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)

    by pudge (1) on 2003.08.26 19:26 (#23533) Homepage Journal
    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 I never talked about direct links to terrorists, because I didn't care. What I emphasized was that Iraq was cited, unanimously, to be a threat by the UN Security Council, to be guilty of breaching its cease-fire obligations, and that full cooperation was required of Iraq, and that Iraq for months refused to cooperate fully, and that therefore -- after 12 years of trying -- the line was finally drawn and force was warranted.

    You don't have to agree with those reasons. I expect you won't. But none of that was lied about, and to me, and many others, it was always the most important thing. You think of this as "dying for government lies," when the war was, to many people, justified on things NO ONE contends were lies.

    I today read a Brian Eno piece in TorgoX's journal where Eno says no one cared about Iraq before last summer, and it suddenly became important. Well, I don't know who he hangs out with, but I have viewed Iraq as a serious threat to regional stability -- as has the UN Security Council -- for many years, and was hoping Bush might push the UN to take action since long before "Axis of Evil" or September 11 came up. For people who follow security in the Middle East, Iraq has always been an issue on the table, and abot one UN Security Council resolution per year, since 1991, has focused on the rogue nation.

    That's what the war with Iraq is really about. The stuff about terrorism was, at worst, a way to get more people behind the effort, because saying "regional security" is a tougher sell, presumably. But in retrospect, it probably would have gone better for Bush to go that way, which is what I was saying back in January.
    • 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

      • 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)).