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

OK. Thanks Starbirth.

""(they also want to prove the French-supporters wrong, who would love to see America cause huge civilian casualties). "

I don't think even the harshest critic of the USA would 'love' to see huge civilian casualties."

I think some people against the war would like to see this as their position is largely anti-American. I didn't say everyone and, yes, I shouldn't have left it open to insinuation that that is what I meant.

"Aha. And I suppose if Hussein were threatening anyone with destruction you'd be content to wave it off as 'dick waving'? No, I'm sure you'd be 'disseminating' like mad. But you're not a pacifist, so that's ok. While we're on the subject, do you seriously think it is just pacifists that are opposed to this talk of mass destruction? Or do you really only think in black and white?"

Saddam Hussein has been doing his own dick-waving. "I will reach out and destroy my enemies overseas" and all that. Never mix up rhetoric and actual action. I know not only pacifists are opposed to the war

""I think the "massive missile barrage" will be aimed at military targets, mostly out of cities. The Americans have a great deal to lose by increasing civilian casualties. Remember, they *want* to come out of this as the "good guys". They do *not* want to prove the claims of the anti-war people right."

"Your naivety is touching. They can do what the hell they want and come out as the good guys. Remember all those shots of dead civilians and troops from the last Gulf War? No? That's right. Thousands and thousands of dead Iraqi troops and civilians and we get one photo of a burned guy in an armoured car. They're not going to lose control over the media this time either."

Rubbish. The media does report the true story in the end. Look what happened in Vietnam (and how the hell do you think we know how many Iraqi soldiers actually died?). If the Americans *do* decide to obliterate Iraq, they will find it impossible to hide, it will be disseminated in the press and all the naysayers will be able to say "told you so, they're animals". They want to come out of this as liberators and prove the French, in particular, wrong. The idea that Americans can do what they want and come out as "good guys" is paranoid pessimism of the worst kind.

I think the first phase will start tomorrow Monday. Intensive bombing first as they do not want to lose one of their precious soldiers in actual battle. Could be around 7 days before they venture over the border rushing first to get the Rumalia oilfields nicely intact (you know to hold "in trust" for the Iraqi people). Baghdad will get hit very hard by the airforce but there will be no great rush to go into the city, again cos they might actually get shot at! More than likely secure the remaining parts and just surround the city until finally someone says "okay I give up". Then with flags flying, women throwing flowers at the gum chewing US soldiers as they drive triumphantly through the city (ER didn't I see this in a film somewhere?) Covered by Pox News, CNN and the Scum! Baghdad will finally fall. Immediately the UN will be contacted to take on the crappy role of looking after the civilian element. A UN that has never been regarded seriously by the US and only when they were needed did the US ever pay it's obligations.

The only glitch will be if those Kurds actually decide to try and snatch Kirkuk for themselves and try to form a new state! Then Turkey will definately get the zig and move in pretty smartly to put a stop to this. Thus not only screwing the Kurds but putting back their EC application for another twenty years or so.

Meanwhile Saddam will no doubt have sneaked off somewhere or if not he his odious family members will be off to better climes to leave the Iraqi population to bury their dead and await the new "clone" leader who will come complete with ready made bank accounts suitably laced but having 'executive powers' will happily sign over the oil fields to the people and companies that really are behind all this.

Israel will be pleased the 'road map' will be in place but not much will happen on the particular "road to hell". Bush will win the next election and this will give ample time to look at "visiting" N. Korea and Iran and giving them something of the same. After all that he can happily retire to his ranch and live happily ever after!

Pessimism, eh?

Gee, to me Afrabian sounds optimistic. A pessimist would say oil-fields burning, Americans bogged down, The Kurds are obviously going to act, Iraqi poison gas, American nuclear weapons, etc.

