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.
  • by djberg96 (2603) on 2003.01.23 9:06 (#16296) Journal
    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 abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

    Yep, Enron is Bush's fault. Because we all *know* that a big, evil corporation's behavior is due to some Republican somewhere.

    They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

    First, supporting Israel is hardly new to the Bush administration. Second, what UN resolutions is he referring to?

    A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?

    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.

    ...but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods

    Yes, because we all know that *just wishing* Saddam Hussein would go away will eventually make him go away. Economic sanctions won't work. Political pressure won't work. ONLY MILITARY FORCE WILL REMOVE HUSSEIN. And no, putting a bullet in his head won't accomplish much - we'll just have one military dictator replacing another.

    The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

    Oh, yes, we all know that Republicans are religious fanatics who justify everything they do as God's will. Please. This is more liberal, hysterical stereotyping. I have yet to see or hear the Bush administration suggest that it is God's will that we attack Iraq. Whether I agree with them or not, everything I've seen and heard has been very pragmatic. Mostly it boils down to, "we're sick of him".

    God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

    Ok, let's talk about the Kennedy's now. No? I didn't fucking think so. What does this have to do with anything?!

    Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.

    Right, because only Republicans are involved in Big Oil. Oh, try searching on "al gore" + "occidental petroleum" and see how it goes. More ignorant liberal stereotyping. Democrats are merely better at pretending to be environmentalists without actually effecting any change. This is how we end up with protection for wildlife refuges (which I support, btw), but no real energy policy for 8 years.

    What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.

    What in the world makes you think we're going to war in Iraq over oil? Please liberals, tell me. Are we going to occupy Iraq permanately, and pipe their oil directly into our country? Is that your brilliant theory? Or would we help with the reconstruction and leave? Please, get a friggin' grip.

    If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

    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.

    Blair’s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy

    Holy Hell! Has Chamberlain come back from the dead to espouse his brilliant political views and demonstrate his keen political savvy? We wouldn't want to provoke retalation would we? Better if we just do nothing. GAH! It's the same old shit, warmed over.

    BTW, I should mention that I am not a Republican. I am an agnostic Independent.

    • Don't have the time or inclination to debate this in much detail, but one thing you said can't go unchallenged.

      Mostly it boils down to, "we're sick of him".

      I really don't think that's a valid reason for one nation to try to depose the leader of another.

    • First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

      Now, not calling you a pinhead, and moving on to a smaller selection of point myself:

      So, Clinton was planning a war on

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

        I realize what it's *supposed* to be. But most of the article is an attack on Bush, his staff, and his motivations. It isn't unt

    • What in the world makes you think we're going to war in Iraq over oil?
      Personnally, I can't figure out another reason. Care to explain why are you going to war then ?
      • To depose a government that's ignored several U. N. resolutions -- put together at the end of the last war -- and has destabilized the region.

        Assuming those are good reasons (and I realize there's a wide difference of opinion on that), should there not be a war if Big Oil benefits? In other words, is "punishing" Big Oil more important than promoting global stability and practicing international justice?

        • These are perhaps good reasons, (and that's not the point here), but they're not consistent with other facts. Israel also ignored several UN resolutions, and has destabilized the region (and for a larger number of years than Iraq). But it's still supported by the USA (and several other governments worldwide). So these reasons don't explain the current foreign policy of the USA.
          • It's hard to make a credible argument that Israel's just looking for a good excuse to turn Syria, Lebanon, Sinai, or Jordan into a glassy crater. You're right, though, ignoring UN resolutions is a pretty lousy justification by itself.

            Of course, with Israel you have to admit two things. First, the existence of the country itself is a destabilizing factor (and pretty much makes the whole situation unsolveable). Second, any solution has to take into account 1.2 centuries of entrenched Zionism within Isr

            • Israel already has nuclear weapons - that much is commonly acknowledged [try Googling for Mordechai Vanunu - you'll find articles in the Jerusalem Post about the Israel nuclear capability under the headline 'The worst-kept secret in the world'}.

              I still haven't seen the US doing anything but support one of the most vicious occupations in the later years, and a goverment that is led by former terrorists who are completely indifferent to human rights [ducks and scurries for cover from angry right-wing americ

              • a goverment that is led by former terrorists who are completely indifferent to human rights

                Funny, you can paint people of both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian fracas with the same brush.

              • Having nuclear weapons is not the crime of Iraq. Having nuclear weapons in direct violation of UN resolutions resulting from Iraq losing a war with the UN is the crime of Iraq.

                The Gulf War ended with Iraq losing. There were terms to its end. Iraq has failed to comply with those terms, according to everyone except for Iraq itself. What the hell did they THINK would happen?
          • Rafael, I can't believe you are honestly comparing Israel to Iraq. The resolutions against Iraq have to do with failure to disarm of NBC weapons and weapons programs following Iraq losing a war with the United Nations. The resolutions against Israel are largely against both Israel and the Palestinians, are not related to weapons of mass destruction, have far less force of law, being that they are not the terms of the end of a war. They are, simply put, not the same thing.
      • There are other reasons:
        • waging a war demonstrates leadership or so think Bush.
        • the Military-Industrial Complex [msu.edu] needs a major war every ten years or so.
        Moral grounds are irrelevant as can be seen by reading any biography of Saddam Hussein [au.com].
    • 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 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