that mandate.
      • And again, I don't trust the governments on the Security Council any further than I can throw them. I haven't seen good things come from any of them, frankly. :)
        • Fine, don't trust them. It doesn't change the fact that the Security Council has decided Iraq will be disarmed of NBC weapons and missles that are capable of execeeding a 150km range, and that if inspections fail -- as they have failed, and continue to fail -- then further steps will be taken to effect that disarmament. Frankly, if you aren't acknowledging these facts in the discussion, and talking about how to disarm Iraq, you're just making noise. It's like going to a business meeting on how to cut exp
          • 1) The governments on the Security Council don't really care what you or I think.
            2) As you say, they will do various things -- I fully acknowledge that they will probably invade Iraq and install some sort of authoritarian military regime, and keep a US military presence in the country indefinitely.
            3) I think that these actions will not really help anyone. The likelihood that the actions will take place doesn't affect whether I support them or not.
            4) The behavior of the US government *is* an issue here.
            • 1) I don't see the relevance of this bit of information.

              2) I don't know who "they" is, but as I gave evidence of in the previous discussion, all the actual evidence I've seen shows that the US will not installing anyone into power, and that the person the US has given its blessing to (who is making a move for power of his own accord) is anything BUT authoritarian. I prefer to look at actual evidence when available than to speculate wildly.

              3) That you do not see how the actions will help is not interestin
              • the person the US has given its blessing to is anything BUT authoritarian

                http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060

                you refuse to acknowledge the purpose of said actions

                I acknowledge that from what I can tell, Saddam Hussein is a nasty dictator fellow.

                What I don't see is why you trust the US government to make the situation better by military conquest.
                • http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060 [independent.co.uk]

                  That URL offers no evidence that the person the US has given its blessing to is authoritarian. In fact, it does not even mention the person by name. You were giving this URL in direct response to my assertion of this, so ... I don't see the point.

                  And wow, what a horrible article. That reporter just sucks. It says that some Kurdish officials say that the US is abandoning plans for democracy in Iraq, but I don't find that to be intere
                  • How bout that disarmament! Yeah!

                    Gotta love it.
                    • Yes, it is going quite well. Your point ... ?
                    • I guess I missed the part where the US army commandos swooped in and seized the huge stockpiles of weapons that the Iraqi government was about to unleash on US citizens.
                    • Are you ignoring the fact that only a small percentage of the known possible sites have been investigated, or the fact that the U.S. has said all along that we likely won't find much without help from Iraqis?

                      Or perhaps you think that I've ever thought that there necessarily were any weapons to find at all? I've said since this began that the point is not that Iraq *has* weapons, but that we *logically must assume* they do because of their complete failure to comply with their obligations to prove they have disarmed. Note that Resolution 1441 does not say anything at all about having prohibited weapons being a material breach; it was the lack of cooperation with inspectors toward disarmament was a material breach.

                      I'd like it if we could find all the prohibited weapons that exist, but if none do exist, I am perfectly fine with that, too. I've used this analogy many times, and it is still quite valid: if a suspected armed-and-dangerous-criminal is approached by a police officer, and the police officer orders him to put his hands in the air, and instead he puts his hands in his pockets, the police officer at some point must treat the suspect as though there is a weapon in that pocket. It is logically necessary.

                      I am not making excuses for the lack of found weapons; I'm repeating things I've been saying all along. I've never been fully convinced that they have prohibited weapons. But if they don't/didn't have them, then they should have fully cooperated with inspections, as required.

                      All that said, I see no reason whatsoever to think no weapons will be found. The evidence that Iraq has been developing prohibited weapons is quite strong. Perhaps it is foolish for people to assume the weapons exist until we have the "smoking gun," but it is far more foolish to assume they do not, in light of the evidence. It's probably best to admit we don't know.
                      But the bottom line is that if no weapons are found, it won't have the slightest impact on my argument for the justification of the use of military action, which had to do with Iraqi cooperation with the disarmament process, irrespective of the existence of weapons, which we were logically required to assume exist (act as though they exist) until Iraq proved otherwise. That is how the UN Resolutions were designed, how they were written. They were stupid resolutions, IMO, because Iraq never should have been given that kind of responsibility. We should have taken and occupied Baghdad a decade ago.
                    • They were making it all up. The whole point was to deceive nice people like you into thinking that they were doing something you would approve of.

                      As I said before, it's about credibility. Those guys (who armed Saddam in the first place, and thought that he was just great) have zero, and deserve total skepticism.

                      They are preserving the existing state, and just swapping out the old bosses for some new ones that will obey more faithfully.
                    • They were making it all up. The whole point was to deceive nice people like you into thinking that they were doing something you would approve of.

                      Making all *what* up? Be specific, now.

                      Were they making up that Iraq had unaccounted-for weapons? No, they were not. We know this to be true, and no one but Iraq has ever disputed it; everyone in the UN Security Council agreed with it, as did the inspectors.

                      Were they making up that Iraq refused to allow inspectors to interview Iraqis outside of Iraq, such a
                    • You don't seem to understand this. You seem to think I ever believed weapons
                      currently exist, despite my insistence, both before and after the war, that this
                      is not the case. That's a shame.

                      My issue with your argument is your suggested solution for the problem of "nasty
                      government X may have dangerous weapons." Your solution is that the US
                      government military invade that country, and replace its government with one
                      more friendly to the US government, is it not?

                      The problem with that solution is that being nas
                    • My issue with your argument is your suggested solution for the problem of "nasty government X may have dangerous weapons."

                      The solution everyone, including Iraq, agreed to in 1991.

                      Your solution is that the US government military invade that country, and replace its government with one more friendly to the US government, is it not?

                      Of course. Though the goal is not friendliness to the U.S. per se, but friendliness to the positions of the U.S., such as rejection of NBC weaponry, peaceful coexistence with
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.