use Perl

• Yuck (Score:2)

  by djberg96 (2603)

  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
  • Why (Score:2)

    by rafael (2125)

    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 ?
    • Re:Why (Score:1)

      by chromatic (983)

      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?
      • Re:Why (Score:2)

        by rafael (2125)

        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.
        • Re:Why (Score:1)

          by chromatic (983) on 2003.01.23 17:49 (#16323) Homepage Journal

          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 Israel and American Protestantism.

          It'd be pretty tough for Sharon to get away with building nuclear or chemical weapons on the sly, though, compared to Hussein.

          Reply to This

          Parent

          • Nuclear weapons (Score:1)

            by htoug (771)

            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
            • Re:Nuclear weapons (Score:1)

              by chromatic (983)

              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.
            • Re:Nuclear weapons (Score:2)

              by pudge (1)

              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?