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 21 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 interesting. I know how politics works, and I know how people hear what they want to hear. It seems more likely to me that the US said "we are going to control the country with our military until we can stabilize the country" and they erroneously took that as "they are abandoning plans for democracy."

                  The article says "the change in American policy" as though any change has been established, and it clearly has not; it quotes some Kurdish officials, who don't quote the US officials, and accepts their interpretation as fact.

                  In itself, the article is extraordinarily uninteresting, except as a case study in diplomacy or media.

                  What I don't see is why you trust the US government to make the situation better by military conquest.

                  That is because you refuse to see what the actual point is. You see "better" in terms other than what they actual are: disarmament. Until you see that it is about disarmament, you will be unclear on such things, yes. Of course.

                  I am not for military action. I am for disarmament. War is one means to disarmament. Inspections are another. Inspections have failed. War should be the last resort. No one is offering an alternative for disarmament that falls between inspections and war (not even France).

                  So what you are looking for, from me, is some other mechanism to liberate people from nasty governments, that doesn't involve conquest by nasty people?

                  This has nothing to do with liberation, or Hussein being a nasty person. You are flatly mistaken. It is about disarmament. I've been preaching this mantra -- the same one the UN has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that the US has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that all governments in the area, that all governments in Europe, have acknowledged is the primary issue -- and you insist on attempting to frame it in other terms.

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

                  That you refuse to acknowledge that this is about disarmament is telling. I will no longer discuss this with you, until you acknowledge that this is about disarmament, and frame the discussion in those terms. Life is too short to waste time on people who refuse to actually understand the nature of the conflict they are ranting about. I will just mumble something about pearls and move on.
                  • This has nothing to do with liberation, or Hussein being a nasty person. You are flatly mistaken. It is about disarmament. I've been preaching this mantra -- the same one the UN has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that the US has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that all governments in the area, that all governments in Europe, have acknowledged is the primary issue -- and you insist on attempting to frame it in other terms.

                    These governments say it is about disarmament, but I don't belie
                    • I know, I know, I said I would not respond. But I am trying to help you understand. I am too kind.

                      If the US government were disarming other governments with nasty weapons, there are lots of better targets: South Africa, North Korea, Russia, China, Britain, and France.

                      Not one of those countries is required by the UN Security Council to disarm. Not one of those countries unconditionally agreed with the UN Security Council to disarm. Your comparisons are uninteresting in the discussion at hand.
                    • But I am trying to help you understand. I am too kind.

                      Please help me understand your point of view by answering my oft-repeated questions: why do you take what these governments say at face value? Are you at all familiar with the historical record of these governments?
                    • I didn't answer it because it was irrelevant. I don't take what the governments say at face value. "Have you stopped beating your mother?"

                      But even if I did: EVERY government involved has agreed that Iraq must be disarmed, and that if inspections fail, other means shall be taken. It is not "these" governments, it is all of them, including Iraq. For that one just needs to read the record, which I have been quoting; you don't need to take anyone's word for it.
                    • Have you stopped beating your mother?

                      Yes, I realized after posting that I should have worded that differently. Please excuse the rhetorical mistake.

                      EVERY government involved

                      News flash: NO government in the world is interested in helping out you, or any other individual. NO government will preserve your liberty, or keep you warm at night any longer that it has to. Note how EVERY government has agreed to nasty copyright and patent law, how EVERY government pushes for what's "good for business," and
                  • 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 hav
                    • 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.