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

Lentilla, you understand I was complaining more about BBC than the Bush administration. I expect this kind of language from Bush and his chickenhawks. Those idiots even think that the UN resolution gives them the right to invade without a vote by the Security Council. It worries me that BBC continues phrasing it as the "Iraq crisis" without thinking about the way they're glossing over Bush & Blair's spin.

I think I even heard Powell on some Sunday morning political show a few weeks ago, "Meet the Press" or something. They were discussing North Korea, and Powell said something along the lines of "I don't want to talk about this as a crisis right now, but..." Which made me think, A) you're not even hiding the idea that this will be built into a crisis later, and B) this is a total admission that it's a manufactured crisis, that the Bush admin has to convince people to think of it as a crisis, because most people wouldn't worry about it "enough" without constant daily spin.

Oh, yes. Media on both sides of the pond are treating this as a real and new problem. The only reassurance I have is that they're also giving news coverage to those people speaking out against Bush and his administration. But saying stuff like 'Bush has to convince the American people of the necessity of war against Iraq' makes me feel very uneasy...

The only hope we have is that the Senate will stand in the way of declaring outright war against Iraq. They've asked Powell to present all the facts - I guess to assess actual threat versus puffery.

"The only hope we have is that the Senate will stand in the way of declaring outright war against Iraq. They've asked Powell to present all the facts - I guess to assess actual threat versus puffery."

I don't understand. Didn't the House and Senate already give him carte blanche?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:3:./temp/~c107KOfuzp::

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq...

"SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution , the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

"The announcement of the 8 European leaders (my own country,Denmark, Included) is embarrasing, and only goes to show that the EU is a joke, regarding foreign policy."

I dunno, a rift with the US would be a serious thing and should only be attempted over something such as the US assisting the overthrow of a democratic government. A rift withe US to defend a man like Saddam will only make the EU look undecisive and morally confused.

Bar two obvious countries, I think the EU is showing a great deal of sense.

Actually, some questions I wanted to ask the anti-war people (and I'm not trying to ask "loaded questions", I'm just genuinely interested in people's reasoning).

Only Rules: No "politicians answers" (ie each question has a specific answer, no vague or undecisive answers) and each answer must be backed with reasons why.

1. Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?

2. Would you support a war against Iraq with the support of the UN Security council?

3. Would you support a war against Iraq if they attacked another country within the next few months?

4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?

5. If war does break out between the US and Iraq and peace stops becoming an option, who would you rather won?

This is just to get some perspective on people's reasons for being anti-war.

"BBC World Service usually satisfies me, but again tonight they described the "crisis" with Iraq.

What is the crisis with Iraq? Nothing is significantly different in Iraq than it has been the last few years."

They mean the crisis looming over the issue of Iraq. The weapons inspectors and the possibility of war. Since the war will be with Iraq on their soil, it's an "Iraqi crisis".

"Actually, some questions I wanted to ask the anti-war people (and I'm not trying to ask "loaded questions", I'm just genuinely interested in people's reasoning).

Only Rules: No "politicians answers" (ie each question has a specific answer, no vague or undecisive answers) and each answer must be backed with reasons why.

1. Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?"


One of the aspects of "anti-war" people is that they are against......well......war.

I wanted to know if people were "anti" full-stop or if they had reasons or remained to be convinced. I wanted to understands people's reasons and motivations.

I'm guessing you're not going to answer any, then.

No, I'm not going to answer your questions because I find them leading....all that is except for question 5 which I find plain silly.


But I will answer my own questions:

6) Would you support the financing of an internal military coup by the Iraqi Military?

Yes.

7) Would you belive Bush's rhetoric about Saddam if it were proved that Iraq had no oil?

Yes.

Going on the previous suggestion of paying the Iraqi Republicn Guards to overthrow Saddam, what think you of seeting up a web site where people can pledge money to the group of Iraqis that end up overthrowing Saddam?

Letting the Iraqis know about this venture is another problem.....

Zagreb:

"1. Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?"
No. In fact I think attacking a country because you've just found out how scary its retaliation could be is verging on insanity.

"2. Would you support a war against Iraq with the support of the UN Security council?"
Tougher, but no. That would require trust and agreement with the politicians actually involved in making the decision. And even if they are *generally* deserving of trust, I am a firm believer in holding an independent opinion - so the fact that *they* had been convinced to agree would not alone be enough to convince me.

