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.
  • I think the very thing, that many non-americans don't have is the feel of an apparent danger.

    Yesterday, I read in a German Newspaper that a couple of weeks ago, the Director of the CIA, I think his name was Tenet, said in front of Congress (although unwillingly) that Iraq was not dangerous to the US at the moment.

    Well, then there might still be plenty of reasons to fight a war, but those don't justify a preemptive strike.

    Did this Observer story [observer.co.uk] make it to the American media? Just one more reason why p

    • Whether Iraq is currently a danger to the US is not relevant.

      Whether Iraq actually has prohibited weapons right now is not relevant.

      The UN Security Council has only authorized the use of force twice in its history. First in Korea, second in the Gulf War, 12 years ago. That war ended with the Security Council saying, "Iraq must be disarmed," "Iraq must disarm itself with our help, according to these procedures," and "if these procedures do not work, we will take additional steps."

      We are here 12 years la
      • by malte (1708) on 2003.03.05 15:12 (#17753) Homepage Journal

        Yeah, that might all be true, but your argument has one serious flaw:

        The security council is _no_ court room. Decisions made in the past, might be irrelevant today. Democratic governments change. Public opinion changes. These factors influence the security council. There is no blindfolded justice.

        I just feel, that I have a pretty good feel for how people feel in the US (I have lived there for some years) and how people feel in at least some countries in Europe. The difference is fear. And I can fully understand that. The September 11th attacks were a tough hit to the US's national conscience.

        When I lived in the states, it first feeled weird that people were actually proud of being patriotic. That's a a pretty bad word over here in Germany. But I learned to understand that. However, I have also seen many exchange students from America in Germany who were really impressed of how chilled people are over here. A 17 year old girl from CA once told me how she was feeling save going out at night, although she hadn't seen police in weeks (Might have been, though, cause she was drunk for all that time).

        Well, it migh be just my naive opinion. But at least I'm one the majority side (For sure, if you count all chinese influenced by state media :)

        • Another word for fear is "knowledge that you're going to get hurt." September 11 gave us fear, and helped us realize that desperate killers can inflict catastrophic casualties if we keep our guard down. It taught us to seal up holes in our security, and taught us that ignoring threats like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Houssein was not as safe as we thought it was.

          Yes, I agree with you that a big difference between the U.S. attitude and the Europe attitude is fear -- but I don't see anything wrong with tha

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • I agree. It's perfectly valid. Just please, whatever you do, do it with international consensus. The US might somehow be able to argue that it is not breaking international law by referring to some 12 year old UN resolution, but that won't get you any more friends in the world. It will simply create even more little Osamas, just waiting to blow themselves up on my next flight to the US (Now I'm afraid; one the other hand, I'm going snowboarding for two weeks on friday. I probably die while taking a 60 feet

            • We want international consensus, but in the end, the United States cannot be expected to refuse to take reasonable action to protect itself even without that consensus. Assume for the moment that the United States has enemies in Europe and the U.N. (Which it does not.) You would be granting those enemies the moral right to tell the U.S. not to defend itself. We don't have to wait until everyone discusses the invasion in committee, so to speak.

              And I say all this as a pacifist, you realize. I'm opposed

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • No, fear is not an option. Fear is defeat. Fear is what happens when terror strikes and terror wins. Saddam is no threat to the US, someone is using America's fear as a reason to get his oil, end of story.

            --

            -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

        • Decisions made in the past, might be irrelevant today.

          THe UN Security Council has, more than a dozen times in a dozen years, reaffirmed Resolution 687 (most recently last Novemberm in Resolution 1441, approved unanimously). Yes, times change, but nothing has changed about the mandate that Iraq is a threat that must be disarmed. Referring to it as a "12-year old resolution," implying that the UN Security Council may not still support it, is simply wrong.

          There is simply no basis for saying the UN Securi