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

Yup. It doesn't invalidate the opinion of those who don't have kids - but you can't deny a personal interest in *NO WAR* for those who do. I don't have them, but I know people who do - and I would hate to see them killed.

But that's all beside the point, isn't it? You don't think that Bush is going to invade Iraq? I'm worried myself; air bases in the D/FW area (Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, for you out-of-towners) are gearing up and getting their pilots ready for what looks suspiciously like combat. Large military-issue passenger airliners and 707's heading off south, jet pilots doing their requisite number of landings to make sure they qualify for combat.

I think that he's not bluffing. What I'm pissed off about is that this is so totally wrong. This really is a UN issue. Failing that, he should have Congress' approval before doing anything drastic. But he's wanting to play with the toys, and he is the boy with the button.

I agree that we have a problem in that we haven't declared war for over 60 years. I think that would legitmate the war effort.

I am not a parent. I can see how the parenting might affect your views a bit. On the other hand, I'm willing to particpate myself. I have expereince as a professional soldier.

Saddam Husseins regime has been regularly killing entire families without let or hindrance for the last 22 years, apart from a brief respite during the short Gulf War. He then went straight back to doing the stuff that dictators do.

One section of the film i saw,(links provided several pages of backlog ago), concerning, in particular, the marsh arabs of southern iraq, showed footage from the parliamentary meeting immediately following Saddams takeover of Iraq. The republican guard had lists of names and were moving through the seated delegates, taking those on the list outside to be quietly shot.

Another section showed recent film, made in southern iraq, of the survivors of a group of refugees who had been trying to flee across the border to iran. These were ALL women and children. Most had serious shrapnel wounds as the republican guard had decided to shell their little convoy,probably just for practice.

It is BECAUSE i am a parent that i feel deeply for all those families
who are missing a loved one, be it parent or child, and see CLEARLY the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein from tenure ASAP before he is able to threaten MY children.

One other point...why do you think that the governments of er France...Belgium...Russia...China...are bleating against the eradication of this monster?...Do you suppose it could be because their own military/industrial/engineering complexes have ALREADY made deals with Baghdad for when sanctions are lifted?

How valuable is a done deal with a dead dictator?

alec

...and before you ask, i would trust Scott Ritter about as much as i would trust Mark Fuhrmann.

Doesn't Russia already have access to large amounts of oil already?

" Morally, politically we could take charge in the world. But the British are blocking that. They still don't understand that they could play a pioneer role in Europe instead of submissively following the US." - from the belgian forign minister.

Doesn't that embarras Brits?

Personally I belive a US lead attack would serve to solidify his support and gain more support for others like him. Seeing the US as big bad and evil must account for most if not all his support and the support of others like him.

If there is to be an attack. Have it under the blue flag of a wireframe world flanked by lorrel leafs. Otherwise the situation will just get worse and people like him will enjoy ever increasing support.

ooops "wireframe" technical word, but I think you know the flag I mean.

If parents were so sensitive automatically, then why do some parents leave their babies in hot cars to roast to death, or intentionally kill their kids? How many children are taken away from their parents each day due to neglect or abuse?

Frogbit, I'm sorry to keep this digression going, but your reasoning sounds similar to those who say, "Did you lose any loved ones in the World Trade Center attacks? If not, then you can't understand how important it is that we attack [insert name of current target state here]."

"You are not a parent, so therefore cannot imagine the horror of losing a child to any war..."

If you haven't lost a child to war, then how can you imagine it any better than me? This is silly. We both disagree with the war. Let's run with that. I don't have to agree with your hypersensitivity or enlightened compassion. Either way, it won't convince the millions of "successful" breeders who don't care enough about other peoples' children to protest this war.

AlecTrician,

The part that's conspicuous is the timing. What did the US do about those atrocities you mention at the time they happened? During the Iran-Iraq War, we didn't care what they did to each other. Here's a nice article about how Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in Bagdad in 1983, back when he was a friend and client of the US:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2177

The US State department acknowledged that Iraq had used lethal chemical weapons against Iran. What did we do to punish Iraq? Established better diplomatic relations with them.

What did we do when Hussein famously gassed the Kurds in 1988? The US Senate voted for sanctions against Iraq. The White House stopped it.

Why are we so outraged now? Why do you need to dig up things that happened 15-20 years ago to justify a war now? If these things were so bad, why didn't the US or the world attack back then?

