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

Checking in again.

Wanted to comment on ~jwf~'s concern that there are to many peaceniks here beating up on teenage girls in electronica. I think it is essential to get to young people while they are still capable of absorbing an opinion unfettered by the cynicism that besets us over time. After all, it was only a decade ago that I was quite the hawk, what with a large number of my friends fighting in the gulf. Only after they came back with their tales of starving conscripts who were torn between being gunned down by the Republican Guard for retreating and having their families at home murdered for their cowardice, or fighting against the U.S. Marines, who were legendary for their history of beheading prisoners and feasting on their remains (Iraqi troops were actually told this, they were scared to death of the Marines and rarely surrendered to Marine Corps units). Now we all have grown wise after seeing what good it did, and now that several of my friends have come down with mysterious rashes and bald spots and chronic joint pain and sleeplessness etc...

One of my good friends was crazy enough to try to make a career of the Marine Corps and is back over there as Recon, and will likely be part of the infantry force that will be ordered into Baghdad where fighting will commence on the ground, block by block, for a city that in land area (and population I think?) is larger than Los Angeles. The best way I can support him, is to try to get him out of ther before the shooting starts. Otherwise my expression of support for the troops and their fight, and anyone else who supports this fight in this country, may buy him a burial plot before his birthday this summer.

As far as the tactical nature of this war, from what I understand the Northern offensive will be the 18th Airborne (101st Division with Air Cavalry and an enormous amount of air support) and whatever the Kurdish resistance is passing off as an army against Iraqi conscripts and Saddam's old enemies the Ansar, who are holed up in the mountains and have no allegiance to either side. It should be easy pickens at the oil fields but good luck dislodging even poorly trained and organized troops from mountainous territory (ask the Russians who are fighting in Chechnya). The South will be a massacre as conscripts are pitted against the best the U.S. and British forces can assemble in open terrain. The real fun starts when you get to urban areas, where I imagine the Republican Guard will dig in until air power levels everything and then light infantry will be forced to try to take the city (picture Somalia, only with both sides trained and equiped this time). The civilian death toll should be awesome to even the most jaded hawks among us. The military toll will depend on whther or not the Republican Guard units think there is a place for them in the new U.S. regime. If they don't, it will cost us.

I thought in order to make things more fair for all the prowar people out there that can't manage to put together a coherent, propaganda-free argument. I would give it a shot. This one's for all you blood-thirsty folks.

Saddam is a dictator that has outlived his usefulness and become a liability and embarassment to our foreign policy makers. He briefly served as a counterbalance to the fundamentalism that has risen up in Iran and is threatening to topple Saudi Arabia. But he seems to fail to understand that he is a second echelon power in this world. The U.S. is sitting on the top rung and demands that in return for military support we need at least a semblance of loyalty.

With Israel out of our control, and the only answer that is viable is to create a new Palestinian state would run the risk of alienating our only true ally in the region. Even that NATO stallwart Turkey seems to be falling to the whims of its people.

So the simplest answer is to put Iraq firmly in our corner.

They control ten percent of the worlds known oil reserves, and the current cost of production there is $1.50 a barrel. For all you rookies out there that's way cheaper than anything coming out of Alaska or anywhere else in the world.

The central location is also ideal for allowing us to establish a permanent presence (military of course)which can keep all of these radical governments in check. It may even help give us some leverage in creating a more cooperative government in Saudi Arabia, who we consider questionable at best, considering 11 of those idiots who crashed into the WTC come from there. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors, because Saudi Arabia also has even more oil than Iraq, and if we get them both on our plate, we set the price of oil for fifty years at least.

Europe, Russia, and China are all waffling because they understand this. That's why the U.N. is worthless to us now. The Security Council is populated by sore losers who couldn't hold on to their empires last century, and are mad because we did. This is not the time to be backing sown and making the world a nicer place to live. China would love to take the whole world, they consider it their manifest destiny. Europe once did run it all as seperate groups, now with the EU, they think they can give it another shot. If the U.S. has the oil, then the U.S. will call the shots to both these pretenders to the throne. And if we don't, rest assured that they will do all they can to take over.

America has a lot of trouble with the NIMBY action, so if we can avoid digging up our national parks for a couple more years so much the better, and by taking a few of these nationalized oil companies in the Middle East and allowing them to be swept up by U.S. corporations we will sate their need and preserve our own local environment, for now.