Anhaga- I too have been listening to CBC. The comparrison between the destruction of Bagdhad and that of Toronto -in order to give it's listeners a mind's eye visual- In my mind, it wasn't very pretty. The loss of life to civilians would be staggerring. Bagdhad's infrustructure has already been dessimated due to sanctions. No water treatment plants, no medical supplies and hunger and disease already prevails. The best case scenario is all too depressing- K

<I stand corrected. I guess I didn't learn that much when I was in high school. So I stand corrected well Iknow now that I was writing about another war when the people came to America & started killing the Indian's. I was thinking it was the American french Indian war but war is war to me.>

Zero I notice you live in Uncasville, Connecticut. Small world, my family on my fathers side come from there. If you are interested in native american culture wars,peace,interation ect.
I would suggest the Mashantuckets pequet Museumand research center. {5 floors over 300,000 sq.ft. It tell chronicals the areas past from 11,000 years back to present. It rivals any musuen in the world.
The moheagans museum should be completed soon also.

Do I understand right that your family has been here for 7 generations? Pleasure to meet you.

I agree it would be terrible. My point in bringing up the analysis you and I heard was to counter the impression some people had that the "shock and awe" tactic would not be centred on Baghdad. I found it blackly comic that the analysts talked of waking up in the morning and finding that nothing worked: no power, no water, no telephone. And I thought, so, is anyone in Baghdad going to notice a difference? I think Iraqis would probably be more shocked and awed if 300,000 UN peacekeepers and aid workers suddenly dropped out of the sky to turn on the water, rebuild the hospitals, turn on the power, rebuild the schools and to just say "how are you, what can we do to help?"

Realism I guess is more to the point. But suffice to say there IS a real opposition in Iraq and these people having been fighting Saddam for years. I don't believe they will take too lightly the intro of the clone government in which case there could be a great deal more disruption to the "master plan" for that country. Couple that with Kurdish aspirations and a Iranian backed Shiite movement in the South could mean even more trouble. Anyway we will soon see how it all pans out won't we? For sure there will be civil unrest because all of these pressures have been held under control by Saddam for years. Now the cork is going to be popped! I think this is what most governments outside of the US fear the most! Hence the heavy talk of future instability.

One thinks of Yugoslavia without Tito. Well, this one (me) does.

"Rubbish. The media does report the true story in the end. Look what happened in Vietnam (and how the hell do you think we know how many Iraqi soldiers actually died?). If the Americans *do* decide to obliterate Iraq, they will find it impossible to hide, it will be disseminated in the press and all the naysayers will be able to say "told you so, they're animals". They want to come out of this as liberators and prove the French, in particular, wrong. The idea that Americans can do what they want and come out as "good guys" is paranoid pessimism of the worst kind."

Classic Zagreb response - completely off the point, naive and topped off with an insult. Nice one

Well, all those old enough to remeber the footage of the first gulf war will know what I'm talking about when I mention one dead guy in a dead vehicle. I've been watching a re-run of the 'Gulf War' on UK History and listening to what the troops were saying. Such as "almost everyone I saw in Iraq was dead" and another saying "it was the most sanitised [media] event I ever saw" Obviously paranoid pessimists too, eh Zagreb?

"They want to come out of this as liberators and prove the French, in particular, wrong."

Oh they want to come out on top alright. To suggest they give a fig about what the French think clearly shows more naivety on your part.


"The idea that Americans can do what they want and come out as "good guys" is paranoid pessimism of the worst kind."

Yeah right. Seeing as you brought up vietnam instead of the conflict I was talking about (nice evasion - fotunately my ancient half-blind dog was alert and spotted it), how about the 'media' revelling in totally fictional tales of Vietnam? How about the fact that that war went on over a much larger time-span, and the US wasn't as media savvy as it is now? Give us a break with you 'paranoid pessimism' and just admit that this kind of thing always happens - the victor controls the media - and the victor won't be honest. A number of British officers resigned their posts in the last Gulf War because they witnessed what some of the American weapons did to people (oh, and I know we've all got nasty weapons - it's just that the rest of the world has banned many of the ones routinely used by the US), particularly the 'air fuel bombs' which used to be known as napalm. So have a seat, put your plastic soldiers away for the afternoon and go sit outside.

