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

    • 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 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.

      Now, if such a war could in fact bring a stable democracy to this country or region I'd say that these are costs worthwhile to be taken. But I am sceptical. While the Iraqi people surely long for a different government their idea of such a government is a different one than that of the Americans or, in general, us Westerns. It is a common misconception that our democracy is suitable for everyone.

      And nonetheless, I still tend to back the war against Iraq, for quite some idiosyncratic reasons though. In my surrounding I have a lot of people from the middle east (mostly originating from the Iran, but also the Lebanonm, Syria and even one from the Iraq): those are considerate and intelligent people, all of them saying ever so often that they'd already have returned in their home country if it only had a proper political system that could ensure their freedom. I hope that a war against SH could give them such a system. Only if this happens we will later be able to say that this war was a success.

      Keeping that in mind, the last war on the gulf was not a success as no substantial changes have been achieved. Hopefully Bush will do it properly this time.

      Oh, I think it's clear we have no love for most of these countries. Saudi Arabia has been on my personal shitlist for some time. Any country that gives refuge to Edi Amin based on a phoney conversion to Islam deserves a nuke in the capital square, but that's just my opinion.

      Pardon me, but that's a silly statement. Do you want to declare war against a particular political system or against the people suffering from it? No, you need to come up with a more intelligent (more costly, more tricky, less simplistic) solution than dropping a nuke. The aim is to get rid of a few people not of a whole nation (or city, for that matter).
      • 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