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.
  • China (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pudge (1) on 2003.02.06 9:59 (#16774) Homepage Journal
    China is one of the big reasons military action is likely not the answer in N. Korea. China doesn't want nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula any more than we do, and they have more ability to prevent it than we do.

    As to Iraq, I am open to ideas. But we ended the Gulf War last time around with two options: remove Hussein from power and forcibly disarm the country, or allow them to disarm themselves. We've followed the latter course for a decade and it has clearly failed -- even France recognized this yesterday, though they still want more time -- so we are going back to plan A, which we should have done in the first place.

    You say we are provoking a war, but that simply isn't true. We are attempting to resolve something the UN has been working on for a decade: the disarmament of a recognized threat. No, we don't need evidence they are a threat; the UN has already decided this matter, and what was left was only what to do about it. We chose the wrong path in allowing them to disarm themselves, so now we are taking the other one. Iraq has violated the terms of the end of the hostilities; it's not a new war, it's finishing up the old one.

    I wish there were another way, but if wishes were horses, those dorks in the Levi's commercial would have been trampled. [sun-sentinel.com]
  • China would rather not have a US build up in the area ;-)
    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
  • Yes, but look at past performance. Did we win the last war in Korea? Did we win the last war in Iraq? Which one are we most likely to win now? (Only joking. By that argument we should be attacking Britain, Spain, and Mexico.)

    On a side note, a pet peeve of mine. You're not the only one who does it, but I'll choose to pick on you because I don't like your politics :P and also because you're the kind of person for whom it's likely only a typo. "Lead" is a heavy metal. Past tense of the verb "to lead"

    --
    J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
    • Oops. Sadly, I do know that. I'm not particularly good at vetting my blog entries. Through the magic of Soviet-style revisionism, that mistake will never have occurred. ;-)
  • Iraq/saddam was given all its weapons to fight Iran, now that Iran is a leading example of Islamic Moderate democracy in the middle east, iraq/saddam has outlived its use.

    The USA fears that Iraq could eventually attack isreal or kuwait - both of which are worse in some areas of human rights, democracy, war crimes and breaches of un resolutions than Iraq.

    The UK is along for the ride because its good for votes and good for the defence industry.

    The UN does not have any evidence that there are weapons of

    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;