use Perl

• Exactly! (Score:1)

  by sigzero (5768) on 2005.05.04 20:48 (#40212) Journal

  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.

  Reply to This

  • Re:Exactly! (Score:2)

    by VSarkiss (704)

    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.
    • and burma and zimbabwe and china.. (Score:2)

      by TeeJay (2309)

      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;
      • Re:and burma and zimbabwe and china.. (Score:2)

        by pudge (1)

        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
        • Re:and burma and zimbabwe and china.. (Score:2)

          by TeeJay (2309)

          "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

          --
          
          @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
          print reverse @JAPH;
          • Re:and burma and zimbabwe and china.. (Score:2)

            by pudge (1)

            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.