Dictators have a way of holding people down as do oppresive governments such as the Aparthied governnment did in South Africa. It is only natural that people will go a bit gaga when they finally get their freedom. But...sometimes that freedom too is short lived as a new element moves in to fill the vacuum. Dr Banda in Malawi called his oppresive rule 'A one party democracy'. The happenings in the last couple of days in Serbia shows only too well how fragile it all can be.

Hey, frogbit:

don't forget the EM Pulse weapons the Americans have lined up for Iraq. You know, the ones that will melt the circuits in everybody's (journalists') laptops and cell phones and satellite phones and video cameras. Of course, they won't hurt anything the Iraqi people have (they don't have a lot of electronics) or anything the Iraqi military has (any electronics they have will be at least a little hardened for protection). The main target of this ordinance in obvious to any paranoid pessimist.

On a slightly different subject: Why could Dana Carvey make fun of George Bush senior for ever on Saturday Night Live but Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks has to apologise to the President for making a comment about how it feels to come from the same state? I mean, SNL used to rip into presidents whether the country was at war or not. When came the apotheosis of George W.? Is this another case of Free Fries -- I mean Free Speech?

Likewise Frogbit. The media will be vetted for sure, to rule out the nasties. As in the Falklands war few got to see what really went on there either. I was in living in Cyprus when the gulf war started and having experienced many Scud attacks in Baghdad, I could not believe it when all the tourists took off, because they were frightend of such an attack on Cyprus. True many thousands of Iraqi soldiers were slaughtered out of hand and most were conscripts from the Popular Army which recruited by using press gang methods. I know cos I lost one of my guys when he just went to fill up his car! Then there was the 'turkey shoot' as the Iraqis retreated when many thousands too were killed. Sure there will be even more this time because of the nature of the weaponry, this Moab for instance is designed primarily as a people killer, er somethin to really proud of eh!

Here's another "those of you who are old enough to remember":

How did the "impending" conflict come to be known as "Gulf War II"? Not that I'm really counting, but isn't it III? I can well remember the First Persian Gulf War (Iran-Iraq), the Second Persian Gulf War(Desert Storm), and now, there's a third one. Don't we count them unless there's American involvement? It's just American appropriation as far as I can see, and appropriation means elimination and denial of the claims or concerns or history of other people.

I don't really know why I'm going on about this except that it seems symptomatic of the U. S. penchant for revising history.

"Yeah right. Seeing as you brought up vietnam instead of the conflict I was talking about (nice evasion - fotunately my ancient half-blind dog was alert and spotted it), how about the 'media' revelling in totally fictional tales of Vietnam? How about the fact that that war went on over a much larger time-span, and the US wasn't as media savvy as it is now? Give us a break with you 'paranoid pessimism' and just admit that this kind of thing always happens - the victor controls the media - and the victor won't be honest. A number of British officers resigned their posts in the last Gulf War because they witnessed what some of the American weapons did to people (oh, and I know we've all got nasty weapons - it's just that the rest of the world has banned many of the ones routinely used by the US), particularly the 'air fuel bombs' which used to be known as napalm. So have a seat, put your plastic soldiers away for the afternoon and go sit outside."

I wasn't trying to evade anything. Vietnam was an example, as was the Gulf War. And the idea that we "don't know" what happened in Vietnam or the Gulf War because the all-powerful US Government can silence every media source in the world.... As I said, how come you know all this stuff that the US has "tried to keep secret"? That's right, the media reports it. As it will in the coming war. It's impossible to keep obliteration of cities secret. The only people who have been remotely successful at this is the oh-so anti-war Russians who have kept their own murderous, city-obliterating war with the Chechens largely under wraps (although this is mainly thanks to Western apathy about the war, I mean it's not like Americans are carrying it out or anything, is it?).

