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.
  • with many reasons for and against, none stand out as a clincher. None of the arguments for war stands out as a very good reason.

    Unfortunately many of the arguments against the war fail to clinch it either.

    When its a close call like this you have to be able to trust the politicians and intelligence with the information that they cannot or will not make available to you... but the politicians and intelligence have only managed to undermine any trust we may have had - dossiers compiled of propoganda copied out of student essays and janes defence journal, the US bugging/threatening/blackmailing/bribing security council members, shadows of hypocracy in the US and UK selling arms to Saddam and then complaining about it, muddled arguments that mean that most of the arguments for going to war against iraq apply equally well to a long list of countries that are either allies or too important to the arms, oil or tobacco industries, the shadow of a corrupt US administration in the pockets of oil and defence lobbies, a huge list of reasons to be cynical about any reasons the hawks give us.

    Those who don't want war, don't want it now and don't want it for the reasons claimed - you can't claim you are going to war about WMD when there are none, and you can't go to war to topple saddam when that isn't the goal defined by the UN.

    It could have been a clear cut justification for war if the same standards were applied to ensure countries like Burma, Isreal and China were forced to comply with the will of the UN, but double standards, lies and corruption mean that most of europe don't believe the justification for war is proven.

    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
    • most of the arguments for going to war against iraq apply equally well to a long list of countries

      Yes, but as I mentioned, I ignore many of the arguments for war (and some against war) as side issues. Conveniently, I suppose, many of the arguments I ignore would be the ones that would apply to other countries. Not a democracy? Human rights violations? Subjugating its neighbors? All of those, to me, are side issues. The U.S. leaders' job is to protect the U.S., which, IMHO, can be the only reason f

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • Perhaps you can ignore the "side issues", but there are many people who do not share your belief that Iraq poses an immediate and substantive threat against the U.S.

        That leaves the "side issues" as equally important (in their minds). When the U.S. is choosing to go to war against Iraq, and not choosing to go to war against many other countries with equally dispicable records, the next step is to look at why that choice was made. Which is where the argument comes that this is all about oil.

        Will of the U

      • I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.

        It may be a threat to Israel but that is not the concern of either UN directives or the rest of the world.

        You can't really call 'protecting the interests of an important military customer and diamond trade hub' self defense.

        Of course you can't expect Bush or Blair to admit this.

        I really want to see Iraq liberated, but NOT at ANY price. Currently that price seems to be turning a blind eye to turkeys oppression

        --

        @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
        print reverse @JAPH;
        • I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.

          I disagree, and many thinking, reasoning people disagree. You can't dismiss us all as idiots; some of us even know how to pronounce "nuclear."

          Maybe they are not a direct threat, but they have tried to develop weapons to inflict catastrophic harm, have indicated a lack of regard for human life, and evidence a particular hatred of the United States. Finally, September 11 showed forever that people like that will

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • There is no proof or reasoning that Iraq is an immediate or direct threat to the US or Europe.

            There is only circumstantial evidence that Iraq is a danger to its own neighbours.

            Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones. That makes it fairly clear that it is not a direct threat or immediate threat to the rest of the world.

            There are no links between Iraq and terrorist groups, just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make

            --

            @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
            print reverse @JAPH;
            • No proof, but lots of reason to speculate.

              Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones.

              Neither did al-Qaeda. Iraq may not have missles, but they may very well have dirty bombs, smallpox, or worse, with an unforeseen plan to get them into the U.S.

              just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make it true

              I agree, but the anti-war side is taking the same tack on many points.

              Enjoying the discussion. As you can see, I'm

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • It may be a threat to Israel but that is not the concern of either UN directives or the rest of the world.

          That is wholly inaccurate. UN Security Council Resolution 687 says that the goal of the disarmament of Iraq is "of restoring international peace and security in the area," which inherently includes Israel (as Iraq attacked Israel during that conflict).

          More importantly, the US is a sworn ally of Israel, and must protect Israel when it is threatened. Yes, we should send our soldiers to die to protect