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

"Anyone who needs to see the explanation of an arrogant fool.....the posters' comments are copied below.

"Nizzy - you are an offensive cretin who probably lives downwind of a red and blue criss-cross pattern textile factory. Do us all a favour - before posting next time, print your post out, read it back carefully, crumple it into a ball and try to swallow it in one go.
There is an enormous difference between owning a brain and owning a keyboard."

Frogbit....stick to the subject, and if you just absolutely cannot discuss anything in this world without personally degrading those you are debating, you have my sympathy. Someday you'll understand the concept, but obviously you haven't yet."

Thankyou Fairly Strange. Your patronisation was much needed. By the way, did you actually read the posting that that was responding to? Or did your opinions just slam down over your eyes as your fingers tapped viciously across the keys?

""Anyone who needs to see the explanation of an arrogant fool.....the posters' comments are copied below."

Did you meand 'definition' by the way?

War will start on Valentines day, although reservists have been told to be ready for march.

"War will start on Valentines day"

A lovely way of telling Saddam just how much the world loves him!

Geoff, could you explain what you meant by the "fun & game" and "frolics" anf 1994's resolution threatening neighbors?

"The crime is not that Saddam is after WMD; the crime is that he is after them after the World has decided that he's not fit to have them."

This is kind of an amusing idea. The nations with the most weapons of mass destruction and worst records of distributing and using them have judged that Saddam is not fit to have them, so they give thumbs up to war. You've really given an excellent explanation of the situation. Iraq is an exception to the rule, not very different from other nations, but requiring special attention as decided by the unquestionable authorities.

"In Iraq's case, diplomatic activity has been ongoing for over 12 years. Let's compare eggs with eggs."

Then compare one nation developing nukes with other nations that have developed nukes. Thumbs up to Israel, India, Pakistan, thumbs down to North Korea. How does that work? Especially when we know that Pakistan worked closely with the Taliban, the number of people there sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

The rules are simple. When an ally of the West develops nukes, it's nothing to fuss about. When an enemy (check this morning's email announcements to verify which ones are enemies and which are allies at the moment) develops nukes, then it's worth rattling sabres, ratcheting up the rhetoric, and threatening war to prevent them from starting a war.

"Saying that Iraq (problem A) shouldn't be tackled because problems B, C, D & E haven't been tackled yet is just a question of priorities. If you believe that Saddam's Iraq poses a direct threat, then surely dealing with that threat becomes the top priority?"

I don't believe that Iraq poses a direct threat to any other nation. Israel poses a threat to a nation (or a group, depending on which side of that fight you agree with). Pakistan and India have threatened each other, seem much more troubling than anything Saddam has done lately. There are wars happening in Africa right now, countries or factions in the process of destroying each other, but for some reason Iraq is top priority? If you put these things in context, by comparing problems A through E instead of trying to ignore them, then Iraq is clearly an inflated bogeyman.

"Is it my turn to call you a nasty name yet?"

Since you didn't freak out and attack Chomsky's credibility like a vampire hissing at holy water, then the insult doesn't apply to you. Sorry, I didn't mean to call you a vampire, it just seemed like a funny image. That's not a good excuse. Thanks for following the Dogster Accords even when I failed to follow them.

Hi tacsatduk,

"was there ever a offical end to the gulf war or only a cese fire like Korea"?

Bombing has been practically continuous since the end of the Gulf War. And if I remember correctly, Operation Desert Fox in 1998 dropped more bombs (or more tonnage?) on Iraq in the space of a few days than were dropped in the course of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Could be wrong.

Arguing that the war in Iraq ended would be like arguing that US was only involved in a "police action" in Vietnam: technically accurate, but effectively meaningless and misleading.

"Bombing has been practically continuous since the end of the Gulf War. And if I remember correctly, Operation Desert Fox in 1998 dropped more bombs (or more tonnage?) on Iraq in the space of a few days than were dropped in the course of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Could be wrong"

I agree. Incidentally, some people have claimed that the coming war is "about oil". In that case, what was the point of containment and things like Operation Desert Fox? These appeared to be aimed at preventing Iraqi military build-up.

Geoff,

"My history, as you might gather, is a bit ropey, but I don't remember reading about a referendum at the time. However, I do remember reading about rape and scorched earth."

I'm not defending Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but it's no mystery why the only things you read about or saw on tv were rape and scorched earth. Kuwait hired one of the world's largest PR firms to ensure that you saw rape and scorched earth. Maybe if Saddam had hired a big enough PR firm, or paid the same firm a little more to switch sides, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. It would just fall by the wayside where mainstream America would never talk about it, like the invasion and massacres of Indonesia in East Timor (where's that?).

Note that the same PR firm working for the exiled govt of Kuwait at the time of Gulf War I was also employed by the regime in Indonesia at some time.

Saddam was not justified to invade Kuwait, but if you read about some of the ways Kuwait was harassing Iraq at the time, you'd see how much has been ignored by US media.

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."

Bull. That's not diplomacy, that's sanctions of mass destruction. Please please do not try to claim that the idiotic tactics of Bush and Clinton represent the optimal workings of diplomacy.

