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.
  • Rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)

    "Depression" means something very specific in economic terms. Looking at the latest BEA [doc.gov] data for GDP (not GNP; that's a little harder to find in Google) shows increases in 3Q and 4Q 2002. That's not even a recession.

    I agree that war is an ugly thing, that unemployment is terrible, and that things like Total Information Awareness are nasty, horrible things.

    There's really no excuse for an intelligent, reasonable person to make things up to support an argument. "The White House wants to kill orphans

    • Re:Rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)

      chromatic, I consider you a friend, so I trust you won't take this personally!

      When I used the phrase "further depressing the US economy", I did not mean that we were experiencing a depression. I meant, very explicitly, to "Lessen the activity or force of; weaken". In fact, for this definition, dictionary.reference.com [reference.com] specifically uses the example feared that rising inflation would further depress the economy. I was not implying that we were experiencing a depression. As reported in the Washington Po [washingtonpost.com]

      • Re:Rhetoric (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jordan (120) on 2003.03.17 11:40 (#17986) Homepage Journal
        • If, however, we use the "Hussein is a really, really bad man" argument (which I concede that he is), then why do we remain silent about many other nations headed by brutal dictators?

        I don't think anyone but those wishing to knock down a strawman use the "Hussein is a really, really bad man" argument.

        I feel that we must enforce the conditions of the original armistice [fas.org]. Iraq has been in non-compliance, and been warned about serious consequences for quite some time [fas.org].

        I believe Iraq has failed to live up to any of the conditions of the armistice, and continues to be a threat to its neighbors. Iraq has continued to assert its claim to Kuwait [fas.org].

        It's time to get this over with. If we don't eventually exercise some serious consequence that actually hits at the rulers of Iraq, the International community loses all credibility.

        The current policy of containment is a form of war that is worse for the people of Iraq than the alternative of a shooting war [washingtonpost.com]. The sanctions against Iraq which are "murdering" Iraqi children, and the stationing of troops on Saudi soil, only there for containment, are some of the main reasons Bin Laden gives [observer.co.uk] for fighting the west:

        e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.


        (f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.


        By eliminating the brutal Iraqi regime, we can eliminate these points of contention with the 'Arab Street'. If we are successful in Iraq, expect to see our troops leave Saudi soil.

        Nobody seriously believes that Saddam Hussein is using all, or even very much, of the oil-for-food money for humanitarian reasons. If he's not, what is he doing? The only credible answer is that he continues to build weapons with which to threaten his neighbors.

        We are preventing Iraq from overtaking his neighbors, for now. But, it can't be lost on Hussein that a $500,000 investment, in the 9/11 terrorism, wrecks damage of $700,000,000,000 to the US economy. How much more could be done with his support? Would we be able to restrain Iraq if we were hit by repeated devastating blows at home?

        Before you claim that there is no possible link between Al Qaeda and 9/11, perhaps you should consider this [edwardjayepstein.com], this [freerepublic.com] and this [guardian.co.uk]. Some of this information may be inconclusive, but we must remember that Hussein now has reason to work with Al Qaeda, the elimination of the US block to his regional hegemony.

        James Woolsey, head of the CIA under Clinton, believes there are strong reasons to tie Iraq and Al Qaeda [intelmessages.org]. Some of the reasons he believes this may be classified. I trust him on this.