h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wake up America, you are being lied to. The determination on the part of the Bush administration, to invade Iraq continues and grows with every day. And never let it be said that they don’t plan ahead, they’ve already started beating up on North Korea, also for no good reason, the second axis of evil ‘member’. Surely Iran will be next, no pretext needed.

George W Bush was never elected (despite what you’ll hear to the contrary, that’s a fact). His opponent won the popular vote and Bush was forced to cheat his way into the white house. Fewer than fifty percent of fifty percent of eligible voters voted for Bush in November 2000 (yet opinion pollsters on the streets of the USA, today, ‘find’ that the vast majority voted for Dubya. Americans are even prepared to delude themselves in support of him).

Now this man, who obviously and blatantly made a farce of democracy in his own country, is itching to invade a sovereign nation (several if possible) supposedly to impose democracy on it. That would not be credible even if America was the exemplar of democracy it claims to be, but in view of America’s recent history - it’s ludicrous.

Speaking on the BBC, Sir Harold Walker former British Ambassador to Iraq said “It’s risible to think that there’s a grave threat to the US”.

That’s always been the case and it continues to be. There is no clear threat to the western world from Iraq. Bush’s desperate attempts to link AlQueda to Iraq have always come to nought. So, using September 11th as convenient vindication for American war mongering is wearing rather thin.

So, where’s the justification? I don’t know. Tony Blair doesn’t know. George W Bush doesn’t know and he’s hoping the average American doesn’t have the good sense to ask. So far, unfortunately, he’s been lucky in that respect.

Wake up America, you didn’t vote for Bush, you’re under no obligation to him. Ask him a tough question or two and save tens of thousands of lives. Then your day won’t have been a total waste.

and again popular vote in the current US elections doesn't win or loose an election...hate to point that out again but wake up...if it's something that you want changed and you are an American then go do something about it...write your Congress man/woman or start up a group or whatnot...the election was two years ago...it's over it's done with that election will not be changed now no matter how much people gripe and complain...same with the ending of the Giants/49rs game...it's over the decision and ruling are done...the only thing you can do now is look to the future and make sure/try to prevent (if you think it was a mistake) it happening again

bottom line or lines 1. Bush's show of force got Saddam to offer letting the inspectors back in 2. Inspections are not over and a decision by the UN hasn't been reached 3. The UN agreed to the new resolution to tie up the loose ends of the resolutions from the last 10 years(or so) that have been ignored 4. Decisions will be made on the 27th and 28th regarding the report that is going to be given by weapon inspectors right now it is looking promicing for Iraq 5. Saddam has already started his usual complaints about the UN force being US spys even though this team hasn't even made a offical report to the US or UN yet 6. Sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people and something needs to be done about them, but to do something about them the reason they were put in place needs to be delt with, if not solved then at least a new way developed 7. North Korea renigged on a deal made a while ago...this deal had the US (and others I think) giving them money to help them out, and them not doing some stuff...then they went ahead and did some stuff...I don't see why the US (or bush, the admistration or what have you) can't be mad about that

I would put more but it's lunch time...

I can see where birth may have been trying to make a joke but it was clearly not marked out as such at the time so I can totaly see the problem with it...in the future it might be best to set aside comments like that with obvious clues as to it intent to advoid complications


()

Tascat, I too am pushed for time. But I found the below on another message board and I'm sure the person who wrote it won't mind me quoting it. It sums things up pretty well.

