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.
  • Antiwar Protest (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davorg (18) <dave@dave.org.uk> on 2003.02.10 11:14 (#16838) Homepage Journal
    Most of this news coverage has taken the form of Tony Blair speaking on behalf of Parliment, and Parliment speaking on behalf of the British people.

    Tony Blair is deliberately misrepresenting British public opinion. The opinion polls are mostly showing the majority of the British population don't support the war (at least, not without another UN resolution).

    On what grounds are the British people not supporting war in the gulf?

    It's not just in the UK. Much of Europe seems to have the same doubts. There are a number of different reasons. The major one seems to be that the US seems to be trying to circumvent proper UN procedures to start the war as soon as possible. Others I've heard include:

    • Too many Iraqis will die
    • It's clearly just about the oil in the region
    • A war will destabilise the region
    • The US has no right to remove the leader of another sovereign nation

    Other people may offer their favourites to the list.

    • May I add my favourite reason ?
      • the continuous arrogance of US' foreign policy is going to fabricate more terrorists and Al Quaeda supporters.
        • the continuous arrogance of US' foreign policy is going to fabricate more terrorists and Al Quaeda supporters.

        I'm not sure what will create more terrorists, but I know what will create less.

        I believe that Al Qaeda is less secure today than before we went into Afghanistan. I like to think that this means less terrorism.

        I feel less secure with Al Qaeda access to a huge stockpile of VX, Anthrax and possibly smallpox from Iraq.

        I do believe that more Al Qaeda supporters are being created daily with Osam

        • I feel less secure with Al Qaeda access to a huge stockpile of VX, Anthrax and possibly smallpox from Iraq.

          Saddam Hussein is an atheist (or an autotheist, "someone who thinks he is God"). He's the leader of a socialist party (the Ba'as party). He's also a megalomaniac. I don't imagine him funding islamic terrorists, unless he has complete control over them (obviously not the case with Al Quaeda). Al Qaeda zealots are against democracy, against separation of churches and state, and as well against Saddam

            • Saddam Hussein is an atheist...

            That's funny, I could swear that I see, almost daily, videotape of Saddam Hussein on his prayer rug, bowing down in prayer in the manner of Moslems.

            I can't read Hussein's mind. I don't know if he's an atheist or not. I do note that Islam does not require belief, only obedience, which is how they went about "converting" so many to their religion. As long as Hussein is bowing down, he's Muslim.

            It is quite clear to me that Hussein wishes to curry favor with Moslem fandame

            • The Terrorist organisations have called saddam an atheist and an infidel. In the tape which supposedly links iraq and al qaida bin laden refers to the iraq rulers as solialist infidels.

              Although iraq is on the whole a muslim nation, with a muslim majority it has a wide range of races and religions - this is because it was created artificially, like isreal, but european empire builders as they carved up the lands the middle east.

              Calling Saddam a muslim is like calling hitler or david koresh a christian. M

              --

              @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
              print reverse @JAPH;
                • Calling Saddam a muslim is like calling hitler or david koresh a christian.

                I don't know if he's a muslim or not. Clearly, he appears at Mosques and prays to curry favor with Muslims. He clearly wants support of Muslims and their interests collide.

                • More importantly jews and christians in muslim countries are treated a lot better than in christian, jewish and hindu countries.

                Oh yes, like the Christians that are gunned down in Pakistan.

                • Bin laden said nothing about working with Saddam - he said all m
      • Right, because doing nothing has made for less terrorists and Al Qaeda supporters ...
        • depends if you mean doing nothing about iraq or doing nothing about the middle east.

          Terrorists do not support saddam, saddam does not support terrorists - there is no link, at all. if the US and Isreali intelligence were any good they would have more useful information than :

          • Saddam has a small penis
          • Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (that we sold to him to use on muslim neighbours in iran but not isreal or other US allies) that have already been desteroyed by the UN.
          • Saddams grip on power is hel
          --

          @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
          print reverse @JAPH;
          • we still don't have any actual evidence of Iraq commiting a serious breach of UN resolutions

            This is plainly false. Not even the leaders of France or Germany could say this with a straight face. After Powell's presentation, France did not say Iraq was not in breach; it accepted that Iraq was in breach, and said we should give them more time.

            You're simply making things up out of thin air. No serious person familiar with the facts believes that Iraq is not in serious breach. Both El Baradei and Blix hav
      • The major one seems to be that the US seems to be trying to circumvent proper UN procedures to start the war as soon as possible.

      The US has worked under the auspices of the UN for more than a decade. The allies have worked assiduously to develop a concensus in the UN, with some success (Resolution 1441).

      However, the UN is not World Government. It's ineffective in that role due to the ability of any Security Council member to veto. The UN did not approve of the bombing of Serbia over Kosovo because o

      • The point that the US has gone along with UN procedures needs to be emphasized. For the last six months, the US has not in any way stepped outside UN procedures, nor done anything to circumvent them. It simply is not happening.