"3. Would you support a war against Iraq if they attacked another country within the next few months?"
and "4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?"
I would support a war in response to any problem I thought it seemed likely to solve. A war with another country, if that country deserved support, *might* be a case in point. But it's still not obvious to me exactly how attacking Iraq would solve *any* of these problems. This is the cornerstone of my pacifism: it is very easy to see war as a way out of problems, but in reality it so often causes far more than it solves.

"5. If war does break out between the US and Iraq and peace stops becoming an option, who would you rather won?"
Up until this point, your questions seemed respectful and intelligent. This, however, is completely missing the point: nobody here has said they are in support of Iraq, only that they disapprove of *war*. So the answer is the US - with one rather large 'but': is there such a thing as a winner of a war? In fact, if I were able to choose, I'd want the "winner" of the war to be the *people* of Iraq, with both the Iraqi and American governments being forced to bow to the best interests of the people. But I'm not convinced that's possible at the best of times, let alone after a war - hence the whole anti-war thing...


Oh, and as for Neugen's
"7) Would you belive Bush's rhetoric about Saddam if it were proved that Iraq had no oil?"
No. I think there are many factors in why the current US regime is pushing for war - and while oil may be one of them, removing it wouldn't change the fact that politicians are always saying things for a purpose, not for the sake of truth and the good of the world.


[IMSoP]

Huzzah.

1, 2, 3 and 4 - No because I am completely pacifist.

Increase Mathers,

thanks for answering (properly, unlike some people ).

""1. Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?"
No. In fact I think attacking a country because you've just found out how scary its retaliation could be is verging on insanity."

This is a good point, but I think Saddam would be unable to retaliate against the US WMD's or not. However, there is a chance he would use them against nearby Israel. The American postition seems to be that he is attempting to obtain them or already has them and wants more. It's a tough point - attack and risk him using them or don't attack and let him obtain more for use later.

""3. Would you support a war against Iraq if they attacked another country within the next few months?"
and "4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?"
I would support a war in response to any problem I thought it seemed likely to solve. A war with another country, if that country deserved support, *might* be a case in point. But it's still not obvious to me exactly how attacking Iraq would solve *any* of these problems. This is the cornerstone of my pacifism: it is very easy to see war as a way out of problems, but in reality it so often causes far more than it solves."

Fair points. My major problem with pacifism is that I feel it *causes* problems of it's own. Aggression tends to only respond to aggression and it's a fact of human nature that if an aggressor becomes worse if not challenged. Some people could argue this is a risk with the US at present, but I think it is best left until they start picking on people other than dictators.

""5. If war does break out between the US and Iraq and peace stops becoming an option, who would you rather won?"
Up until this point, your questions seemed respectful and intelligent. This, however, is completely missing the point: nobody here has said they are in support of Iraq, only that they disapprove of *war*. So the answer is the US - with one rather large 'but': is there such a thing as a winner of a war? In fact, if I were able to choose, I'd want the "winner" of the war to be the *people* of Iraq, with both the Iraqi and American governments being forced to bow to the best interests of the people. But I'm not convinced that's possible at the best of times, let alone after a war - hence the whole anti-war thing... "

First off, well done for giving a straight answer . I'm sorry you thought the question was "missing the point". I was unsure about including it, as I was worried people might think I was insinuating something, but I wanted to understand where people were coming from.

I think most people, even the anti-war people, would plump for America to win because they know deep down that even with an idiot like Bush in charge, US policy post-Saddam could be for the good. At the end of the day, the United States should never be trusted 100% (as history has shown us) but refusing to trust them even 1% is every bit as foolish.

Of the present thread, but going back to the "isolationist" argument of weeks before.

Not sure who was making the point of trying to show that the US is not isolationist as it is a member of groups such as NAFTA. Here's an article showing that "free" trade is not what the US had in mind wrt NAFTA:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2715023.stm

The problem with NAFTA is that it is US dominated and the treaty can be used to force US interests. For example, Canda was recently forced to forgoe some policies regarding (I think) it's steel industries. According to the NAFTA people they were "protectionist". Of course, when the US passed similar protectionist laws, NAFTA didn't have much of a problem with it.

Trade treaties dominated by one economy are a bad idea. Canada and Mexico would be better off re-negotiating. At the end of the day, the governments of both countries should be working out a better deal for their people and improving their economies with trade (what NAFTA is, in an ideal world, supposed to do) instead of being forced to make economic decisions by a foreign government and made to go along with the free trade ideology regardless of domestic consequences (what NAFTA actually does in the real world).

1. Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?
No. Other nations have WMD. Other nations are surely developing them as fast as they can. It would be inconsistent to attack Iraq for reasons that would also be met by a dozen or more other nations. (Or it would make clear how the attacking coalition is applying special rules to Iraq.)

