Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • And ask the hawks, how does war solve the Iraq problem?
    • As a "hawk", I'll take this one.

      War appeared to be the best and only solution to the "Iraq problem" in 1991, when Iraq had forcibly occupied an oil rich neighbor.

      When Iraq was forcibly evicted from Kuwait, certain conditions were set at the time of the armistice. Iraq has not met those conditions and it appears that they will not except by force.

      I ask the doves, how are we to solve the Iraq problem short of war? By signing more oil leases with Saddam Hussein so that he can continue to starve and depriv

      • You didn't answer the question completely. Ok, so we bomb Iraq. We send in ground troops. Is the solution to obtaining a disarmed Iraq basically an occupying army until such time every square mile of the country is searched for banned weapons and those who would use them? How does war disarm Iraq?
        • I'm not so interested in disarmament for disarmaments sake. For example, I'm not in favor of making sure that China and Russia have no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

          I am concerned when Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only reason he has them is to threaten his neighbors and the US, through potential terrorist allies.

          If we get regime change in Iraq, we go a long way toward making the world a safer place. I would assume that we would insist upon a Government in Iraq that would seriously

          • I never said I had an answer on how to make sure that the commitments are enforced. The hawk argument, as I understand it, is that war is the only answer to enforcing these commitments. I am struggling to see how war can do this.

            Or I want to see both sides here. Doves when asked how to enforce disarmament don't have an answers, Hawks have the beginning of answer with "Invade Iraq" but don't follow through on how invading iraq will cause disarmament.

            I am very much on the very fence with this issue of whe

            • Disarmament will still not come easily, but yes, the basic idea is that the military will do it. More advanced surveillance equipment, proper interviews of scientists unafraid of their families being killed by Hussein, etc.

              And, perhaps more importantly, the coalition plans to foster a government that will look favorably on UN resolutions mandating disarmament. I have no idea what form that government will take. Bush gave an excellent speech tonight, and talked about democracy in Iraq, noting that no one thought they could have democracy in Japan, either. But whatever happens, it seems quite likely that the coalition forces would not approve of a government they believe is not committed to disarmament; my hope is that the people of Iraq, existing opposition leaders, etc. are likewise committed to this goal.

              Speaking of all this, I had a thought tonight: have any democracies ever been at war with each other (not including civil wars)?