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.
  • The Economist has a thoughtful article this week, America's Iraq Policy [economist.com]. Personally, I don't think they'll do it as it would provoke too much backlash both foreign and domestic but it is a nice platfrom from which to make a lot of noise and distract people from noticing that after all the money spent on the current 'war' we still haven't apprehended OBL.

    In the sage words of Deep Throat, "Follow the money."

    • Despite political words to the contrary, I've never cared from day four (I cared the first few days :-) whether we got Osama Bin Laden. He is unimportant. Besides, it is likely he's dead anyway.

      But the point of my journal entry is that foreign and domestic backlash is and should be irrelevant: we should not attack unless it is necessary to do so. If is it necessary to do so, then what anyone thinks about it is, at best, secondary. Talking about the possibility of attacking Iraq in terms of backlash is
      • Well, the backlash will come from attacking without necessity. Of course, the US will attack Iraq and I'm just hoping that W waits until I'm out of the US before doing so.

        • Well, the backlash will come from attacking without necessity

          Then we shouldn't talk about the backlash, but the necessity, or lack of it. That's what is important.

          And frankly, not one of us has any real idea of whether or not an attack is necessary. We only have, at best, weakly educated guesses. I hope it is not necessary; I hope if we do attack, that it is necessary; I hope if it is necessary, we are all presented with at least some of the compelling facts before action is taken.
          • With the prevailing prevarication I doubt anything will be presented to the public in clear realistic terms. The stage for this foregone conclusion has been set for quite some time and the necessity will stem from that rather than any compelling evidence of provocation on Iraq's part. I hope the US doesn't attack Iraq without just cause either but, then again, hope is for those who can ignore history and why wars are fought.

            • With the prevailing prevarication I doubt anything will be presented to the public in clear realistic terms. The stage for this foregone conclusion has been set for quite some time and the necessity will stem from that rather than any compelling evidence of provocation on Iraq's part.

              I sincerely doubt it. But, we shall see.

              The question is: what will happen first, a baseball strike, or an attack on Iraq? And which will we care about more? ;-)

              I hope the US doesn't attack Iraq without just cause either but, then again, hope is for those who can ignore history and why wars are fought.

              Hope is also for those who know history, and can see its ameliorating effects on the present. :p