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

In post #468 My thoughts were:
>As I have said before I really do believe that this talk of a war with Iraq is a very public communication between George Bush {usa} to Saddam Hussien {Iraq}. Saying 'We are watching, you should very seriously consider letting the Weapons Inspectors back in. If we believe for a minute you are a threat to us {by either WMD's or state sponsered terrorism we will move against you unilateraly if need be.'

Thats just a gut feeling I have over the matter. <

Today Mr. Cheny seemed to bring things down a notch hinting that letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq would be a step in the right direction.

More communication?

That seems an odd/quick change, either that, or the media have been up the wrong tree.

I could have misheard as I was listening to pbs while working but that was the gist I got.

Nice of ol' Georgie porgie to inform us how he felt about the rest of the worlds opinions on a war...
That he'd ignore them if he wanted.
i would just like to say this.

The man is a t**t

Everyone keeps asking the Brits' opinions on the war

Check the link for a Sky News poll that may answer any questions. (Especially seeing as how Sky tend to be more reactionary about their opinions - so you'd assume the same of the audience)

http://www.sky.com/skynews/polls/displayresults/1,,1000993-30000,00.html?ans=1&ads=true

508 was in no way to blame for the spat between Subcom and Frogbit.

I did see, can see why it was moderated, and will leave it at that.

It seems to me that if SH has nucular weaons, as the US claims, then an attack against him would logically percipitate his use of those weapons.

After all it was the assumption that even a sane leader of in the US or USSR would have used their nucular weapons, as a weapon of last resort, if they had been attacked directly by the other side during the cold war. It was this that prevented the direct confruntation between the 2 nucular nations for over 50 years.

So, if SH has nucular weapons then for the US to attack him would represent a massive change in US policy not to start a war with a nucular power. I suspect the truth is that the bush administration either know SH has no such weapons and so want to attack before he gets them or they think he has the weapons, but can't deploy them on US soil (at the moment) and so want to stop that ever being a possibility. Even if it means that we have the release of nucular weapons in the middle east. This would have a devistating affect on everyone, but probably a lot less for the US who are so much further away! Is this one more example of the US not giving a fig about anyone but themselves? It is precisly this attitude that has resulted in them being so hated in some quaters.

I would agree with the Bush administrations intention of removing SH, that would be a good thing for everyone! But if he has these weapons then that may not be an option we in the west have. If he doesen't then the US should say so and we should all except that he is still a threat and must be removed. But simply removing SH does not solve the problem because there will be other islamic states that will try to get such weapons and are equally fanatical in there idealogical hatered of the west (esp. the US). We need to both stop the spread of nucular tech. and try to build bridges with the Islamic world so that our 2 civilisations can co-exist. A big step in that direction would be if the US stoped behaving so high handedly towards everyone else and started listening to other nations instead of preasurising anyone who has a differant vieew to thier own.

SteveD-they mentioned that he doesn't have them but is close to getting them so the idea or there argument is a premtive strike so he could not finish the job *sorry my spelling should be worse then usual today due to time constraints*


()

oh and let me ad this...that was refering to nukes...he has chemical weapons which are also concidered WMD

()

Sorry, Frogbit. I could have phrased it differently from the start and avoided an argument.

peace/out

I bet we would probably attack Iraq with ovewhelming public support if Iraq was known to have nuclear weapons.

No problem Subcom. I hope the air is clear between us.

"I bet we would probably attack Iraq with ovewhelming public support if Iraq was known to have nuclear weapons."

Oh sure a nuclear cloud would maybe drift to europe or asia. Not america and that's what's important, for the public support that is.

I would agree with the Bush administrations intention of removing >SH, that would be a good thing for everyone! But if he has these weapons then that may not be an option we in the west have. If he doesen't then the US should say so and we should all except that he is still a threat and must be removed. But simply removing SH does not solve the problem because there will be other islamic states that will try to get such weapons and are equally fanatical in there idealogical hatered of the west (esp. the US). We need to both stop the spread of nucular tech. and try to build bridges with the Islamic world so that our 2 civilisations can co-exist. A big step in that direction would be if the US stoped behaving so high handedly towards everyone else and started listening to other nations instead of preasurising anyone who has a differant vieew to thier own.<

I agree to stop the spread of nuclear technology would solve many a problem. However it is to late I fear the Genie is out and can no longer fit back in the bottle.

"I agree to stop the spread of nuclear technology would solve many a problem. However it is to late I fear the Genie is out and can no longer fit back in the bottle."

Starbirth, I don't share your pessimism. The United States has caused a great deal of animosity in the Middle East but I think those bridges can be repaired. One thing it could do, if it removes Saddam, is to apologise for the "policy of containment" and for the harm it has done to the Iraqi's. That won't appeal to the Dick Cheney's of this World, but a little penitence can go a long way.

Supporting a democratic government in Iraq rather than a puppet-state would also be a good move.

A genuine question (honest). Has the US govt ever apologised to another nation?

I agree with both of you. Some form of diplomacy is required, and we must take the furute into account. It will be a long time before anyone can trust each other. Inflamatory remarks, both on this thread and in real life, can only galvanise opinion. War will create another generation with similar problems. Peace cannot be achieved through aggression. Peace, I believe, it what we desire. This thread would be as good a starting point as any.
One day, one way or another, SH will go. We shouldn't give his successor any reason to despise us.

>A genuine question (honest). Has the US govt ever apologised to another nation? <

A genuine answer: The US goverment has apologiesed for past atrocities to several Native american Tribes and has reconized them as seperate nations {complete with their own governing bodys} A prime example are the pequotes in Connecticut who went from a tribe of several hundred whose reservations annual budget was less than the per capita income of a single Conneticut family 10 years ago. Today because of federal recognition of their tribe they run the largest casino in the world {even though private gambling institutions are illegal in connecticut.} measured in the billions!

Bill Clinton apologised to South Africa for not stopping apartheid sooner. He toured Mandela's cell with him, too.