And while you're counting, remember that 500,000 is the estimate from the mid-1990's that a UN agency put on the number of children *under age five* attributable to sanctions. The total number including adults and children over six would have been higher, and does not reflect the number who died since then.

Now please explain how you can be outraged by that number dead from sanctions, then turn around and support the latest proposal by the leaders who are responsible for causing that many deaths.

"The rules are simple. When an ally of the West develops nukes, it's nothing to fuss about. When an enemy (check this morning's email announcements to verify which ones are enemies and which are allies at the moment) develops nukes, then it's worth rattling sabres, ratcheting up the rhetoric, and threatening war to prevent them from starting a war."

Sadly, that's the way of the world. Nations are always going to side with their allies. Pakistan has always been a US ally (despite backing the Taliban) and so the US has never been too fussed about their nukes, not going much further than a fairly pointless official "tut, tut". Pakistan repaid the favour by dumping the Taliban and siding with the US, a much more powerful and far more useful ally.

As for Israel, I wouldn't be surprised if the US was directly responsible for those nukes .

"Thanks for following the Dogster Accords even when I failed to follow them."

The Dogster Accord! This is probably the third attempt of something but can we all try and stick to it from now on?

"Bull. That's not diplomacy, that's sanctions of mass destruction. Please please do not try to claim that the idiotic tactics of Bush and Clinton represent the optimal workings of diplomacy."

It was, and it passed for Bush/Clinton "diplomacy". I know it was rubbish but it was the best the US and the world was willing to do (Clinton apparently had a plan to assassinate Hussein, but balked when he discovered it was illegal). The sad fact is that the West is ruled these days by mediocrities and we've had mediocre leadership. I'd support a quick and easy "diplomatic" solution if one was proposed and there was a country with the means and leadership to see it through.

"Now please explain how you can be outraged by that number dead from sanctions, then turn around and support the latest proposal by the leaders who are responsible for causing that many deaths."

Bush Jr, although an idiot, wasn't responsible for those tactics. That was his dad and Clinton. Bush Jr, for whatever reason, is changing tactics and although his reasons aren't snow-white I do think they are more in line with ending the isolation and torture of Iraq in one fell swoop. I wish there was a better way, but it's either not possible or no one is willing to do it.

I don't have time, but If anyone wants, they can copy and paste to following link into bablefish.altavista.com

[Unsuitable link removed by Moderator]

"Irishmen with pigs under their arms"

Say, that one isn't known widely enough in the States. All we hear is Conan O'Brien's self-deprecating jokes about drinking hard and starting fights. What's this about a pig? Is the pig green, or wiley enough to lead people away from a pot o' gold?

Nizzy: "Back on Iraq we have a big stick so to speak why not use it? what is wrong with war against Iraq. We have a disagreement with them what ever that is who really knows? YES lots will die, YES their will be lots of suffering, On both sides was is a dirty business is it in the US/uk's best interests who really knows but their is only 1 way to find out after that next stop Korea"


As long as you're not the one suffering or dying?


Pleeeease tell me you're not serious.....

"I'd support a quick and easy "diplomatic" solution if one was proposed and there was a country with the means and leadership to see it through."

Why should diplomacy be quick and easy? Does your committment to peace have a time limit or deadline, after which war is just so much easier and quicker that it becomes worthwhile?

In the meantime, you can't claim that war is the only viable option because the closest thing to diplomacy allowed by current leaders is sanctions. As people with brains of our own, we should not limit ourselves to the options that world leaders claim are the only ones viable. We should think of what makes sense, and demand that they do it.

"Now please explain how you can be outraged by that number dead from sanctions, then turn around and support the latest proposal by the leaders who are responsible for causing that many deaths." (quoting myself from a few posts back)

This is also similar to the argument some people have made that since the Western powers are responsible for supplying Iraq a few decades ago, it is now our "duty" to clean up the situation by taking out Saddam.

If they fouled up so severely and inhumanely that time and so many times before, what makes anyone think that they should be trusted to fix the situation this time, instead of fouling things up worse? It's like a bunch of drug dealers asking for the right to shoot their customers, because it will make up for selling drugs in the first place.

[No please, it's not fair to consider the past! Stop putting things in context! Only think of the current situation! Pay no attention to that history of imperialism behind the curtain said the great and powerful Oz!]

NA, do you think Nizzy was serious or sarcastic? I almost read that post as a parody too.

"NA, do you think Nizzy was serious or sarcastic? I almost read that post as a parody too."


I'm in a reasonably good mood today so I though I'd ask before highlighting the obvious flaws of the proposed argument.

"Why should diplomacy be quick and easy? Does your committment to peace have a time limit or deadline, after which war is just so much easier and quicker that it becomes worthwhile?"


Diplomacy does happen to be the long road. War on the other hand, may be fought and won in a single political term.

Hi Geoff,

I looked up "iraq 1994 resolution" and found a little info about troop movements along the border with Iraq. I guess you got me on that point. Was Saddam specifically threatening to invade Kuwait again, or just following the example of China and having wargames that just happen to be in an area they want to threaten (Taiwan)?