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

I think they call that ebing economical with the truth, that means they tell the bits that they want you to hear.

"I had thought Powell the voice of sanity in the US, but apparently not. Especially as the US's own allies can't get on board with some of the so-called 'evidence'"

Personally, I'm not mightily swayed by what I've heard of the evidence. Whatever, my own inclination is that Saddam must go, regardless of whether he has WMD, regardless of whether he help al-Quaida (although both are fairly possible). The man is a tyrant who has isolated his country and turned a once-prosperous nation into a starving third-world police-state run by fear. Sorry, but I'm going to stick with the only plan to remove him so far that looks like going into action.

To be honest, I think that's Powell et al's incilnation too.

"And the truth being distorted is..."

that Iraq poses a present threat.


The issue is not whether Saddam should go, but whether we have time to remove him through diplomatic means. Nothing in the evidence presented indicated the threat today is any worse then the threat one year ago. In short, is the threat escalating and is it at a point of critical danger?

I've seen news reports this morning that US claims there are 7 mobile laboratories in Iraq. Great. We have a target of finding 7 laboratories. Can we afford the time and devote intelligence and UN inspector resources to finding these laboratories?

"If anything good comes out of the coming war it will be the death of the self-satisfied, isolationist, selfish and self-serving tits who have been poisoning a once great political movement in the last couple of decades"

Actually, I retract that statement. Not because I don't think the liberal-left is allowing itself to morally fall to pieces but because it's the sort of ranty nonsense we should try and avoid on this thread. So .

There.

Incidentally, if anyone else makes a "hilarious" racist remark about my being Scottish, consider yourself ignored. It was cute at first, now it's just annoying and borderline offensive.

"Sorry, but I'm going to stick with the only plan to remove him so far that looks like going into action."

That's very comforting Zagreb. And a real surprise. Not to mention a blow for justice and decency. What was the estimate of civilian casualties 50,000 wasn't it? I'm sure they'll rot in the sand hapilly reflecting on how they were killed with democratic bombs an bullets. I'd continue, but I have to wipe the vomit off my keyboard.

hmmm


()

"The issue is not whether Saddam should go, but whether we have time to remove him through diplomatic means."

How do you remove a dictator through diplomatic means? And if it were possible, how long would it take. What sort of death toll would the sanctions and his regime be able to rack-up? It's taken ten years of anti-Saddam posturing and feeble supporting of Iraqi opposition groups. Death toll so far is 500,000 and counting. Price of peace, folks.

On a slightly different note, does anyone know what's become of the Iraqi National Congress?

"Re:- Powell's evidence. Did anyone else notice that the telephone transcript dated Jan 30th, but Bush announced that Powell would address the UN back on the 28th? So the presentation was planned before that piece of evidence existed? What does that mean? Perhaps they're making it all up. Or perhaps they've got lots of bits of evidence (as they've said) and they thought this latest one was good'n'juicy."

Either is possible. To be honest, it's hard to believe the US simply because they seem to have such a great capacity for being dishonest and untrustworthy. Ditto Hussein.

"How do you remove a dictator through diplomatic means? And if it were possible, how long would it take."


All good questions. Perhaps we should spend a bit more time discussing possible answers instead of debating death toll in a war?

As a first proposal, how would you depose Saddam with an internal coup and/or offering exile?



As for the Scottish remarks, I agree, they are borderline racist and should not be tolerated.

I wonder what the evidence they decided at the last min not to show was


()

I have read though the opinions in this conversation, and I'm curious about something. It seems like here (in the USA) and abroad I have read every opinion imaginable ranging from the reasonable to the insane.

If you are for or against war, how much of it is related to feelings you have about America?
And if you're on one side, can you understand how a reasonable, intelligent person might believe the opposite?
For those who oppose war, what do you really think will stop Hussein, honestly? For those in favor of war, don't you think that the lives lost will be about oil, at least somewhat in the end?

Just trying to provoke thought with these questions... to emphasize that I at least think there is room for both sides of the argument.

"For those who oppose war, what do you really think will stop Hussein, honestly?"

If I was against the USA government (not the USA), then I would view the above question as furthering the propaganda spread by the said government.

The debate regarding whether Saddam is a threat to the USA has ended (it really never started) and now all we are debating is how to stop him. I'm yet to be convinced that Saddam, *right now* is a threat to the USA.

Geo "Fair comment. Right, let's look again at what I said..."

What gave you the idea you were referring to what you said? You left out last conversation after quoting Bush. Why should I pick up another with you when you couldn't be bothered finishing the last?

