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.
  • with many reasons for and against, none stand out as a clincher. None of the arguments for war stands out as a very good reason.

    Unfortunately many of the arguments against the war fail to clinch it either.

    When its a close call like this you have to be able to trust the politicians and intelligence with the information that they cannot or will not make available to you... but the politicians and intelligence have only managed to undermine any trust we may have had - dossiers compiled of propoganda copied

    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
    • most of the arguments for going to war against iraq apply equally well to a long list of countries

      Yes, but as I mentioned, I ignore many of the arguments for war (and some against war) as side issues. Conveniently, I suppose, many of the arguments I ignore would be the ones that would apply to other countries. Not a democracy? Human rights violations? Subjugating its neighbors? All of those, to me, are side issues. The U.S. leaders' job is to protect the U.S., which, IMHO, can be the only reason for making war against Iraq. Most of those other countries just aren't threatening us. (Note: I fully realize that what I just said probably argues against the first Gulf War.)

      (Incidentally I heard someone saying on radio the other day that all the anti-war folks have been saying all along was places like North Korea are more important and more dangerous right now. Baloney. Nobody said anything about North Korea until the whole nuclear thing came up a few weeks ago. It was a danger before that, and they weren't mentioning it.)

      Will of the UN, to me, is another side issue. To be blatantly honest, we're just using the UN to try to achieve our own peace and safety. That's not publicly verbalized because many would disrepect Bush for it, but I do not. He has to use every tool available, and that's what the UN's for anyway. And, of course, hopefully in this case the safety of the U.S. will include increased safety for the rest of the world and the other UN member countries as well. In other words, while I'm sure Bush hopes the UN will do its job, stand up to insist Iraq disarm, and continue to be an effective body for world peace, I think he's made it abundantly clear that we're not going to subjugate American opinion on what needs to be done for our own safety to the complex and unpredictable will of the UN. (Yikes; why does that read badly like a takeoff of the Senate scene from Phantom Menace?)

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • Perhaps you can ignore the "side issues", but there are many people who do not share your belief that Iraq poses an immediate and substantive threat against the U.S.

        That leaves the "side issues" as equally important (in their minds). When the U.S. is choosing to go to war against Iraq, and not choosing to go to war against many other countries with equally dispicable records, the next step is to look at why that choice was made. Which is where the argument comes that this is all about oil.

        Will of the U

      • I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.

        It may be a threat to Israel but that is not the concern of either UN directives or the rest of the world.

        You can't really call 'protecting the interests of an important military customer and diamond trade hub' self defense.

        Of course you can't expect Bush or Blair to admit this.

        I really want to see Iraq liberated, but NOT at ANY price. Currently that price seems to be turning a blind eye to turkeys oppression

        --

        @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
        print reverse @JAPH;
        • I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.

          I disagree, and many thinking, reasoning people disagree. You can't dismiss us all as idiots; some of us even know how to pronounce "nuclear."

          Maybe they are not a direct threat, but they have tried to develop weapons to inflict catastrophic harm, have indicated a lack of regard for human life, and evidence a particular hatred of the United States. Finally, September 11 showed forever that people like that will

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • There is no proof or reasoning that Iraq is an immediate or direct threat to the US or Europe.

            There is only circumstantial evidence that Iraq is a danger to its own neighbours.

            Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones. That makes it fairly clear that it is not a direct threat or immediate threat to the rest of the world.

            There are no links between Iraq and terrorist groups, just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make

            --

            @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
            print reverse @JAPH;
            • No proof, but lots of reason to speculate.

              Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones.

              Neither did al-Qaeda. Iraq may not have missles, but they may very well have dirty bombs, smallpox, or worse, with an unforeseen plan to get them into the U.S.

              just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make it true

              I agree, but the anti-war side is taking the same tack on many points.

              Enjoying the discussion. As you can see, I'm

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • It may be a threat to Israel but that is not the concern of either UN directives or the rest of the world.

          That is wholly inaccurate. UN Security Council Resolution 687 says that the goal of the disarmament of Iraq is "of restoring international peace and security in the area," which inherently includes Israel (as Iraq attacked Israel during that conflict).

          More importantly, the US is a sworn ally of Israel, and must protect Israel when it is threatened. Yes, we should send our soldiers to die to protect