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

That last sentence should have read "a)they should *NEVER* have started it in the first place) and b)no-one is going to back Bush again. Ever.

Frogbit, thanks for answering.

"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."

The whole point is that people are worried that he *will* throw them about and it's a case of pre-emptiving Iraq.

"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."

I don't quite understand you here. You seem to say you wouldn't support war if the Security Council backed it and then go on to say the Security Council is relevant (I think). Can you elaborate

"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?"

"Don't know" is a bit of a politicians answer. In answer to your question, yes I would support a war against the US if it attacked a peaceful, democratic nation. I assume you wouldn't as you are a pacifist.

"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'."

Absolutely, selling Chemical weapons to a man like Hussein was immoral and (in the long term) stupid. But it's silly to say that since the US sold him the weapons, it has no right to disarm him. Indeed, some might argue America has an *obligation* to disarm the tyrant it once equipped.

"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."

You gave a politicians answer to some extend but in the end plumped for Iraq "I think a resounding loss for the US would be well deserved". Yes, the US "started it", but only in the sense that if a drunk man starts harrassing people the guy who goes and gives him a well-deserved punch in the guts to shut him up "started it" and b) is showing up Bush (who's popularity isn't exactly solid) really worth doing if it means giving victory to a tyrant like Hussein with what that means for his people? (not to mention the Kurds in Northern Iraq, since we would assume the defeated US would withdraw).

"The whole point is that people are worried that he *will* throw them about and it's a case of pre-emptiving Iraq."


Zagreb, many experts consider that the only circumstance that would cause Saddam to consider throwing his WMDs about (if, in fact, he has them) is that of Iraq being attacked. Pre-emptive strikes against another nation are vile, immoral and illegal anyway. But if the world fears Iraq using it's WMDs, an invasion may well be the only thing that'll guarantee it'll happen.

"yes I would support a war against the US if it attacked a peaceful, democratic nation."

Hmmm, the implication of that is that if the nation is not "peaceful or democratic", the attack is justified. Firstly you (or anyone else) has no right to judge whether or not a nation is "peaceful". Secondly, the assumption that if a nation is not peaceful, that justifies attacking it is vile. Thirdly, a good many of the nations of the world are not "democratic", why do you believe that the lack of democracy in a nation justifies attacking it? America is not exactly a perfect exemplar of democracy at the moment.

Zagreb, your assumptions irritate me tremendously. You are so utterly sure of your own convictions that you cannot bring yourself to see if anyone else may have a valid point. It's not just the assumptions, it's also the constant contradictions and rectum-clenchingly black and white outlook.
You go to the point of contradicting other people's definitions *of their own politics* whilst making a huge fuss over the definition of your own, and how it is a despicable thing for others to contradict. You have also persistently, and possibly deliberately failed to sepperate 'pacifist' from 'anti-war'. There is a vast difference. One avoids all violence, the other attempts to avoid war instead of persecuting it.
You assume that people who disagree with you 'haven't seen the point' rather than wrestling with the possibility that a)there may be two, three or many million valid points of view, b)the other person may in fact be correct, or, unthinkably, c) the other person being correct means that you may be wrong.
Your armchair-general musings are no more than waste-gasses to a hurricane, your political stance is unmistakenly that of a cad - possibly a Bolshevik - and has infuriated me beyond all reason. I have now subscribed to The Daily Mail, and have also, partially as a result of my new reading matter, decided that your part of Scotland has been oppressed by you for long enough. This following excerpt from your journal -

"At long last, our staff canteen has stopped singling out the vegetarian meals as "healthy choice". Even when it was a deep-friend vegetable burger or something.

Now they're "vegetarian choice". Exactly what they were all the time.

The canteen has a policy of not serving chip on their own because it's "not healthy". However, judging by their tuna-mayo baked-potato filling they think it's perfectly healthy to stick far too much salt into stuff."

- is going into a dossier of other evidence that you have been systematically boring the cr*p out of innocent people for long enough. I am declaring war, not on your country, but on you. And while I'm up there, I'll see if there's the odd can of Castrol in your garage.

Goodnight everyone.

Subcom: "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?"


Spending time looking for answers to silly questions is a simple distraction. Already public debate is bogged down with questions such as when should the war with Iraq begin? Should the US go to war without UN support? What should be the structure of the interim government in Iraq following occupation? How much will the war cost?

What happenned to debating the need for war, peaceful alternatives, or even expected civilian casualties?

Subcom: "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."


My argument was and is that US involvement (military or economic) with other countries is *not* a sign of non-isolationism. The case in point highlighted by the NAFTA article, shows the subsidies by the US government is isolating US farmers from direct competition within NAFTA. Eventhough NAFTA from a distance appears a symbol of cooperation, a detail view is rather different.

"- is going into a dossier of other evidence that you have been systematically boring the cr*p out of innocent people for long enough. I am declaring war, not on your country, but on you. And while I'm up there, I'll see if there's the odd can of Castrol in your garage."

