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

"Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion." from this weekends meet the press I do belive

Also it was stated not sure who now...will look for links...it went something like "that unlike the first gulf war the bombing plans for the new conflict are very short"??? I wonder what they concider short


()

"Even rats display better learning skills, once theyve walked on the electrified floor they dont go strolling along it time and time again."

I don't know about rats learning to avoid the floor. The comparison I keep thinking of is rats on an electrified floor attacking each other because they don't know how to attack the floor. We can't find al-Qaeda, so we attack the nation where they hid, threaten old enemies like Iraq and Iran and North Korea. None of these attacks will prevent us from getting "zapped" again, but it makes some people feel satisfied if they think they've accomplished something.

'"unlike the first gulf war the bombing plans for the new conflict are very short"??? I wonder what they consider short'

600-800 cruise missiles to be launched on Iraq in the first two days, approximately equal to all the cruise missiles used during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/jan/26/top_stories/20030126top5.html

It could be even shorter if they just used one nuke, but that would be bad for PR. Everybody still talks about Hiroshima, but only bleeding hearts talk about Dresden.

ah so that's how they can call it short...gotcha thanks


()

"How do you liberate a people by blasting them into eternity?"

I think the American bombing will be aimed at knocking out Iraqi military installations, not obliterating the Iraqi population.

Judging by the rumblings of discontent from the Iraqi military, they probably won't need to do much bombing anyway.

Judging by the report below, military personnel will also be targets. Shifting the blame for civilain casualties has already begun....

"Bush Accuses Iraq of Using Civilians as Shields"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030210/ts_nm/iraq_usa_shields_dc

"Judging by the report below, military personnel will also be targets. Shifting the blame for civilain casualties has already begun...."

I heard the Americans had dropped leaflets warning Iraqi's to stay away from the areas to be bombed. Also Saddam has shown no qualms about using "human shields" before.

>>Who am I to suggest men wearing great flowing dresses and covering their balls with badger-handbags is anything but laudable<<
Oh, stop it, Frogbit, I am nearly wetting myself laughing! Zagreb, before you get your knickers in a knot, may I reiterate, my mother was Scots, and I think she would have laughed about the above line, were she here! Let's "get on wi' the discussion the noo', hen" and not be bitter!

Thanks for the link to electronicintifada, Dryopithecus. I have made a note of the URL for future reference, and also had look right now. Excellent! That's my opinion of the 'evidence' as well! Like the evidence against OBL for the 9/11 event - it all turns out to be smoke and mirrors!

Thanks for the information, Lentilla! I had a look at some of it - excellent!

>> heard the Americans had dropped leaflets warning Iraqi's to stay away from the areas to be bombed. Also Saddam has shown no qualms about using "human shields" before.<<
So you say, Zagreb, so you say.. I heard last October, people getting all agitated when NZ turned out to be sending 8 weapons inspectors (query number, think I am right..) Well, everyone's getting exercised that 'Saddam might use them as human shields'. Not yet, not ever, probably, also given that some 'peace-niks' (derogatory term used on Right Wing radio - i.e., all of it) for pacifists, have gone from NZ to Iraq for the purpose of being human shields. I remember something about such things in Gulf War 1 back in 1991, can someone supply detailed info - Blues or NA?

It's interesting that people are using the Churchill "jaw-jaw" quote. Whilst it's certainly true, it's worth remembering that Churchill had to harass Parliament into accepting war against Germany (which neither Parliament, nor the British people wanted (and especially that arch-appeaser The Queen Mother, who has since been re-invented by the romantising (ie lying) right-wing press and commentators as some sort of rock against Nazism, following her death) as the "alternative" measures were useless against Hitler.

Not that I'm saying "and this situation is exactly the same!", just that "jaw-jaw" is not always better than "war war". Sorry, but twelve years of "jaw jaw" have left Hussein in power and reduced his people to starvation (with the blessing of the UN - remember, invading a country and toppling it's unelected tyrant is illegal, starving that country to death is within international law). The only good thing is that the Iraqi army is apparently so unwilling to fight that the Americans might not go ahead with a massive bombing campaign. They might not need to. And to be honest, the way things seem to be, the ground war might be almost non-existant.

What I am pretty certain of is that Saddam will not survive the war. The smart money is on the Republican Guard "disappearing" him, as he has done to so many of his subjects.

"can someone supply detailed info"

As far as I know, Saddam basically rounded up Westerners in Iraq in 1990 or 1991 and told the West that he was going to place them in his military facilities as "human shields". He made a big deal of this, displaying them on TV and stuff, so the West could not "deny all knowledge" and carry on regardless.

If the anti-war protesters manage to make it to Iraq, he'll probably do the same. That's if he doesn't suspect that they are really Western spies. Or just kills them as revenge for what the West is doing to him. I really wish someone had briefed these protesters on exactly what kind of regime exists in Iraq.

This kind of regime, before I get asked for proof.

http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbr_iraq_faq#1

And if amnesty are officially some sort of CIA plot these days, then God help us.

""It's worth remembering that the Saudi government only allowed US troops to be stationed in their country because of the threat that Iraq might pose to them. With Saddam gone, the Saudi's wouldn't see any futher need for a US troop presence. Also, the biggest threat to the Saudi regime is Islamic fundamentalism, and they get pretty upset with "infidel" troops being stationed in their Holy Land.""

It seems you didn't take my suggestion and read the link posted by Nugen. It stated that US forces have been there since WWII. Perhaps you have something in common with those re-inventing places/people/history.

If you were really so concerned you'd advocate support for the peacekeeping force suggested br France and Germany - or was it suggested by the 'wrong people'. I saw bush angrly hitting the table with his button finger saying no.

Remember that the newest country in the world which is also the newest member of the UN is there right now due to a peacekeeping force.

"If you were really so concerned you'd advocate support for the peacekeeping force suggested br France and Germany - or was it suggested by the 'wrong people'. I saw bush angrly hitting the table with his button finger saying no."

What sort of Peace-Keeping force was suggested? Will it remove Hussein from power?

Sorry, but my attitude to France and Germany (and why do the news people refer to these two countries as representing all the governments of Europe?) is that they are taking the right stand over the wrong issue.

East Timor achieved independence not through a peace-keeping force but by a change in the Indonesian regime. The peace-keeping force certainly helped during the election, though. However, I don't think Iraq is anything like in the same league as East Timor.

"Bush Accuses Iraq of Using Civilians as Shields"

Here's a new game. Find new headlines with "Bush" and "Iraq" in them, then search to see if there were any matching headlines from Gulf War I!

Bush Jr. is cheating on his presidency. Instead of making his own decisions, he's just repeating the things his dad did.

"East Timor achieved independence not through a peace-keeping force but by a change in the Indonesian regime."

I'd say there are thousands of troops who would dissagree with you on that one. One of the things you go on about is sadam ruling through fear. Can he rule with fear wheh his country is filled with forign troops? - no

"I heard the Americans had dropped leaflets warning Iraqi's to stay away from the areas to be bombed. Also Saddam has shown no qualms about using "human shields" before."

Bushes have shown no qualms about claiming civilian casualties were placed under US bombs by naughty Iraqis using them as human shields.

ugh.

"Sorry, but twelve years of "jaw jaw" have left Hussein in power and reduced his people to starvation..."

Does Operation Desert Fox in 1998 count as nothing but talk? Are you aware of how often bombs were dropped in No-Fly zones since the Gulf War?

If you want to claim that we've had twelve years of unsuccessful diplomacy, you'd have to convince people that the last twelve years of bombing and sanctions of mass destruction somehow qualified as "diplomacy."