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.
  • 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.
    • 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.

      • 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;
        • 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
          • "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;
            • 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.

              Even if all that is true, it doesn't argue against what I wrote. Again, you are attacking a straw man. No one *ever* said that there would not be a temporary rise in these things following the invasion. I predicted it myself, all the while supporting the war. But that these things are rising temporarily does not mean that we are not more effectively combatting them in the long run.

              You see a hornet's nest, and you spray it with poison. Guess what, you see more hornet activity. And in the process, you've killed most of them, and weakened their position for the future. That there are more terrorist attacks now, against our troops, than before is a good thing: it means we are killing them now instead of letting them live to plot attacks elsewhere, against civilians.

              Whether there is actually more radicalism, or whether it is just more apparent, is not known. What is known is that in the Middle East, the governments are all moving more away from radicalism, and the cultures are feeling more and more free to speak out against radicalism.

              Islamic Radicalism isn't a danger to the US or UK

              So 9/11 didn't happen? Do you really intend this statement to be taken seriously?

              Iran has had democracy for a long time

              Only in a similar sense as Egypt and Iraq and other countries that have sham democracies.

              and has been moving towards a moderate position since the early 90's

              And started shifting back in the late 90s.

              this comes from the hard work of european nations and moderate muslims in the middle east.

              And the U.S., which has been a staunch supporter of the Iranian opposition groups.

              The CIA has thrown some money and propoganda their way but Iraq has pushed many waverers back into the hands of extremists and hardliners.

              And it has pushed many of them into the hands of the opposition groups.

              It would have been far wiser to get the peace talks between israel and palestine back on track first

              That was not possible as long as Arafat was in charge, as we all know.

              keep the pressure on iraq through the UN, which was working

              No, it wasn't. Not in any functional sense of the word. The UN resolutions called for disarmament, monitoring, and verification. Even if we can trust that Iraq was disarmed, we know that they refused to allow for sufficient monitoring and verification, and without this we could never know they were disarmed, which means we have to assume they were armed.

              This is all established fact. Only the most partisan or sophomoric interpretation of events could conclude that the system was working.

              revise the oil-for-food and other sanction schemes so that they punished the political class rather than the innocent

              Yeah, right. The UN refused to enforce its own resolutions that required the UN to take action to force Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, and those same people who refused to take action were profitting from OFF, and you want them to reform OFF? The case can be made that they refused to take forceful action *because* they wanted to keep the profitable OFF exactly how it was.