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.

Fables of Faubus 21 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • This is some of the worst liberal blather I've heard in a long time, and pretty well sums up the position of most pinheads in this country. Let's take some points in particular, shall we?

    The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible.

    So, Clinton was planning a war on Iraq then? What is he referring to here?

    Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally

    • Don't have the time or inclination to debate this in much detail, but one thing you said can't go unchallenged.

      Mostly it boils down to, "we're sick of him".

      I really don't think that's a valid reason for one nation to try to depose the leader of another.

    • First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

      Now, not calling you a pinhead, and moving on to a smaller selection of point myself:

      So, Clinton was planning a war on

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

        I realize what it's *supposed* to be. But most of the article is an attack on Bush, his staff, and his motivations. It isn't unt

    • What in the world makes you think we're going to war in Iraq over oil?
      Personnally, I can't figure out another reason. Care to explain why are you going to war then ?

      • To depose a government that's ignored several U. N. resolutions -- put together at the end of the last war -- and has destabilized the region.

        Assuming those are good reasons (and I realize there's a wide difference of opinion on that), should there not be a war if Big Oil benefits? In other words, is "punishing" Big Oil more important than promoting global stability and practicing international justice?

        • These are perhaps good reasons, (and that's not the point here), but they're not consistent with other facts. Israel also ignored several UN resolutions, and has destabilized the region (and for a larger number of years than Iraq). But it's still supported by the USA (and several other governments worldwide). So these reasons don't explain the current foreign policy of the USA.

          • It's hard to make a credible argument that Israel's just looking for a good excuse to turn Syria, Lebanon, Sinai, or Jordan into a glassy crater. You're right, though, ignoring UN resolutions is a pretty lousy justification by itself.

            Of course, with Israel you have to admit two things. First, the existence of the country itself is a destabilizing factor (and pretty much makes the whole situation unsolveable). Second, any solution has to take into account 1.2 centuries of entrenched Zionism within Isr

            • Israel already has nuclear weapons - that much is commonly acknowledged [try Googling for Mordechai Vanunu - you'll find articles in the Jerusalem Post about the Israel nuclear capability under the headline 'The worst-kept secret in the world'}.

              I still haven't seen the US doing anything but support one of the most vicious occupations in the later years, and a goverment that is led by former terrorists who are completely indifferent to human rights [ducks and scurries for cover from angry right-wing americ

              • a goverment that is led by former terrorists who are completely indifferent to human rights

                Funny, you can paint people of both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian fracas with the same brush.

              • Having nuclear weapons is not the crime of Iraq. Having nuclear weapons in direct violation of UN resolutions resulting from Iraq losing a war with the UN is the crime of Iraq.

                The Gulf War ended with Iraq losing. There were terms to its end. Iraq has failed to comply with those terms, according to everyone except for Iraq itself. What the hell did they THINK would happen?
          • Rafael, I can't believe you are honestly comparing Israel to Iraq. The resolutions against Iraq have to do with failure to disarm of NBC weapons and weapons programs following Iraq losing a war with the United Nations. The resolutions against Israel are largely against both Israel and the Palestinians, are not related to weapons of mass destruction, have far less force of law, being that they are not the terms of the end of a war. They are, simply put, not the same thing.
      • There are other reasons:
        • waging a war demonstrates leadership or so think Bush.
        • the Military-Industrial Complex [msu.edu] needs a major war every ten years or so.
        Moral grounds are irrelevant as can be seen by reading any biography of Saddam Hussein [au.com].
    • The cost will be minimal. The benefits, assuming a free democracy is set up and there is help in rebuilding from the West (and there would be), far outweigh the costs, both to the Iraqi people, the U.S., the Middle East, and the world. Let's not forget what a mother-fucker Hussein is. This guy *is* Stalin, only his army isn't nearly as big (thank goodness). How many Iraqi lives have to be lost at Hussein's hand? YOU ARE NOT SAVING IRAQI LIVES.

      The costs wont be minimal, and they haven't been minimal during
      • The costs wont be minimal, and they haven't been minimal during the last gulf-war. I heard something about roughly 300,000 casualties. Those were numbers I wasn't aware of and numbers you wouldn't have expected if you had followed the news coverage by this time.

        Actually, I was referring to civilian casualties. 300,000 sounds like an estimate of Iraqi military casualities.

        Pardon me, but that's a silly statement. Do you want to declare war against a particular political system or against the people suff

  • The cost will be minimal

    That was a joke right? Surely you can't seriously believe that? Well, I dunno, maybe you think that 40-160 billion dollars at a time when the American economy is in the toilet is a worthwhile expenditure.
    • Should have replied to djberg96 - my mistake :-(
      • How much do you think we're spending annually now to maintain a permanent presence in the area? Now add that up over twelve years. So YES, in the long run, the cost will be minimal.

        In reality, I was referring to allied casualties, but thanks for bringing up the $$$ issue.

  • is to create a small Perl script to munge all of the world's ills into one nasty glob. ;-)

    Hmmm...would a regex be better or full up parser?
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.