Because we didn't care about it then, and the Bush Administration only cares now because they might get away with it.

As a parent (my 2nd child was born last night. Luvverly little girl, and I'm off back to the hospital in a minute) , I feel that my parental status has got absolutely nothing to do with my moral position on anything.

Bye

Well, it must be my fault, seeing as you all got the wrong end of the stick.

SUBCOM

"If parents were so sensitive automatically, then why do some parents leave their babies in hot cars to roast to death, or intentionally kill their kids? How many children are taken away from their parents each day due to neglect or abuse?

Frogbit, I'm sorry to keep this digression going, but your reasoning sounds similar to those who say, "Did you lose any loved ones in the World Trade Center attacks? If not, then you can't understand how important it is that we attack [insert name of current target state here]."

"You are not a parent, so therefore cannot imagine the horror of losing a child to any war..."

If you haven't lost a child to war, then how can you imagine it any better than me? This is silly. We both disagree with the war. Let's run with that. I don't have to agree with your hypersensitivity or enlightened compassion. Either way, it won't convince the millions of "successful" breeders who don't care enough about other peoples' children to protest this war. "

This response has nothing at all to do with what I asked. I initiated the question (which has been answered mainly in the negative) to see what kind of percentage of posters have children, and whether that made a difference to their pro/anti stance. It was just an inquiry, but it seemed to hit a nerve. I was interested to see whther having children made people more or less likely to support a war.

What I got was a bunch of "I don't have a child, so I don't see it would make a difference." responses. Which were predictable, really. It's the stock "I've no idea, but I'm terribly sure none-the-less." answer.

"If parents were so sensitive automatically, then why do some parents leave their babies in hot cars to roast to death, or intentionally kill their kids? How many children are taken away from their parents each day due to neglect or abuse?"

Emotive, avoiding the question, being so completely obviously off the point in an attempt to prove what, Subcom? That you can imagine horror? That you feel, somehow, that pointing to people who don't give a f*ck about their children negates my point? We all know there are disturbed people around.

I asked a civil question, and have somehow been painted as a would be saint. Thank you all for attempting to answer the question thoughtfully, and without deciding what I meant and providing your own opinions. A question mark would have done.

So in reading the news this morning I see that the US is more intent than ever on invading Iraq. And as each ally says 'No, I don't think that's a good idea' Rumsfeld comes out with a new piece of propoganda as to why it is a good idea.

And then I read that the Israelis have been killing more palestinians. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2222551.stm but not on the front page.

So becoming more interested in this news story I follow some of the links and find this one very interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2135925.stm , because at the bottom of this one is the following quote "And some also talk about what they call transfer. That means the mass deportation of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank. " And I wonder at the fact that whilst propoganda is quick to point out the similarities between Hussein and Hitler, how no-one has done the same with similarities between Israel and the Third Reich.

It also strikes me from that article 'Why don't they try the one thing they haven't tried yet and remove themselves from West Bank and Gaza. Just maybe the suicide bombings will stop then"

And coming back to the problem of attacking Iraq. Saddam Hussein is an insane, power-crazed dicator. But he isn't stupid. Infact I suspect that he is highly intelligent and extremily well versed in the art of propoganda himself. It seems to me that any Western attack (any attack at all on Iraq) plays straight into his propoganda plans.

So his people are poor and starving - tell them that the sanctions imposed by the evil US, UK and others are the reason they have no food or medicine. The evil US, UK and others have imposed the sanctions because they dislike the Iraqui people, not least because they are muslim (they hate all muslims don't you know)
So he spends lots on the military - tell the people that the evil US, UK and others are going to attack Iraq because they hate the Iraqui people, because they want to destabilize the country and impose their own government in it. Did you see what they did to Afganistan? Are the poor people of Afghanistan any better now that their stable government has been forced to change and what have the US done but leave the people in their bombed land to starve.

And so it goes on. It is really really easy to spin all the facts from Hussein's perspective. And whilst events continue to support the propoganda - sanctions, attacks on muslim nations, non-support of muslims in Israel - it is going to be all to easy for the populace of Iraq (let alone fundamentalist muslims in other countries) to agree with it.

Half an hour ago I watched a puff piece from 60minutes. The sanctions from the view of the Australian navy, who this month, Is in charge of the blockade.

The reporter asked the Australian captain what is view of reports of the many dead due to sanctions. With a serious face he says those claims are unfounded/untrue.

