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.
  • This is some of the worst liberal blather I've heard in a long time, and pretty well sums up the position of most pinheads in this country. Let's take some points in particular, shall we?

    The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible.

    So, Clinton was planning a war on Iraq then? What is he referring to here?

    Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally

    • by darobin (1316) on 2003.01.23 10:08 (#16299) Homepage Journal

      First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

      Now, not calling you a pinhead, and moving on to a smaller selection of point myself:

      So, Clinton was planning a war on Iraq then?

      Quite possibly. Note that Iraq was pretty much constantly bombed since the last open war on it. You'll note that he says he very much dislikes Bush, but he doesn't say he liked Clinton.

      we all *know* that a big, evil corporation's behavior is due to some Republican somewhere

      Well, yeah... that's pretty much common knowledge [ducks].

      Second, what UN resolutions is he referring to?

      Err, well, a fair number of UN resolutions have been constantly disregarded by Israel, notably ones relating to occupied territories. That's a fact whether or not you think they should have been followed.

      The cost will be minimal. The benefits, assuming a free democracy is set up and there is help in rebuilding from the West (and there would be), far outweigh the costs, both to the Iraqi people, the U.S., the Middle East, and the world. Let's not forget what a mother-fucker Hussein is.

      I'll stay within the realm of polite conversation and call that optimistic. Where future cost is concerned, the real answer is We Don't Know. Let us not forget that operations by the CIA to overthrow SH over the past decade have all failed miserably, often at a non-negligible cost.

      Where setting up free democracies abroad is concerned, well, maybe, but the US doesn't exactly have the track record to make it trustable there. Let us not forget that SH could stand this long only thanks to past support from the US (notably around the Iran conflict).

      Yes, SH is a motherfucker, no need to be polite there. However, what people that have lived or spent sufficient amounts of time there over the past few years will tell you is that however much the iraqi want to get rid of SH, they trust the US even less and the odds are that they might side with SH in case of trouble. The reason for this mistrust is USA's past record in dealing with such matters, and the constant bombing (which is claiming lives) over the past decade.

      try searching on "al gore" + "occidental petroleum" and see how it goes. More ignorant liberal stereotyping. Democrats (...)

      Go back and read it again, you're putting words into his mouth, or at least grossly exaggerating his point. Just because Bush, Cheney, and Rice are Big Oil sons of a bitch doesn't mean Al Gore ain't a Big Oil son of a bitch. If the US ever needed a Witch Hunt, that could be it.

      Are we going to occupy Iraq permanately, and pipe their oil directly into our country?

      Come on, you have to have seen the plans put forth to put Iraq under US governing for five renewable years? And there are only two (simplified) ways in which the US can face its energy consumption problems in the not-so-distant future: a) find a way to produce more oil (most or Iraq's rigs are dead), and lower dependency on Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela or b) ratify Kyoto and invest massively in having a 21rst century energy policy. Sadly enough, I don't see many people advocating the latter there, which in turn would tend to make the former the only option.

      I am an agnostic Independent.

      Fine. But then surely you have no reason to assume someone is defending the Democrats just because he thinks the Republicans currently in power stink do you? The world isn't always a bipolar lobbycracy.

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

        I realize what it's *supposed* to be. But most of the article is an attack on Bush, his staff, and his motivations. It isn't unt