Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I wish the UN made a resulition that required a disarmament of the USA. The world would be a much safer place.

    Why do you Americans believe you're soooo much better than the rest of the world?

    • by pudge (1) on 2003.02.20 7:04 (#17288) Homepage Journal
      Is that a serious statement and question? It doesn't appear to be.

      It is not the US that is requiring Iraqi disarmament. It is the UN Security Council, with about a dozen or more resolutions over the past 12 years, affirming over and again that Iraq is a threat that must be disarmed. France has repeatedly agreed to this, as has Russia, as has Germany, as has Syria, as has every other nation that has been on the Security Council (except for the new ones which have not yet had the pleasure).

      Also, Iraq has agreed to this. Resolution 687 of 1991, which ended the Gulf War, was a cease-fire resolution that Iraq agreed to unconditionally, which first defined the prohibitions for NBC weapons and missles that are capable of exceeding a 150km range.

      It is not about believing we are better. It is about Iraq starting, and losing, a war with the United Nations forces; it is about Iraq, and everyone else, agreeing that Iraq must be disarmed of these weapons; it is about the UN Security Council working to fulfill its stated obligation to disarm Iraq through other means if inspections fail.

      Feel free to whine about "disarmament" of other countries and who feels superior over whom, but without addressing the actual issues, you just make your opinions appear quite immature and entirely irrelevant. Please, get informed.
      • Let me make it clear that I don't agree with Bart in his comment. However I think that the way you are stressing the fact that the UN Security Council is saying things is not as simple as you make it sound.

        You are clearly forgetting that some powerful nations (USA *and* others) are using their influence on other countries to push certain decisions. That's common knowledge. Like 'Hey France, it looks like you're going to vote against this resolution, but don't you think it will be rather inconvenient if we
        • I am not saying there are not a lot more to these things than meets the eye (in fact, I have been trying to let people know that far more is happening than any of us could possibly know).

          However, two things are clear: first, you own your vote. If you vote a certain way, then you have in fact supported what you have voted for.

          Second, there have been many resolutions over the past 12 years reaffirming Resolution 687. It wasn't a one-off deal. France has, dozens of times, reaffirmed its original agreement