2. Would you support a war against Iraq with the support of the UN Security council?
No. If breaking UN resolutions was an excuse to make war, then other nations would qualify for similar treatment. Here's a list of other resolutions violated by Israel, Russia, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Indonesia and others.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2417

3. Would you support a war against Iraq if they attacked another country within the next few months?
Yes. That would be a clear act of aggression, unlike the current situation. [Hopefully *this time* the US Secretary of State would not send an ambassador with specific instructions telling Saddam that we don't get involved in "Arab-Arab conflicts" after Saddam revealed his intent to attack one of his neighbors.]

4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?
Given the No-fly Zones and the microscope under which Iraq has been placed right now, it's implausible that Saddam could accomplish that. But if he could, then sure. And we'll also invade and remove the regime in Turkey that has been attacking Kurds? Or does Turkey continue to get special treatment because they're allies?

5. If war does break out between the US and Iraq and peace stops becoming an option, who would you rather won?
Can't answer this question unless I understand how peace could stop being an option. Do you mean that after the war began it would be too late for people to demand peace?

If Iraq goes to war with Iran again, which side should we root for? Or should we ask them both to stop the war?

We could make the original question a little easier. If war breaks out in a few weeks between the US and Iraq, who would you rather won?
The lesser of two evils would probably be the US. But the lesser of two evils is still evil. If the ends justified the means, then getting rid of Saddam might justify invasion by the US. Do we need to discuss why the ends do not always justify the means, how "means" become "ends" in themselves?

Neugen,

If Godzilla was going to destroy either Paris or Moscow, which would you prefer? Is there a moral answer to this?

If it finally occurred to you that peace was an unworkable concept, would Tarzan beat Zorro, or could either of them hold a candle to Doc Savage?

If I were a gay bee, would you find me attractive?
(Silly allusion to Saturday Night Live. Pls disregard)

Neugen,

Re: isolationism, Zagreb was lamenting that, if only the American public were not so stubbornly isolationist, then Bush could go ahead with this war. I thought it was silly to accuse the American public of being isolationist, when they've tolerated military excursions overseas every few years for the last century. Zagreb emphasized that he was differentiating between the American government versus the American people. The government has not been isolationist but the US people have been. (He might say the same thing about NAFTA, that it was supported by the US govt, even though it might not have been endorsed by the supposedly isolationist public.)

I understand that distinction, but if the American public were so isolationist, I don't understand how we would keep electing leaders who keep expanding our influence and expanding our involvement with other nations.

"Fair points. My major problem with pacifism is that I feel it *causes* problems of it's own. Aggression tends to only respond to aggression and it's a fact of human nature that if an aggressor becomes worse if not challenged. Some people could argue this is a risk with the US at present, but I think it is best left until they start picking on people other than dictators."

Zagreb, the last sentence of that paragraph suggests that US intervention doesn't occur in an individual basis, and it so often does. To answer your list though;

1. Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?

Like America and so many others have? No. If he was threatening to chuck them about (like the US is doing)? Possibly.

2. Would you support a war against Iraq with the support of the UN Security council?

No. Otherwise what's the point of having it? Even if it is ineffectual, as some would argue, it is an effective guide to who doesn't mind breaking treaties and who does.

3. Would you support a war against Iraq if they attacked another country within the next few months?

Don't know. Would you support a war against America if it attacked another country in a few months?

4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?

It would depend. If we could see the reciepts and decide who sold the chemical weapons to Hussein, perhaps we could do the world a long-term favour and confront a)the countries that sold him the stuff in the first place, and b)that bunch of complicit murderders collectively refered to as the 'arms trade'.

5. If war does break out between the US and Iraq and peace stops becoming an option, who would you rather won?

Well, I would rather avoid war altogether. This question assumes that you are judging winning by casualties as opposed to occupied territory?
If it's down to casualties (civilian or otherwise) the Americans will probably win because they mainly fight from aircraft.
If there is a ground battle, then there's at least a remote chance that civilians won't be killed. Hhhhmm. So in a ground battle, who would I rather 'win'? Well, I think there'd be a strong case for the Iraqis. I mean, if 'Mad Chimp' Bush has set this whole thing up at vast expense, established all those troops out there, again at vast expense, and wound the world up into condoning a war that is all about oil (because how else is he going to pay his backers?) then I think a resounding loss for the US would be well deserved on the basis that a)they should have started it in the first place) and b)no-one is going to back Bush again. Ever.

But on the whole I don't want a war at all.