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.
  • You see UN inspectors aren't allowed to inspect any USA or UK military complexes, so Iraq is bound to quibble.

    Then we know that the USA, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, China and India all have Nuclear and/or chemical weapons. But iraq and other countries are of course not allowed nuclear weapons because they are 'bad guys'.

    This has nothing to do with iraq ever attacking the west - it has no interest in doing so, it has interests attacking Isreal because it is an aggresive neighbour funded and armed by a

    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
    • You see UN inspectors aren't allowed to inspect any USA or UK military complexes, so Iraq is bound to quibble.

      I don't see what your point is. The USA and UK didn't lose a war, the terms of which required them to subject themselves to inspections. They can quibble all they like, but I couldn't possibly care less. Inspections are not because they are bad guys, but because they lost.

      Now, in addition to UN-mandated inspections, yes, they should not have the bomb because they are bad guys. Complain about Israel all you want, but everyone in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, you name it -- is afraid of what will happen if Iraq gets the the bomb. They do attack their neighbors, have done so in the past, and will likely do so again, while under the current regime. It's unreasonable to paint them as no different from the other nations of the world, or even the region.

      This has nothing to do with iraq ever attacking the west - it has no interest in doing so

      You are one of the few who seems to think so. We prevent Iraq from becoming the power in the Middle East (while Suaid Arabia doesn't want the US attacking Iraq, you bet your ass they don't want the US to leave Saudi Arabia, because they fear what Iraq will do if that happens). We prevent Iraq from destroying Israel, something they've tried to do in the past. They have a lot of interest in attacking the US. And there is plenty of evidence that they have attacked the US -- again, Ramzi Yousef was likely an agent of Iraq -- and it's quitely possible they continue to do so.

      Saddam was voted in just as democratically as Bush (i.e. not a fair or valid election)

      Like it or not, the laws we set up for our election in the US were followed; Bush was elected according to those laws. You can put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and say it isn't so, but it is.

      • NO, Iraq is "not allowed nuclear weapons"
        the same as Brazil, Australia, or Mozambique.
        Since the genie cannot be put back in the
        bottle, there is an international consensus
        of no nuclear proliferation. Heads of state
        were certainly not pleased to wake up to a
        nuclear club with two new members (India and Pakistan).
        --
        Were that I say, pancakes?