It was the Australian syndication of 60 minutes.

could this be a precursor?

purple dragon - see post 485 - I wonder if your post will be answered/rebuted

Frogbit - in answer to your question, I have children, my eldest has recently joined the RAF, this however does not change my anti-war stance. I have always held the view that war is a last resort when all other measures have failed. War never really solves anything, it often replaces one problem with another such as economic problems, feelings of hatred towards the victors etc etc.

It is clear from the coments of Kofi Annan in recent weeks that all non military avenues have not been addressed far less exhausted.

On a slightly different note what does the US have to fear from Iraq? They have no intercontintal delivery capability for their WMD's (if they have any - this is in doubt following the testimony of the UN's senior weapons inspector to the Senate recently), no airforce to speak of any more and an army that whilst capable of waging a local war is incapable of waging one outside its own theatre.

There is no direct security threat to the US from Iraq - on the other hand if I was Israeli I would be deeply worried about the US attacking Iraq as I might well end up getting loads of Scud missiles fired at me!

The US administration needs to be brutally honest about why they wish to do this, what evidence they have to back up their threats etc. if they want world opinion on their side - or maybe they just dont give a f**k.

Napoleon made an interesting quote that is worth thinking about in reference to Bush : "Do not disturb your enemy whilst they are making a mistake"

yes, I think my post probably agrees with 485, somewhat longwindedly.
I'm kindof wound up by the comparissons to world war II and the double standards in the propoganda machine.

The US administration needs to be brutally honest about why they wish to do this, what evidence they have to back up their threats etc. if they want world opinion on their side - or maybe they just dont give a f**k.

Did I miss something and did they provide evidence before attacking Afghanistan?

Personally I don't think they give a f**k as you said. As long as the the US has enough internal support and it's lap dogs to parade to the international community, ie the UK and Australian governments.

so anyone who sides or agrees with the US automaticaly becomes are lap dogs and anyone who disagrees the nobbel few and proud??? interesting opinion non the less

and as far as having children and how that afects your pro-war/anti-war status...I think it is still split down the middle on that at least through my own observations

Should the Brits be embarased because some leader comes out and says that his country would be a leader if they got out of the way and stoped agreeing with the US...I don't think so...If his country was on the verge of greatness and becomeing a real world leader then what side the brits "gov" falls on wouldn't mean a dag on thing

that's about it for now


()

Shouldn't be replying to this as I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in any political debate.....Oh well - here goes the rant.

My opinion is firmly against any military action in Iraq. Saddam Hussein rules his country un-democratically but is no different from many other countries who are ruled by leaders that weren't elected by the majority of the population.

Iraq has been bombed persistently since the Gulf War by the UK and US. Everyone seems to be worried about how Saddam kills families, what about the million plus children estimated to have been killed by the economic sanctions placed on Iraq after the Gulf War?

The other point is just about the de-stabilising effect this war could have on the region. Most countries in the Middle-East have spoken out against the proposed military action. What does that say about the US? To me it says - 'thanks for your support after the terrorist acts last year guys, but we couldn't really give a toss what you say anyway.'

Finally though the thing that shocked and disgusted me most about the Gulf War was the use of depleted uranium shells. The story I have linked to is one of many that you can find on the web by searching under 'Basra depeleted uranium', etc.

http://www.cqs.com/du.htm

It is horrific to me that these weapons have been used and continue to be used in modern warfare. Any government that is prepared to do this to people in order to win in battle has no justification to acuse anyone else of being 'evil'. And certainly has no place taking the moral high ground by insisting that they alone have the right to choose who can govern in someone else's country.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Mr Hussein, but enough international pressure could be put on him so that his remaining 20 odd years left in government (he's well past 70 years old now) could be pretty easily controlled by the rest of the world by the threat of economic isolation. I honestly don't believe that he poses enough of a threat to start a potentially huge conflict over.

"One other point...why do you think that the governments of er France...Belgium...Russia...China...are bleating against the eradication of this monster?...Do you suppose it could be because their own military/industrial/engineering complexes have ALREADY made deals with Baghdad for when sanctions are lifted?"

First off - France, in principle, supports the removal of Saddam. It has reservations about how it should be done, however.

Russia and China tend to always disagree with the United States on a point of principle. Russia, I think, has already sold weapons to Saddam. China would probably be quite happy to supply Iraq, sanctions or no sanctions.

As for Belgium - can't really say I've heard much from them

Belegum usuly remain nutral in such matters.