I'm sorry I bothered posting here again, because the rhetortic has gone back to "yah, boo sucks!". "Plastic soldiers"? Do you honestly think I support this war because I'm some brandy-soaked old armchair general who loves a good war? Read Nik Coen in the Observer (who has done an excellent job of revealing the opinions of so many Iraqi dissidents "frozen out" by the anti-war lobby), read Amnesty International's reports on what happens in Iraq, listen to people like the Iraqi women on Radio 4 this morning who was nearly in tears as she described the things Saddam's army have been doing to minorities and desenters in the country who's internal politics Uber Red (where is he these days?) claimed is "none of our business", more to the point, pay attention when the torture chambers are revealed and the mass-graves are unearthed in Iraq following the fall of the Ba'athist regime and then tell me about the "morality" of pacifism and isolationism.

Zag

"(they also want to prove the French-supporters wrong, who would love to see America cause huge civilian casualties). "

"I don't think even the harshest critic of the USA would 'love' to see huge civilian casualties."

I very much fearme that there is a considerable element among all sorts of activists for all sorts of causes, who are just like that, whether they care to admit it even to themselves or not. I wouldn't say it is all of them though, i myself could name one or two offhand who I'm convinced really do care about the people at the other end of the "Shock and Awe" strategy (why does that phrase remind me of "Blitzkrieg" so much?)
So, it seems to me to come down to a decision between the sort of people who would watch the world burn with a sort of gloomy pleasure to have their point proven, and the sort of people who are capable to coin a phrase like "collateral damage".

I saw on BBC an interview with the leader of the film crew that was right there at Mazar i Sharif and they filmed the slaughter that went on including the famous Spann / Walker-Lindt interview. He (this film director) stated that he had witnesses who saw 27 container loads of Taliban prisoners taken into the desert screaming for air! They were shot through the walls of these containers their bodies dumped into a mass grave. Strangely I don't hear Amnestys view on this appalling attrocity. But someone 'allowed' this to take place didn't they? The Russians have their own killing fields too of this there is no doubt but for sheer expediency no one speaks up about it. Sure there will be mass graves of opponents of Saddam in the aftermath of this latest war in Iraq. But it will pale into insignificance against the two million who died in the "legitimised" Iraq/Iran war sanctioned and supported by the west. But this world is surreal, acres of space given to "tradgedies" of car accidents and the like, but no mention of the death and destruction that I previously mentioned. As Nelson Mandela put it "no one treats the deaths of Africans seriously, they are no more than just "flies". So don't hold your breath on getting the full SP on this next effort, because you won't. Rather the story to hit the headlines will be like "human interest" from the point of view of the soldiers who are about to embark on this. Probably nice stories about rescued dogs etc. In this sanitized media world, you can eat crap anytime!

Thanks Afrabian. I wouldn't wave that under the noses of certain people around here, they'll accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist. Mandela was right about the Africans - I remember seeing plenty of footage of corpses from Rwanda and Sierra Leone - we never see anything from Western conflicts though. I suppose footage of dead black bodies are acceptable because its "them" doing it to each other "over there".
And if Zagreb wants his mass graves and torture chambers displayed for his knowing pleasure, then perhaps we can see a few shots of what a miss-aimed (let's be polite) bomb can do to a civilian bomb-shelter. But we'll never get those pictures, will we Zagreb? Not because the media will filter out the unpleasentness of war, but because things like that don't really happen.

'So it seems the "Baghdad will be nuked" stuff is American generals waving their d**ks about and pacifists disseminating it as "intent".'

Still glad I'm not on the side that's waving their d**ks about. Be careful: if you stay on their side when they're swinging about, you might get collateral d*ckage.

"They will a) have to fight one some time, you don't take a country from the air and b) not fight hard anyway, as all intelligence from the country suggests that the Iraqi army is demoralised, poorly-equipped and unwilling to fight."

I know the situations aren't similar enough to make good comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan on all levels, but I'm sure the war planners look at Afghanistan as proof that they can take a country from the air (with enough of some other nation's ground forces on your side). They may also have learned from Afghanistan that they can't always count on enemies to crumble as quickly as they predict.