Also, a surge in oil companies profits along with some new defense spending build up may be the right combination of pivate sector and public sector spending to help revive a flagging economy that is running on the strength of low interest financed consumer spending and the equity of the real estate market, which is just about tapped out. The worst thing it can do is generat some stock specualation which will hold the exchanges steady for the balance of the invasion, and into the early stages of an occupation/rebuilding effort.

So there you have it, why a war is not just preferable, but why it is essential to the survival of the American way of life.

Ssubnel, that's fantastic. I've never seen anyone put quite so succinctly why the American attitude to the rest of the world sucks chunky goat vomit .

Yes well at least it's been said and like they say "like it is". If the yanks are happy to control the worlds oil wealth and in doing so the citizens too then please get on with it. But....don't be surprised when there are more plane crashes, trains derailed and general mayhem, which will make the average yank a real target too!

You see, you don't need alot of oil to drive a second hand cab, park it outside the BBC and light the blue touchpaper (or what ever else the the IRA did!) To find those perps you need an army contingent on every street corner (er just like Saddam does). As for the fancy bombs and start of the art killing materials, you find when you do use it a lot of, your own suffer too. Remember what happened in Moscow? Never mind the exposure to depleted uranium which some of the US new kids on the block will be finding out about real soon! Some oil strategists actually think that by taking over Iraqs oilfields this will not "increase" prices but could go completely the other way. Now the mathematics then don't add up, I mean having spent all that dough and having killed so many folks surely there has to be a "profit" in it! In a depressed world, not many people use oil, it wasn't so long ago when the stuff was ten bucks a barrel. Question of supply and demand. The Saudis are not doing so well financially and they are literally sitting on lake of the stuff!

But because the US is driven by this substance more than any country on this earth. Gas guzzlers galore, their fuel cheaper than dirt, they need it more than anyone. But there are many folks on this earth of ours that don't use it. They walk, they bike, or they use public transport giving a whole more travel to the litre. Or if you live in an African environment you use animal transport. My mother is 90 years old, she brought up a family and she worked. She never owned a car in her life or even found the need to have a car. She merely planned her transport to suit her needs. Fact is there are more people without cars than those that have and they still get by. So who is baby Bush gonna be holding to ransome?

If Bush turned off the taps guess who he would hurt the most, why his own kind! Like I said before, one day it'll happen and this might just be the catalyst. Someone will come out of a shed at the end of his garden shouting eureka! When that happens the US can go drown in it if they wish! Remember the old adage "nothing is for ever"! So take it while you can.

In the meantime Blair is now finding the going getting tougher than ever. I mean the latest demands from Saddam are as laughable as Blair himself. I like the one where he (Saddam) must go on Iraqi TV and confess that he hidden WMDs before). Is Blair also gonna ask him to at the same time deny that there is a Father Christmas!! What a joke and this coming from a so called world leader, no wonder he's getting the bums rush and even Dr Death (Rumsfeld) is busy casting off the lifeboat! Couldn't happen to a nicer chap, er three cheers anyone?

Hip, hip, hooray!!

Interesting analysis of Nelson's analysis too. I guess it all depends on who are the biggest, baddest consumers in the world.

There's little doubt that the EU at least has some elements who don't see why Europe can't dominate the world again as it did before those pathetic Yanks took advantage of the mayhem of the world wars.

If I had to trust anybody at this point, it wouldn't be an American or European leader or government. This really seems to be an internal mafia dispute which would be best resolves by disassembling the mafia that's running things, or thinks it is.

Bush initially proposed identifying and freezing Al Quaida assets to cripple its financing process. I think that would be a good thing to do to practically any multinational around. If it were done, it would probably clear up 9/10ths of the world problems virtually overnight.

How right you are!

Can we start with the terrorist organization known as McDonalds?


No, really. They destroy indigenious cultures, decimate the rain forest, promote poverty and ill health, and frankly, their food sucks.

Can you imagine if we did that, because some kid in Saudi Arabia works part time at the local McDs, and gives his paycheck to Al-Qaeda?

HA!

Sounds like a plan. Save the children AND the rainforests AND reduce your risk of diabetes all at once! AAAYYYYYY!!!

"Freedom fries", Jimmy and I were eating tea in front of the telly last night (what we call here ' and taties' when we saw a man proudly holding up a dish labelled 'freedom fries'. I'll just say we nearly wet the floor, and not by spilling our cokes, either!

