Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I think the very thing, that many non-americans don't have is the feel of an apparent danger.

    Yesterday, I read in a German Newspaper that a couple of weeks ago, the Director of the CIA, I think his name was Tenet, said in front of Congress (although unwillingly) that Iraq was not dangerous to the US at the moment.

    Well, then there might still be plenty of reasons to fight a war, but those don't justify a preemptive strike.

    Did this Observer story [] make it to the American media? Just one more reason why p

    • Whether Iraq is currently a danger to the US is not relevant.

      Whether Iraq actually has prohibited weapons right now is not relevant.

      The UN Security Council has only authorized the use of force twice in its history. First in Korea, second in the Gulf War, 12 years ago. That war ended with the Security Council saying, "Iraq must be disarmed," "Iraq must disarm itself with our help, according to these procedures," and "if these procedures do not work, we will take additional steps."

      We are here 12 years la
      • Yeah, that might all be true, but your argument has one serious flaw:

        The security council is _no_ court room. Decisions made in the past, might be irrelevant today. Democratic governments change. Public opinion changes. These factors influence the security council. There is no blindfolded justice.

        I just feel, that I have a pretty good feel for how people feel in the US (I have lived there for some years) and how people feel in at least some countries in Europe. The difference is fear. And I can fully un

        • by pudge (1) on 2003.03.05 15:55 (#17757) Homepage Journal
          Decisions made in the past, might be irrelevant today.

          THe UN Security Council has, more than a dozen times in a dozen years, reaffirmed Resolution 687 (most recently last Novemberm in Resolution 1441, approved unanimously). Yes, times change, but nothing has changed about the mandate that Iraq is a threat that must be disarmed. Referring to it as a "12-year old resolution," implying that the UN Security Council may not still support it, is simply wrong.

          There is simply no basis for saying the UN Security Council does not support the disarmament of Iraq, that it does not view Iraq as a threat to the peace and security of the region that must be dealt with. There is basis for saying it does not support war, yes, but not that it does not support the disarmament of Iraq.