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

Zagreb,

"Incidentally, Hitchens points out in the discussion that the civilian casualities in Afghanistan were considerably less (over the same amount of time) as in Vietnam etc."

I wonder whose estimates of civilian casualties in Afghanistan Hitchens relies on. Could it be the Bush Administration's? I wonder whose estimates of civilian casualties in Vietnam Hitchens believes. If you take all your data from the warriors, no wonder you believe that war is humanitarian.

When I wrote "there is no clear answer" I was paraphrasing your earlier claim and turning it back on you. If you claim that it's a "nice, easy answer" and accuse me of being disconnected from the matter, then the same applies to you, except that you thought you HAD the clear answer in war. The only thing more grotesque than a peacenik debating war over a double mocha at Starbucks would be an ARMCHAIR GENERAL sipping a double mocha at a Starbucks while demanding that it's worth it for a few hundred thousand people to die in order for us to liberate another backwards country, no, it's our duty to keep them from suffering when we judge the time is right to intervene!

"Here, on the news, in the opinion columns of newspapers, everywhere, the solution is "we cannot support an American attempt to remove Saddam Hussein" without any sort of alternative."

Is there room in the newspapers or on tv for anyone to explain alternatives? I've seen lots of brief glimpses of protesters on the news. I haven't seen any time for them to explain positions, only that they oppose the status quo, while pundits and news anchors explain all about the status quo, not questioning whether we should go to war, just wondering when it will happen, like it's a done deal. If that's what you base your judgment of peaceniks on, no wonder it's such a twisted vision.

Your digressions about coffees are ever-so drole, but have nothing to do with the substance of our disagreement. Feel free to drop that too.

to Dogster! I'll try your 4 rules, but it's difficult. Also I'm afraid this set of excellent rules is about 3000 posts too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2676295.stm Husseins exhile possibilitymaybe?

*still no comments or answer 3000+ posts later* Maybe I missed it?

Hi Abbi. If Idi Amin found exile,anyone can(excuse spelling).It wouldn`t be ing,but it would remove the nasty be-ing from power;hopefully the people living in 'his' country would have a chance to catch their collective breath then. Neugen

hopes

Sigh,I live in california,I think Bush`s 'election' was a fraud;& I think Dubya`s enacting his father`s idea of 'get even'w/Hussain. Traditionally,the usa has pulled its` economy out of a slump by going to war.Eisenhower warned of the 'industrial-military complex' when he left office.You pump million`s of $ into the military;slash school,health-care,& social services that benefit the general population;give tax cuts to the rich,& increase taxes for the middle-class beyond belief.There are 10,000`s of us citizens who are marching,protesting the very idea of war.But that`s simply not covered in the 'news'.so the us is perceived as a nation of idiots,following Bush w/out ?.This is how all people perceive others-it`s sterotyping,& unless you actually leave 'your'country & travel for awhile-you aren`t likly to realize people are people;not their governments. Neugen

>unless you actually leave 'your'country & travel for awhile-you aren`t likly to realize people are people;not their governments<

Good point there Neugen The Chinese people, having got to know them a little, are very different from what I expected. And, given this new perspective, it seems to me it is no more sensible to portray Americans as a bunch of warmongers than it is Britons. Why would an outsider, such as a Chinese, see them as any different regarding this issue?

Zagreb: "Incidentally, there is no oil in Afghanistan"

Only in the form of a rather large oil pipeline.

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm

Subcom: "Is there room in the newspapers or on tv for anyone to explain alternatives?"


Some stories do sneek through. From the ones I've seen, so far they all seem to end with Saddam in exile. The last one I've seen involved a UN endorsed military coup. This would involve a UN resolution to guarantee immunity from prosecution for all involved in the coup.

The problem with with Saddam ending up in exile is that now the US will have 2 people it hasn't captured! We seem to have forgotten about Osama bin Ladin because we're all looking forward to Saddam's immanent capture. Not sute the US public will be too pleased with Bush and the biggest army the world has ever seen not being able to parade either of the "evil doers".

yeah ~~I thought the US hired Osama(years back) to protect that pipeline.*goes to read link*

"The problem with with Saddam ending up in exile is that now the US will have 2 people it hasn't captured! We seem to have forgotten about Osama bin Ladin because we're all looking forward to Saddam's immanent capture. Not sute the US public will be too pleased with Bush and the biggest army the world has ever seen not being able to parade either of the "evil doers"."