>>"No lawyers, no contact with the outside world, no rights, the land of the free, the home of the constitutional guarantee."<<
It wasn't always like this was it? I just can't believe what the USA seems to have become in the last 10 years - it's well scary! Please tell me I am not being naive, and this *is* that recent! Honestly, I am not being sardonic, I am upset.

If they want to be totally consistant with the cute little French to Freedom stuff, we should be hearing about Freedom Cuisine, Freedom Dips, "Excuse my freedom?", Freedom Language courses, Freedom Bread, the ever popular Freedom Kiss, among other things.

It's always been "like this." Sorry, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm trying to be informative.

I heard some classic wishful thinking on the radio this morning, a man who identifies as American (his sister was born there, he missed out by two years) - asking the (to him, rhetorical) question - 'will the Iraqis fight?' Damn straight they will! I wonder what makes him think they will surrender joyfully, welcoming American troops with flowers? I feel sorry for any Coalition soldier who hasn't *chosen* to go, or who has chosen on insufficient information!

Rumsfeld=Doctor Death - I like it! You and Peachy are both masters of language, succinct, brilliant.
You are correct in what you say about Blair, we saw an extract on the TV news of him, sweating bullets, looking like a mesmerised rabbit caught by car headlights on State Highway 1. When is he going to tell Bush to go on his own? He'd better do it soon, or be politically dead in the water!

This is the text of an e-mail I've just sent to Five News. I don't suppose they'll use it.

The six tests

These are just another attempt to construct a resolution that Iraq, or Saddam Hussein, cannot comply with.

To be precise, what the US wants is to gain support, especially from the UK, but also from states, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, that it needs to use as bases from which to launch an attack.
In order to get this support the US needs to show that Iraq has failed to comply with a UN resolution and that war is the inevitable result.

That this is GWB's goal has been apparent since before resolution 1441. The US president had clearly been taken aback when SH agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into Iraq in response to the resolution before 1441. This was why the US pushed for a wording of 1441 that would make life difficult for Iraq. Unfortunately for the US, the original draft of 1441 had to be watered down somewhat before the UN would accept it.
Now that the US has failed to convince its allies that Iraq has finally failed to satisfy the requirements of 1441, the US is now looking for a resolution with more stringent demands, in the hope that Iraq will fail to satisfy these demands. Tony Blair, for reasons of his own, is doing his best to help, hence these six demands.


Will the war be short and painless?

This is what the proponents of the war would like us to believe. However, it is likely that the first stage will be two weeks of intensive bombing. This will hardly be painless for those residents of the drop zones, which will certainly include Baghdad.
In Serbia and Afghanistan, the war started with comprehensive & devastating bombing raids. There is every reason to believe that Iraq will suffer the same fate. Many civilians will be killed. Many will be injured. Power and water supplies and transport will be crippled. Medical facilities will be disrupted. Many people will die of their injuries or from disease.
In addition to those killed or injured, many, especially children, will be traumatised.
For some time after the war has ended, children will be killed or maimed by unexploded cluster bombs, as is still the case in Afghanistan.

Morality

Leading clergy of the Church of England have said that this would not be a just war. If it's not just, it must be unjust.
If evil is the capacity to ignore the suffering caused to others by one's actions, then the proponents of this war are evil.
(end)

I have also been harassing my MP, Andy Reed, with similar arguments. I added that, if he voted against the government, he would have my support. I didn't know he had a position to resign and, now he has resigned, I feel somewhat embarrassed. On the other hand some good may come out of it, especially since this may have spurred Clare Short to stand up & be counted.

Moral: harass your representatives.

Dry.

Excellent, Dryopithecus!
I admire Clare Short and Andy Reed - can you convey to him that he has the support of someone across the other side of the that he's never heard of?

Thanks, Della. I shall pass your message on very soon.
Dry.

bookmarking

very nice, that little piece. I'm finding myself feeling rather like an ostrich today...just hiding my head and doing the stuff I have to. Mostly because the idea of this war really is haunting me, and also (I must admit) a little part of me is rather "s&*t or get off the pot". Either do it or don't, but for crying out loud, quit dragging it out!

Of course, I hope they don't. Blair seems to be losing confidence (as well as home support), and Chirac's argument is looking rather, well, moral. Although given France's interest in Iraqi oil will be severely curtailed if Hussein is ousted, who can say his stance is any less economically motivated?

I resemble that remark!