---------

Zagreb - " It's taken ten years of anti-Saddam posturing and feeble supporting of Iraqi opposition groups. Death toll so far is 500,000 and counting. Price of peace, folks."

How about the pro war people prove a serious attempt at changing the situation in Iraq? There's obviously no evidence of a threat and pro war people are saying military action is the only way.

Hello All

I've still got some questions after colin's speach, I wonder if anyone can help me.

Are we actually going to bomb the heck out of thousands and thousands of men, women and children, to get one man in a concrete bunker? Are we going to litter an entire land with depleted uranium so children are born dead, dieing or deformed? But it's all OK because we are freeing them?

Also can you spot another scenario than these:
1) The USA go in, Sadam uses chemical weapons, they "nuke" them (It is something they don't want to rule out, as it's the plan, they don't want another vietnam after all)

2)The USA goes in thousands and thousands of civilians die, Sadam survives (as no matter how effective carpet bombing installations is, one man can still survive) and so all that death for nothing. And a load more terrorists are created.

3) The USA goes in thousands and thousands of civilians die, Sadam dies, and a new generation of fundamentalists are still created.

I must admit I'm a little depressed about all this.

Researcher PSG

" It's taken ten years of anti-Saddam posturing and feeble supporting of Iraqi opposition groups. Death toll so far is 500,000 and counting. Price of peace, folks."


Peace? With north and south Iraq being constantly patrolled by US and British war planes, not to mention bombed on a regular basis, and with sanctions in place, I hardly call that PEACE.

Neugen,

That's why I added the question "For those in favor of war, don't you think that the lives lost will be about oil, at least somewhat in the end?" I was trying to ask a question that someone on either side of the debate might ask.

NA,

"As a first proposal, how would you depose Saddam with an internal coup and/or offering exile?"

Internal coup would be difficult. Saddam appears to rule much like Stalin did, not by surrounding himself with friends, but by ensuring that retribution against anyone who crosses him is swift and merciless. With this culture of fear, Saddam can surround himself with 20 bodyguards who hate him and not one will raise a finger against him, sure that the rest will all jump to Saddam's defence out of fear.

It was suggested that the Republican Guard be persuaded to overthrow him. There were rumoured rumblings of this a couple of years ago. If the rumours were true, we can be sure Saddam disposed of any dissent he found out about. One thing is a possibility, if a war starts and the situation starts to look desperate, Saddam's bodyguards may start to see it in terms of risk Saddam's wrath or die fighting the Americans and go for broke. There is a change that the war will end this way just as it begins.

Was there not some story about Saddam being offered exile by the Americans? I doubt he'd take it, since he knows it's unlikely he'd be left alone and he seems desperate to cling to power.

P.S. thanks for the comments about the Scottish thing, appreciated.

"Peace? With north and south Iraq being constantly patrolled by US and British war planes, not to mention bombed on a regular basis, and with sanctions in place, I hardly call that PEACE."

Fair point - we're not actually at peace with Iraq and haven't been since 1991. This places a further responsibility on those anti-war people who want to "let be" - continue slow-war or go into endgame?

"If you are for or against war, how much of it is related to feelings you have about America?"

I'm in an odd situation, since I'm usually hostile to American actions such as these. However, when it comes to USA vs Hussein I know whose side I have to go on. Not just that, but since I've been following the Middle East situation for a while, I know that leaving Saddam in power has it's own death-toll along with enormous repression and so the usually-sypathetic "people will be killed" argument is more than balanced out.

"And if you're on one side, can you understand how a reasonable, intelligent person might believe the opposite?"

Absolutely, up until the liberation of Afghanistan I was pretty much with them. My apparent self-righteousness is, I think, typical of the recent convert .

"For those in favor of war, don't you think that the lives lost will be about oil, at least somewhat in the end?"

I believe that lives will be lost and more will be ultimately spared. I think we have a responsibility to both. The Americans want oil, yes, but their priority in the Middle East has always been stability and it's far from unlikely that they believe Saddam is a threat to that. Also, they showed little intention of "grabbing" Iraqi oil until 9/11. More to the point, who really cares who buys Iraqi oil? It'll make Iraq rich, prosperous and hopefully happy.

I think it will be worth something in the end, the US does have a history of going to war for it's own reasons, occupying a country and then giving it it's soverignty back. I see no reason why it shouldn't do this with Iraq. Bringing Iraq out of isolation and back into the world community is something I've wanted to happen for a long time, and the sooner the better.