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

Apparition,

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

Hopefuly I'm not the only one who doesn't trust any of the nations that have them. If we go by who's used them..."

tsk, you didn't answer


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

You're asking wether to trust countries like the US Russia China and France (France commited a terrorist act in the 80's, for example). Short answer, No, not just because the security council says so."

That's better. I have to agree, the security council should hardly be the be-all and end-all of what is Right and Wrong for the UN, pro or anti-war.

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

Yes, that's what the UN's there for. The thing is, it's also there to prevent the kind of rampaging the US is doing. US Britan and Australia - Hmmm Axis powers of of the 1930s anyone? (before someone says Australia isn't a power. Neither was Italy)"

The "1930s" thing is a ludicrous comparison. Italy was a power, incidentally. Yes, the UN should try and secure peace but not at "all costs". Anyway, what is the point of it making demands of Iraq if it refuses to back them up with anything? (This was also the UN's problem in Bosnia. If the UN falls to bits, it's fumbling in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda amongst others will be far, far more to blame than any US posturing).

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

Like Nugen said, what about Turkey? It was brought up before that the enforced no fly zone was actualy assisting Turkey"

Personally, I think that if Turkey fired chemical warheads at the Kurds we should wade in there. I think we should be taking a far, far tougher stance with Turkey than we are right now over the Kurdish issue. However, the fact that certain countries aren't doesn't mean we ignore what Saddam did do and may do again in Iraq. Two wrongs don't make a right.

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

It was (deliberatly?) misinterperted by Zagreb. Frogbit brought up a good point. If Iraq was able to inflict substantial damage to US forces. It would be a good thing because it would mean a ground war and much less civilan casualties. Instead of the detestable cowardly high altitude bombing with it high civilian casulty rate."

I don't like the high-altitude bombing either. I got into an argument on another thread with two-bit on this issue. However, strategists say that the US will have to use ground forces in this war. You can't topple Saddam from the air.

I asked this question because a lot of people were saying "I hate Saddam, but I want peace if possible". I wanted to know - if the war does start, who would they want to win? Of those who have been arguing for peace who have answered (one avoided this question) one has plumped for the US, two for Iraq. The less said about that the better.

"It was (deliberatly?) misinterperted by Zagreb. Frogbit brought up a good point. If Iraq was able to inflict substantial damage to US forces. It would be a good thing because it would mean a ground war and much less civilan casualties. Instead of the detestable cowardly high altitude bombing with it high civilian casulty rate.""

Sorry, Apparition, I misread your post. You didn't plump for Saddam, you said damage would force a ground war. So have a rare .

However, that means that you didn't really give an answer. Ah, well.

So a revised score - the US have one researcher supporting, Saddam has one, and two have "passed".

"It was (deliberatly?) misinterperted by Zagreb. Frogbit brought up a good point. If Iraq was able to inflict substantial damage to US forces. It would be a good thing because it would mean a ground war and much less civilan casualties. Instead of the detestable cowardly high altitude bombing with it high civilian casulty rate."

This statement totally boggles my mind. Without strategic air campaign a massive ground war would be needed. Over 250,000 troops fighting in close qaurters in Iraqie citys. The first thing the republican gaurd would do would be to blend into a city such as Bagdad. This would insure massive civilian causulties as well as military.

Not to use air power to quickly bring the Iraqie Republican Guards ability to fight is more than stupid it would be criminal. The war infrastructure most be incapacitated affectivly removing the head from the army. Without communication they will fold within days.

What I'm interested in is whether anyone would support the following view, and if so why? The view in question is that (1) US and UK motives are manifestly suspect (i.e. not humanitarian), (2) that alternative policies by the US and UK could have been pursued in the past which would have been better, and that future problems are being created right now in other countries by current US/UK policies, (3) that this war cannot be justified on humanitarian grounds until and unless alternative possibilities are fully explored, (4) that despite this, the Iraqis will be better off after the war than before, even taking into account degradation of infrastructure and direct and indirect casualties.

The reason I ask this is that this position is on the boundary between support and opposition of the war, someone with this view would still be highly critical of the US/UK governments, oppose the war in the sense that there are better alternatives, but not be totally opposed to it in the sense that some good may come of it. I also ask it because I think (1)-(3) are so obviously true that (4) is the only point worth considering.

I'm also interested in whether the anti-war people think that posing the question in this way inherently excludes many good arguments against the war and in what way exactly.

Round again... :D

"If they said something to that effect, then apart from being believable, it may also win them some support points for logic and honesty."

The uninterupted supply of oil is is imperative for not only the US but all of the modern world. Everyone in this forums life depends on it. Without oil the food you eat could not be grown,the house you live in could not be heated, the computer you use to write in this forum would not run {or even be made} To put it bluntly {excepting a small percentage of people that grow there own food,produce their own electric]with out power our civilization would colapse.

Now put in place a dictator how has a penchent for invadeing his neighbors. Using wmd on his enemys and own people. Who has the potentail to disrupt the entire worlds energy supply. Who has hidden wmd that has been sold to him by countrys throughout the world {US,france,germany.russia,china} None who want to admit it but know damn well he has them. countrys who have much to lose if they chose the wrong side. Countrys who disagree how to handle the situation thinking only of thier best course of action to benifit them.

Any suggestions?

