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
    • 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 resolut

      • by pudge (1) on 2003.08.28 11:17 (#23617) Homepage 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.

        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)).

        As TeeJay will no doubt point out, other nations are not in compliance with UN resolutions or UN Security Council resolutions.

        Not in ANY of those resolutions against other nations did the UN Security Council promise to take "further steps" to "secure peace and security in the area" (Res. 687) or threaten "serious consequences" (Res. 1441).

        The phrasing in 687 there is especially interesting because it is a actual promise to do what is necessary to secure peace and security, which necessarily means that, as a last resort, force will be used (because without the threat of force, no such promise could be worth anything). Note that Iraq, Kuwait, and the rest of the UN Security Council (hm, maybe except for one of the Middle Eastern nations on it at the time, if my memory is any good) agreed to this promise of force.

        Anyway, the point is not that they violated the resolutions -- that this in itself is a crime -- but that the resolutions were there to effect a certain outcome, and that because they failed to do that, force was used to achieve it (as promised in the original cease-fire resolution in 1991). I am sorry I didn't make it clear in the last post.