I don't think anyone knows where Osama bin Laden is. It's quite possible that we will never see him or possibly hear from him again.

Interestingly, it was (I think) Donald Rumsfeld who proffered the "exile for Saddam" option. This seems to suggest that they don't really care about putting Saddam on trial for any of his genocides or other outrages, rather their main priority is about removing him from power.

Subcom,

first off read Dogster's 4 rules and cut the personal stuff. I won't mention it again.

The reason I support the war is that I firmly believe there will be fewer casualties (and the removal of Hussein's regime) with war than there will without. The sanctions have killed 500,000 in ten years, and that's not taking into account those "disappeared" by the regime.

Regarding the "alternatives". I've seen quite a few. Most seem to revolve around "leaving the Iraqi's to it" which I'm afraid sounds like isolationism to me. The others insist we should remove the sanctions and pretend the Gulf War never happened. I'm afraid that, given Hussein's previous record with chemical weapons and war technology in general that would be grossly irresponsible. Of course, we need rid of the sanctions but Saddam should go first.

Incidentally, which news programs did you see? In Britain the news has been cautiously anti-Bush in general and the anti-war people have certainly been allowed to have their say.

"Rather conspicuous that no one cared about making war there until 9/11, so don't feed me this bologna that hawks were so concerned with the welfare of Afghan civilians. They did it as revenge. Helping the Afghans might be a positive side-effect, although I'm not so quick to assume that everything is hunky-dory there just because the hawks have fed their version to the media. It may take a while to see how much damage was really done by invading Afghanistan, how much better the new warlords will turn out to be than the old warlords, and measure that against life under the Taliban."

First, I think life is better than under the Taliban and that things will continue to improve as long as the West is responsible. There was little hope for Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I have never argued that the Hawks acted to help the Afghan people. I know they did it for selfish reasons. The thing is, the Afghan situation has still improved. Remember, Churchill wanted to go to war with Germany because he thought Hitler was a threat to British Empire and power. The Final Solution was prevented from reaching it's conclusion by this selfish act.

I a gonna ask again......Is it illegal? Why not use special forces to get him? NO WAR> there will still be plenty do do afterwards either way Daddy did suggest it a decade agao--it was "unsavory" he said you have to be to get these kind. All were appalled then~~~what about now?

"I a gonna ask again......Is it illegal? Why not use special forces to get him?"


By the sound of the recent news reports on movements in teh Iraqi army, it seems that the real power is in the Iraqui military. So removing Saddam would not necessarily give Bush control of Iraqi oil.

Sad to read that Russia calls the war innevetable, saying it's due to start mid February....

there are a couple of things I wanna reply to..but I am in the middle of a couple of diffrent things here at work so it will have to wait...but here goes the most recent

abbi normal-Why not use special fores to get him?...seems like a simple solution doesn't it but it's not as uncomplicated as that 1. US is not allowed to assinate politcal leaders...but if a comander in chief during a war time operation gets killed well then that's a diffrent story 2. As I am sure it's been pointed out...finding one man on his own turf and takeing him out is a pretty dificult task...ask the guys that were looking for Osama...usualy you have to wait till they make a big mistake and let themselfs get caught...or you have to rely on tips and might have a few miss steps before you take him out...like having a team land in a presidental palace one day too late that sort of thing 3. You have to ask your self is Saddam really the only problem...will killing one man fix all the problems...if you really think so then him being put in exile will also fix the probmlem...if you think that it's not just Sadam who is corrupt and his top aides are not really good guys that are just being held back by the man then just killing him and washing your hands of the situation may be more dangerous then just leaving him in power...lets me put it this way...you guys rag on Bush oh he's a bad man and he is the devil or something so lets say you talk Bush to live on a little island in the pasific then you still gotta worry about Cheney and some people think he is acutaly worse then Bush...hmmm sorry I am rushed but I hope that made some sence


()

Thank-you Neugen and Tasatduck very much for the reply .....I wanted very much to understand if that was an *option* to any one or the UN. Seems all those after effects,problems and questions of power ,will be present NO matter how its done. Seems NOT logical to kill 100,000's XX when a 1000X would do it! We are talking full scale war with equal or greater cleanup and reorganization afterwards. *i am so brutal *

What does everyone think a war in Iraq would do to regional middle east stability? Especially Palestine/Israel?

Ste