Use renewable energy sources. And there is another country in the Middle East that breaks UN resolutions, has an appalling human rights record, invades other countries and also begins with 'I'. Have you guessed it yet: Israel.

"This statement totally boggles my mind. Without strategic air campaign a massive ground war would be needed. Over 250,000 troops fighting in close qaurters in Iraqie citys. The first thing the republican gaurd would do would be to blend into a city such as Bagdad. This would insure massive civilian causulties as well as military."

I think the point is that the US has a habit of "high altitude" bombing which is highly innaccurate and increases civilian casualties but makes the US personelle safer.

Strategists believe that a massive US ground operation will be needed anyway, you can't unseat a government from the skies. Hopefully, though, once allied troops enter Iraq and it's obvious the game is up, the Republican Guard will simply turn on Saddam and murder him rather than die for him fighting the Americans.

"Round again... :D" What are you actually posting here for?

---------------

"The "1930s" thing is a ludicrous comparison. Italy was a power, incidentally."

ludicrous? No it isn't. The bare facts are that leading to WWII a small number countries decided to go on a rampage and the league did nothing to stop them before they had built a power base. 70 years later the UN is looking like the League. And Italy was not a power.

"However, the fact that certain countries aren't doesn't mean we ignore what Saddam did do and may do again in Iraq."

Why do pro war people keep insisting that? It means deal with turkey the same as Iraq (show some consistency) or stop using it as an excuse for war with Iraq.

--------------

"US, Russia, Israel, New Zealand, Iraq" c'mon tac, that's one of starbirth's tactics.

Starbirth - "Without oil the food you eat could not be grown,the house you live in could not be heated, the computer you use to write in this forum would not run {or even be made}"

Some of us have moved out of the 1800s. Heat your house with oil?? Oh and oil doesn't make a good enough grade of plastic for computer components and all the important bit are silicon, metal and ceramic.

Lets be honest here dogstar. Every nation's goverment has one main agenda. That being to follow the course of action that is ultimently in the best intrest of that nation and goverment. This does not mean many nations {US included} do not do mant humanitarion works. It is however human nature to look after and protect one's own. To denie this is derisory.

While in every nation there are people who honestly speak up for the morally right course of actions with little thought of nationalistic benifit they are for the most part a small but vocal grouping. In many cases they are even brought to the fore front by some goverments to disgiuse and confuse that goverments true agenda.
Some goverments have become quite adept at rhetoric used to make themselves out to be the spokeman for the disenfranchised.

However at the end of the day no matter the glorious rhetoric everyone of these goverments put forth. No matter all the good intentions. No matter how much they demonize the US or Briton.
They do excactly what they condem the US for.
They look after there own.

"Now put in place a dictator how has a penchent for invadeing his neighbors. Using wmd on his enemys and own people. Who has the potentail to disrupt the entire worlds energy supply. Who has hidden wmd that has been sold to him by countrys throughout the world {US,france,germany.russia,china} None who want to admit it but know damn well he has them. countrys who have much to lose if they chose the wrong side."


You're sounding like Bush Starbirth: faith-based evidence. If you *believe* he has it, then he has it! If he has wmd, then provide proof: get of you ass and do some work investigating and at the end make sure you have something more then hot air.

>>Last night we talked about escape routes... it's not reassuring to live in a town with a military base.<<
If I were you Lentilla, I would be so-o-o scared! It's probably a good idea to discuss ways and means... Hope you will all be well!

Oh, no, African Americans? You've *got* to be joking!

No doubt whatsoever, Gubernatrix. An American writing in the NZ Herald yesterday admitted as much quite cheerfully. Here it is:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3099063&reportID=562588
I hope this works...

Hi Apparition,
You're questioning Starbirth's post. He(/she?) was echoing a point I made a couple of days ago. Maybe domestic heating and computer components aren't truly dependant on oil, but almost everything that travels is. Without oil, or more specifically the internal combustion engine, nothing moves, shops don't get supplied, ships don't move, planes don't fly, we don't travel. And please don't mention fuel cells, tidal power and all that. They're the future, not the present. The present requires oil. The Western way of life depends utterly on oil.

As I said, it could be argued that a war purely to safeguard the oil supply is a legitimate & straightforward national security issue.

"As I said, it could be argued that a war purely to safeguard the oil supply is a legitimate & straightforward national security issue."


But to do so at the cost of civilan lives is a moral issue.

>>I doubt he's insured a second term. The oil barons aren't the one's who vote and Dubya didn't even win the popular vote last time.<<

Zagreb, this is a statement, with an ambiguous meaning - are you sure you meant to put it that way? First, you say that oil barons don't vote and then say that voting doesn't matter anyway! (We all know that anyway, it's just interesting to hear you admit it.)

Yes it is. It becomes a trade off. Then again, how many civilian casualties are you expecting. More to the point, how many would you expect compared to those Saddam could kill while siphoning off aid funds to build his next palace?

birth:"The first thing the republican gaurd would do would be to blend into a city such as Bagdad. This would insure massive civilian causulties as well as military.
Starbirth, I cannot be-flipping-lieve you! The US is invading their country! They have a right to kill you with extreme prejudice, by 'blending into the city' if that's the besyt way to do it.
How would you feel if say, the French, were to invade Bug Tussle, Tenessee or Bug Splat, Arkansas, or wherever *you* live?