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.
  • 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

    • 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]

      • by djberg96 (2603) on 2003.01.23 11:22 (#16303) Journal
        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 until paragraph 14 (!) that he even bothers to tie in Blair. 20% of an article does not a topic make. Perhaps I was out of line when I used the term "pinhead", but I used the term "blather" because he makes lots of claims with absolutely no corroborating evidence.

        Where setting up free democracies abroad is concerned, well, maybe, but the US doesn't exactly have the track record to make it trustable there.

        I'd say we're hit and miss. I'd like to at least give it a try.

        Let us not forget that SH could stand this long only thanks to past support from the US (notably around the Iran conflict).

        You must be joking!!! Where does virtually ALL of Iraq's non-Russian military equipment come from? It comes from FRANCE! Over 100 F-1 Mirage fighters, plus over 100 military helicopters, plus exocet missles (many now destroyed, however). Some of these were sold in exchange for (you guessed it) - OIL! As far as I know, the U.S. never supplied the Iraqi's with a single aircraft, helicopter or tank. Certainly nothing even remotely modern if we did. Mostly stingers, small arms and money, I imagine. Oh, and who built most of the hardened aircraft hangers in Iraq? ENGLAND! It is time we dispel this myth that the US is to blame for Iraq's military might.

        Here are some links btw:
        globalsecurity.org [globalsecurity.org]
        nothing [somethingfromjapan.com]

        Go back and read it again, you're putting words into his mouth, or at least grossly exaggerating his point. Just because Bush, Cheney, and Rice are Big Oil sons of a bitch doesn't mean Al Gore ain't a Big Oil son of a bitch. If the US ever needed a Witch Hunt, that could be it.

        Ok - you're right. I guess what irritates me about this point is that it suggests that major foreign policy decisions are being made so that Bush and his staff can pad their portfolio. To me, it's sickening.

        Come on, you have to have seen the plans put forth to put Iraq under US governing for five renewable years? And there are only two (simplified) ways in which the US can face its energy consumption problems in the not-so-distant future: a) find a way to produce more oil (most or Iraq's rigs are dead), and lower dependency on Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela or b) ratify Kyoto and invest massively in having a 21rst century energy policy. Sadly enough, I don't see many people advocating the latter there, which in turn would tend to make the former the only option.

        Oh, I'll be the first person to say we should sign the Kyoto treaty. But I can tell you that the US does not rely on Iraqi oil *at all*. IIRC, we actually get more from Russia and South America these days. But yes, we need a greatly improved energy policy and Republicans are notorious for opposing environmental measures.

        Fine. But then surely you have no reason to assume someone is defending the Democrats just because he thinks the Republicans currently in power stink do you? The world isn't always a bipolar lobbycracy.

        Ok - my mistake. But I've been suffering under a two party system my whole life...