        Could it happen? Could the US go to war without the support of the UN, or against the apparent will of the UN? Yes. But there are no examples of the US doing this. To say the US is trying to circumvent UN procedure is fabrication.

        Perhaps it is meant that the threat of acting w
        • The point that the US has gone along with UN procedures needs to be emphasized. For the last six months, the US has not in any way stepped outside UN procedures, nor done anything to circumvent them. It simply is not happening.

          I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it was my impression that the ongoing UK gov/US gov bombing campaign/"no fly zone" was outside UN procedures.

          To put it another way: some people ask why Bush is rushing to war. I say, Iraq has been breaking its agreement with the UN for a decade
          • I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it was my impression that the ongoing UK gov/US gov bombing campaign/"no fly zone" was outside UN procedures.

            I specifically said "for the last six months." Yes, the enforcement of the no-fly zone has continued in that time, but it has been going on for a decade, and I was thinking of new things, not long-term continuing things. Sorry for the confusion.

            I, for one, am highly skeptical that a dictator installed by the US gov after an invasion would treat people much b
            • Oh, and in addition, Chalabi doesn't look like a dictator (in description) to me, though, of course, appearances can be deceiving.
            • I think the US government, rather than starting more wars, should just leave well enough alone, and stop the counterproductive stuff. Once we get to that point, *then* we can talk about trying to encourage good things to happen. The US exports a tremendous amount of military machinery. Take Mexico or Columbia, for example. Or US government backing of Egypt's dictator (those are *not* elections). Or talk about the Kurds -- the US government ships death machines to the Turkish military, which then uses t
              • Again: not addressing the issue of disarmament. Not convincing.

                As to opposition and the INC, yes, the head of the Iraqi National Congress has apparently been blessed by the US government to take over. It's not just the US, though; apparently, Chalabi also has the blessing of Iran and is working to gain support from the other main opposition groups (last I heard, a couple of weeks ago, a summit was planned for today in Northern Iraq).
                • Again: not addressing the issue of disarmament. Not convincing.

                  Do you see any connection between the actions of the US government and violence in the world? Does this bother you? Why would anyone trust these people? I'm not saying this as a Democratic-vs-Republican thing at all -- this nasty stuff goes on whatever party is in power. The whole Afghanistan mess was brought on by the Carter administration (though of course imperialist meddling goes way back, e.g. the British Empire stirring up wars there
      • When you are out there marching with the Imams - who want to establish Taliban-style regimes everywhere, anti-American Communists and pacifist who would have given in to Hitler, think about which side you may be choosing.

        I was taking your comments seriously until you spoilt it with that piece of stereotyping.

        If you only take away one piece of information from this discussion then let it be this - the Anti-war movement in the UK is not just made up of hippies, socialists and radical Muslims. A complete c

          • I was taking your comments seriously until you spoilt it with that piece of stereotyping.

          It would have been stereotyping had I said that all or even most of the marchers were fringe types. I did not say that.

          What I said was that you would be marching with those types. I think this is undeniable.

          It's ironic to me that you would show solidarity with those who would take your rights away to protest in the future.

          • It's ironic to me that you would show solidarity with those who would take your rights away to protest in the future.

            Sure, if they were marching for the right to take away my rights to protest in the future, then that would be a problem. But they're not. They are marching for the same reason as me. To protest against this war. This is a single issue march. And on that single issue I agree with everyone else who will be there on Saturday. You can't draw any other conclusions about the beliefs of anyone w

              • Sure, if they were marching for the right to take away my rights to protest in the future, then that would be a problem. But they're not.

              Are you sure? If you asked a militant Imam, he might well say that their opposition to the war is part of a greater plan to bring down America and that the aim of bringing down America is part of a greater plan to bring about a World Islamic state.

              I would want to distance myself from these monsters, but that's just me.

              If you live to see, God Forbid, the destruction

    • As to it being "clearly just about the oil," what do you mean by that? Do you mean the US is trying to steal the oil; if so, why didn't Bush 41 and Cheney march into Baghdad when they had the chance? If not, what do you mean?

      As to stability, the whole point -- one which the UN Security Council has agreed with on many occasions -- is that Iraq is a threat to the stability of the region until it is disarmed. And all of us know that Iraq has not, for a decade now, been cooperating with disarmament.

      As to r
      • As to it being "clearly just about the oil," what do you mean by that? Do you mean the US is trying to steal the oil; if so, why didn't Bush 41 and Cheney march into Baghdad when they had the chance? If not, what do you mean?

        This is what I mean. There are many countries around the world with human rights violations on their records, or who have weapons of mass destruction, or who have repeatedly ignored UN resolutions. So the obvious question is why pick on Iraq? And the answer that most easily comes to

        • You are not actually saying anything there, you are insinuating, and I do not know what you are insinuating. Is America going to take Iraq's oil fields, something the Bush administration has said in no uncertain terms it will not do? Is it trying to get lower oil prices, despite that war will increase oil prices for the forseeable future? What exactly are you insinuating?

          Further, that the answer comes most easily to your mind isn't exactly compelling. More to the point, you have completely disregarded