"The Florida vote was as bent as indy five hundred race track...Jeb Bush, governer of florda and brother of GW, managed to pass laws preventing a large number of elligible voters (co-incidently gore voters) from voting. Then, while gore demanded a Flordia recount, Bush supporters started fiddling the military vote, altering late ballots so they were eligible for inclusion...and the military were, in the majority bush supporters, depsite all this, as you know, in the face of much rambasting from the Bush camp, Gore then conceded before the full count, however, depsite all this, upon final count Gore still won more votes than Bush. How did bush win this election within the system?"

as said earlier...or what I was trying to say...weather you think bush won or gore should of won it's over now...that's it...complainging or saying will bush isn't the president so I don't have to do what he says kinda thing is just a waste of time...spend your time fixing the system for future elections and stop fretting over things that are no longer fixable...lets face it...Lincon invading the South when it left the Union was wrong...it was against the law and it was also moraly wrong...but the civil war was a long time ago and it's outcome was already decided..why be stuck arguing about that...just accept it learn what you can from it and move on

()

"..why be stuck arguing about that..."

because it may be a criminal act and as such may results in charges being laid. however given the results from attepts to sue Chaney et al regarding energy policy documents, I won't be holding my breath.

that is an action that cannot be started by arguing about it in this thread...and until he is proven guilty by a court of law then he is innocent and nothing can be done about it...and because of the high profile of this case then by the time the trial starts the next election will already be over and done with...makeing the weather he should or shouldn't be president this term obsolite


()

Frogbit,

Your arguments are, as usual, pathetic.

First off I am *not* a conservative. I also have no time for you or anyone else telling me what my politics are. The fact that you label me a "conservative" for supporting action against Saddam Hussein shows that you haven't a clue what "Left Wing" actually constitutes.

Incidentally, the "Poltical Compass" placed me Libertarian Left. Which I am.

What I *am* certainly is pro-intervention and anti-pacifist. I have no time for cynical, selfish "liberal" isolationism which is what you and others preach on this thread. Incidentally, I wasn't the one who resorted to right-wing, sometimes racist arguments to back an anti-war stance. Those who did are the ones who need to look at their professed "political beliefs" since they seem to fall at the first hurdle.

I took Della's comment because it was patronising to Americans and because I can't be bothered looking through the backlog of this thread. I have seen Americans regularly abused on this website by supposedly "liberal" people in a manner that would be taken as racist against any other nation. Some of the stuff written after September 2001 was appalling and cold-blooded. TD's utterly insensitive post about the Bali bomb earlier in the thread was typical of this attitude (although it insulted Australians).

Anyone who brands me a "wannabe yanqui" (why the stupid spelling?) when I am anything but ranks as an intolerant extremist in my books, since it takes one opinion and attaches a whole host of others to me without asking.

I'm sorry this thread is decending into abuse but I am sick and tired, as many on the Left are, of the "liberal" pacifists hi-jacking our side of the fence when any sort of war appears (whoever it is against) and declaring "our way is the only way" like the Bushism "with us or with the terrorists", which you all claim to despise. I know where I stand on all sorts of issues. I care about the people of the Third World, I care about the governments they live under and the way they are treated and I know that only intervention can help these people. As I've said, sanctions have damaged Iraq more than any war.

Incog unlurking to unsubscribe as what was a reasonable,interesting adult conversation is degenerating into a slanging match and getting way off topic.

tacsatduck: "that is an action that cannot be started by arguing about it in this thread..."

Oh, I disagree! Legal actions, specifically ones on such a grand political scale can *only* be started, pursued and finished with public opinion firmly behind the prosecution. And it's through discussions such as these that public opinion is formed.

tacsatduck: "...and until he is proven guilty by a court of law then he is innocent..."

While everyone seems to accept the notion of "innocent unless proven guilty", we seem to bypass this premise in the case of Iraq. It was about 2 weeks ago that I seen an interview with Madeline Albright and she stated "everyone agrees that the burden of proof is with Iraq to show that it does not have weapons of mass destruction".

Why is the burden of proof on Iraq when the accusations come from the US?

"Your arguments are, as usual, pathetic."

"First off I am *not* a conservative. I also have no time for you or anyone else telling me what my politics are. The fact that you label me a "conservative" for supporting action against Saddam Hussein shows that you haven't a clue what "Left Wing" actually constitutes."

Zagreb, YOU have been one of a few people who, for months now, have branded those who disagree with you as liberal or lefty. It turns out that when someone tries to pigeon-hole you, you don't like it. Tough s.