You utter, utter prat. I've tried to discuss things with you reasonably and you've reverted back to your old habit of spitting extremist blood at anything I say. Just how am I "not interested in anyone's viewpoint"? Why do you think I made that list of questions? Why do you think I answered your points? It's *my opinion* and you are welcome to challenge it but, since you either won't or don't want to, you resort to personal, petty, childish venom-spitting. I'm sorry, but you strike me as pathetically childish and disinterested in anyone else's viewpoint. Either discuss the points I raise in an adult manner or I'll just have to ignore you.

"Hmmm, the implication of that is that if the nation is not "peaceful or democratic", the attack is justified. Firstly you (or anyone else) has no right to judge whether or not a nation is "peaceful"."

Does the United Nations? I think there should be some forum to decide whether a country is peaceful or not. Having said that, people have different ideas of what peaceful means. The UN, for example, classes a peaceful nation as one that is not attacking another nation regardless of what goes on in it's borders.

I agree it wasn't a very detailed answer, but I was answering Frogbit's question - although I might as well as have answered "you smell of poo" for all the diplomacy he gave in his "answer".

"Secondly, the assumption that if a nation is not peaceful, that justifies attacking it is vile."

This is debatable. Should a country be left alone if it is belligerent as Germany was in WWII or (some might say) as America was in the late 1960s?

"Thirdly, a good many of the nations of the world are not "democratic", why do you believe that the lack of democracy in a nation justifies attacking it? America is not exactly a perfect exemplar of democracy at the moment.""

I worded the answer badly in that regard. Whilst I think certain dictatorships are worth going to war with (Iraq, the Taliban) some are not simply because they are 1) Not belligerent and 2) Not exterminating their own people (Cuba, for example). So there, I hope that's a better answer.

Incidentally, if Bush starts threatening Cuba or Iran I'll be jumping ship and right over with you guys and presumably have to explain my position to a whole bunch or pro-war guys who may or may not be more polite than a certain researcher here.

And no, Empty Sky, I don't mean you

"You utter, utter prat. I've tried to discuss things with you reasonably and you've reverted back to your old habit of spitting extremist blood at anything I say."


You have a truly revolting way with words Zagreb, and a truly, truly revolting way of making your insidious bacteria-infested filth stick to those at whom you spew it.

"I'm sorry, but you strike me as pathetically childish and disinterested in anyone else's viewpoint. Either discuss the points I raise in an adult manner or I'll just have to ignore you."

Zagreb stamps feet petulantly and turns to wall, sniffing deeply.

I'd actually planned not to make any more postings to this thread, but adjusting Zagreb's blood-pressure at this distance is proving adictive.

"I've tried to discuss things with you reasonably and you've reverted back to your old habit of spitting extremist blood at anything I say."

Suggesting you are a boring person is hardly extremism. so 'spitting' (typing) 'extremist' (an opinion) 'blood' (words?) at whatever you say is a tad disinginious, dontcha think?
It also suggests that because I am being accused of extremism, you, by inference, cannot be considered extreme in your opinions. Stop talking like a newspaper and there might be room for negotiations.

Is this thread still going round in circles?

"Is this thread still going round in circles?"


It was, but now it's becoming fun!

"Does the United Nations? I think there should be some forum to decide whether a country is peaceful or not. Having said that, people have different ideas of what peaceful means. The UN, for example, classes a peaceful nation as one that is not attacking another nation regardless of what goes on in it's borders."


Mmmmm, have recirculated a list of US military interventions in other countries since WWII recently?

"I'd actually planned not to make any more postings to this thread, but adjusting Zagreb's blood-pressure at this distance is proving adictive."


Noooooooooooooo.....don't go Frogbit! It's cold, the days are short and entertainment is hard to come by.....



BTW, I have to commend both you Frogbit and Zagreb for exchanging slander whilst keeping within the "Terms and Conditions" of h2g2. Well done!

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon says Saddam Hussein "can be absolutely confident" the UK is willing to use nuclear weapons "in the right conditions":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2717939.stm

OH S**T.

Yikes!


Sad to see idiots like Geoff Hoon making statements on behalf of "the UK" when most people in the UK don't support a war let alone the use of nuclear weapons.


I have a question whose answer may verge on the legal or philosophical:

Does the Queen, as the head of state, have the *duty* to dismiss the Prime Minister and his government in the UK when she sees the government acting against the will of the people?

No - The queen has no right to interfere in the democratic governing of the country.
The people have the right to register their objections to the governments opinions at the next general election.

CMaster - an AS government and politics student.

"You have a truly revolting way with words Zagreb, and a truly, truly revolting way of making your insidious bacteria-infested filth stick to those at whom you spew it."

I wish you'd grow up, Frogbit.

"Sad to see idiots like Geoff Hoon making statements on behalf of "the UK" when most people in the UK don't support a war let alone the use of nuclear weapons."

It is, but the Nuclear Weapons thing is a) parroting Washington's stance (how unexpected) and b) probably official UK policy anyway (why have them if you wouldn't use them under the right circumstances?)

What angers me is that Blair hasn't even bothered making the case for war to his own people. He's been buggering around in America and the continent and hasn't even told his own people why he believes we should go to war with Saddam. Whatever I think, Blair should not commit British troops to any war without parliament's backing and he hasn't even bothered consulting them. Blair might want to reflect on the scant support for war in this country and think that maybe people won't support a war their "leader" hasn't bothered explaining to them yet.