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.
  • Who cares if any dictator wants to slaughter thousands of their own people. Who cares if that dictator takes your daughter beats her head in with a hammer and then puts her on your doorstep as a warning. That is their country. We shouldn't bother with them.
    • Yes, which is why we're making such a big effort in Darfur, and practically all of Africa.

      I could have sworn we went to Iraq to find WMD. I didn't realize it was all for humanitarian causes.

      • Strange how Bush and Blair have failed to take any action against far worse junta's and dictators accross asia, russia and china. Iraq was a tinpot dicatorship that the CIA lost control of, it was also too close to Israel, Kuwait and Saudi - nobody cares about junta's and dictatorship's that aren't sitting on a shedload of oil or next to key allies of the Bush Administration. Just look at Pakistan - a key allie in the war on terror, but of course it used to be a democracy and is now ruled by a military ju
        --

        @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
        print reverse @JAPH;
        • This is a terribly irrational argument. At best, it's a straw man, as no one in the administration ever said the only reason for going into Iraq was to get rid of a bad guy. It's also because Iraq is of obvious strategic importance, economically, militarily, and otherwise, and also because Islamic radicalism is a real threat to us at home, and Iraq's democratization will help us combat that.

          But perhaps worse than the straw man posed is the direct implication that if you don't try to help EVERYONE that ne
          • "This is a terribly irrational argument. At best, it's a straw man, as no one in the administration ever said the only reason for going into Iraq was to get rid of a bad guy. "

            That's funny as that has been the post-facto argument from Bush and Blair has been exactly that. The goal of regime change was obvious before and after the war, actually rebuilding a stable iraq was probably a lower priority than Halliburton and Others paydays, getting elected and striking back after the humiliation and incompetance of sept 11th.

            "It's also because Iraq is of obvious strategic importance, economically, militarily, and otherwise, and also because Islamic radicalism is a real threat to us at home, and Iraq's democratization will help us combat that."

            That is known to be untrue.

            The invasion of iraq and the truly fucking ridiculous management after victory was announced has done the opposite - there is now terrorism where there was none, there is anti-western feelings where there was none, and there is increased radicalism.

            Islamic Radicalism isn't a danger to the US or UK, a small terror cult with no clear political goals has turned into a large organisation with clear political goals, martyrs and everything it needs to recruit and finance itself boosted by western foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.

            Iran has had democracy for a long time, and has been moving towards a moderate position since the early 90's this comes from the hard work of european nations and moderate muslims in the middle east. The CIA has thrown some money and propoganda their way but Iraq has pushed many waverers back into the hands of extremists and hardliners.

            The problems with attacking iraq were obvious before and during the invasion. It was stated that the nation was already suffering from severe infrastructure problems, yet the infrastructure (except the precious oil pipelines) were bombed back to the middle ages. The parts of the infrastructure that were working were left unguarded and the experienced staff were all fired for being members of the ruling party, the army and police force were dispanded, and into the vacuum came terrorists, seperatists and organised criminals.

            It would have been far wiser to get the peace talks between israel and palestine back on track first, keep the pressure on iraq through the UN, which was working, revise the oil-for-food and other sanction schemes so that they punished the political class rather than the innocent, and worked to help moderates in Iran and Iraq (and no I don't mean throwing money at convicted embezzlers as the CIA did).
            --

            @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
            print reverse @JAPH;
            • That's funny as that has been the post-facto argument from Bush and Blair has been exactly that.

              You're absolutely wrong. The stated purpose of going into Iraq was never, ever, merely one thing. You hear what you want instead of what is actually being said.

              The invasion of iraq and the truly fucking ridiculous management after victory was announced has done the opposite - there is now terrorism where there was none, there is anti-western feelings where there was none, and there is increased radicalism.