"I took Della's comment because it was patronising to Americans and because I can't be bothered looking through the backlog of this thread."

Practise what you preach, sonny, and don't make accusations "without even bothering to check your facts." Also, I'd just like to quote from the first every posting to this thread (your, incidentaly)"I have a mistrust of America, I'm afraid they might install a puppet dictatorship and incur the wrath of the Muslim world once again. I'd like to think the U.S. establishment learns from it's mistakes, but then again...."

"Anyone who brands me a "wannabe yanqui" (why the stupid spelling?)"

Again, check your facts. You display woeful ignorance of the Americans once again. It's not a stupid spelling, it's the original spelling (although in honesty there is some debate over the matter). But you've just demonstrated your ethos "If I don't know about it, I'll assume it's wrong."

"Incidentally, the "Poltical Compass" placed me Libertarian Left. Which I am."

Wow. You define you politics by the results of an online test. Very thorough.

"when I am anything but ranks as an intolerant extremist in my books, since it takes one opinion and attaches a whole host of others to me without asking."

As do the terms 'extremist' and 'lefty' and 'liberal', all of which you've used, ahem, liberally.

But best of all Zagreb "I also have no time for you or anyone else telling me what my politics are." and you spending all that time penning a reply is your idea of proving that statement, is it?

And finally, you make that assertation that many people have made racist remarks and made up bare-faced lies denigrating America. When asked to find one (after berating others for not checking their facts) you say you can't be bothered to check the backlog.


The facts don't change, Zagreb. You can shout about not being a Tory all you like - you still come across as one. Look, You're only 24 - let the testosterone levels drop a bit and you may start making sense. In your own words you are 'self righteous'. It made me laugh out loud when you said it like it was a good thing.

Peace on your house from a self declared independent.

Oh, and "The fact that you label me a "conservative" for supporting action against Saddam Hussein "

I don't label you a Tory because you support intervention. I called you a Tory because you sound exactly like one.

"I don't label you a Tory because you support intervention. I called you a Tory because you sound exactly like one."

How, exactly? As far as I know, all I've said is "Saddam Hussein should be removed from power - with force if necessary". How is that "Tory?"

Presumably my criticism of Bush, my support for socialised medicine and a welfare state, my belief in the equality of homosexuals and women and my loathing of dictatorship and racism are all "Tory" as well because, hey, I won't get with the program about Saddam.

Criticise my beliefs if you like but never, ever, tell me what I am.

The stuff about the backlog is nonsense. Of course I've looked at it a few times, but I'm not trawling through the damn thing to find examples of something.

As for the political compass thing, I knew where I stood anyway. I was rubbishing your claims that you could paint me with political colours based on my opinion of *one* issue.

"In your own words you are 'self righteous'. It made me laugh out loud when you said it like it was a good thing."

It was supposed to be tongue in cheek but......acht why do I bother!

Zagreb, have you ever been to the US: vaccationing or lived there for any period of time? Just curious.....


On the issue of "liberal" v's "conservative", you know, I'm not altogether certain of the precise definition of either.

To me, conservatives have always been people who hang onto the past, do not embrace progress and hold onto outdated ideas despite excessive evidence to the contrary. These are the people I've seen proclaiming loyalty to the elected leaders, to God and coutry. The same people who look favourably on patriotism and dying for one's country, because like God and leadership, they have been part of our culture for millenia.

Liberals on the other hand are people who are open to new ideas derived from presented information.

Now these are my notions of the two "labels" and I'm open to new definitions.

NA,

Never been to America. Met a few Americans. Quite nice people.

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are fairly meaningless labels these days, although they are associated with various things. The one's you mentioned were the original definitions.

Now, I would say Conservatives would be classed as patriotic, probably paying lip-service to a religion (usually on the subject of sex and sexuality), generally authoritarian, very big on law and order, in favour of financial freedom, paying some lip-service to "traditional values", hostile to non-conformist lifestyles. Liberals tend to be quasi-socialist, anti-racist, big on social freedom, rather "wishy-washy" on law and order, anti-war, in favour of public services and a "tax and spend" attitude to them.

Of course, you get modern "conservatives" and "liberals" who don't fit either of these holes.

NA: your first of two posts 1. lets just state for the record legal actions should not be swayed by public opinion, just because the "public" thinks someone is guilty doesn't automatically make them guilty...or are you trying to say it does? 2. even though accusations against a public figure need to be discussed in front of and with full understanding (as much as can be expected) in front on the "public" so that they are aware of the proceedings has been established: the thinking that discussing an off topic subject in a primarily non American site is going to actually lead to charges is of any kind seems silly (and that is only my opinion)...The charges will have to be made and the investigation given over to the authorities in the US...maybe the UN can get involved and if that is what you are looking for maybe then you should bring it up to them 3. for all the "evidence" against Bush that appears to be out there it is pretty surprising to me that no charges have been brought up...There are even pretty powerful people who feel the same as you do and yet the haven't publicly proceeded farther then mentioning it...So as I said earlier if a citizen feels they need to accuse him then they need to bring it up to the authorities...if a non US citizen feels the UN should get involved I am sure there is a addy or something they could write to with what evidence they have against the current press of the US...now on this thread it seems to be out of place and the only public that you are going to be bringing the information to is a couple of Americans and most of us (not all) decided a while ago (in opinion polls while the whole election SNAFU was going on you could see that people just wanted a desion made one way or the other as quickly as possible and were less worried about the details) that it was over...nothing is going to be gained by brining it into this thread...unless you are going to use Bush having in your mind not rightly won the election and possible criminal activities should change the way people feel about whether or not there is a war in Iraq...personally I feel they are separate issues and as such should be treated that way but once again that's my opinion


on to your second post...there are two different cases one (Bush) you have a person who has not been charged with a crime has not been to court and no decision has been made....second (Iraq and your friendly neighborhood Saddam) if you want to look at it on the same level you have a country who has been charged with something (invading Kuwait) been found guilty by the UN got pushed (or ran from Kuwait) and has had a sentence put on to it by the UN (disarming, sanctions that sort of thing kinda like they were put on parole) and they dodged parts of their sentence...now a guilty party that is on Parole is supposed to report to their parole officer at a set time and if he doesn't then he is automatically in trouble and has to go back to jail...same sort of thing really for a country I would imagine...so Iraq is already on Parole Violation been given a second chance and just like someone on Parole it's their job of getting to that Parole officer every week not the Parole officers



()

There is also the matter of "redistricting" all areas possible since the last election. Do a "search" it will eventually show who makes disributes and maintains the electronic voting machines.

Um...if no one's posted this before, here's some info on upcoming UK protests - http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

tacsatduck: "lets just state for the record legal actions should not be swayed by public opinion, just because the "public" thinks someone is guilty doesn't automatically make them guilty..."


Good theory and I agree with you on idealistic grounds but in practice (specific to the US), both the judges trying the case and the District Attorneys prosecuting are *elected*. Hence public opinion will and *has* had a role to play.


As to your parole example, it's good and I like it.....to some extent. The concept of "jail" in this case would apply to the sanctions imposed (and I guess war is the process of arrest). The problem being that Iraq has been in jail since the 1st war, before the old inspectors were expelled and is still in jail after the new inspectors have been admitted. The inspectors themselves would be analogous to being submitted to anal probing at the jailer's leasure (to make sure you're not hiding anything there).

Now this probing is not the reason you are in jail. Jail has been brough about by not compensating, by allowing access to oil reserves, the likes of the US and Britain for the cost of the 1st war.

Further removing the analogy of "parole" is the fact that if the parolee is accused of being in violation of their parole conditions, then *evidence* needs to be brought before a judge and an arrest warrant issued. So to cut to the chase, the purden of proof regarding the parole violation is still on the people overseeing the parole.