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

NOTHING - at least thats what Bruce says....

Yeah, well, Bruce didn't write the damned thing or record the version that most of the civilized world would prefer to hear.

Apparition, IDS, the balding sock monkey of the Tory right is most certainly not a minister, and thankfully, is never likley to come within a marathon's length of ever becoming one. He was merely attempting to make political capital out of the crisis, as Blair's apparent 'wavering' is upsetting the Tories, who would apparently favour an all out nuclear strike on Baghdad instantly.

I agree that China is flexing it's diplomatic muscle, however that doesn't mean they are not opposed to military action. The argument presently used by the US looks at the fact that Iraq is not a democracy and that they have weapons of mass destruction. It's easy to see why countries like China and Pakistan would be opposed to logic that justifies a forced change in government based on those two reasons.

Incidentally, one could argue that we should demand that the US comply with the demands it imposes on others. It's surprising no government has retorted with such a demand.

Starbirth my pint is the same as it's always been - if iraq was a stony desert with no resources that the West wished to get their greedy hands on, would anyone care about SH?

Frogbit (who despairs of a world in which blood for oil is deemed a good exchange).

Please, Starbirth, answer honestly. Is this proposed military action about human rights or money?

"Starbirth my pint is the same as it's always been"

Should have been "point". I'd love an everlasting pint.

(Excuse the messy posting, but)

Starbirth my point is the same as it's always been - if iraq was a stony desert with no resources that the West wished to get their greedy hands on LIKE AFGHANISTAN was before the twin towers, would anyone care about SH? The Taliban had just as bad a record, and yet the west did nothing.

Frogbit (who despairs of a world in which blood for oil is deemed a good exchange).

Please, Starbirth, answer honestly. Is this proposed military action about human rights or money?

money...and US imperialism.

Money, Oil, Imperialism, Diversion tactics...

Someone pointed out to me over lunch today that GW Bush has a lot of interests in oil and since all this talk of war on Iraq the oil price has gone up! And I guess that if they do actually go to war then it would rise more still.

Call me a cynic, but it's an interesting coincidence?

All those seem to have been achieved without the use of military force. The very prospect of war in the Gulf has seen crude oil prices rise in recent weeks, bringing greater profits to the oil companies.

GW Bush, Bush's father and uncle, Dick Chaney, the secretary of the army (whos name I forget) all worked for oil companies (and some still continue to work).

The comparison of Saddam to Hitler is an interestingly ironic one as well, as it was backing the Nazi's, up to the day such things were deemed illegal by FDR, that made the Bush family one of their not insubstantial fortunes.

>Please, Starbirth, answer honestly. Is this proposed military action about human rights or money?<

You are the first to ask my personel opinion on a war with Iraq. My opinion is among american people their is a real mixture. I am not so sure one reason can be pinned down.{but i do believe the US will as any nation would act in its best interest as anyone that thinks their country is so noble to act for the good of the world only, while disregarding their national interest is blind} I believe that human rights and oil play into it but I also believe that after 9/11 Saddam is seen as a real threat. We know that he hates the US and the Idea that he is developing WMD that could end up in one of our ports/citys is a sobering thought. My thoughts on the matter are honestly confused. I do not know with certainty to what degree Saddam is a threat to my country and inturn my family. It is not easy filtering through the information I read and see every day the range is quite broad and to name a few: bbc-msnbc-abc-cbs-hn-gaurdian-skynews-brojon-the wire-yellow times-one world-world health news and the assortment of news papers and message boards i have access to and actually read.
I love my country {and am embarressed by some of the things that go on,I am not blind to it's faults} and in my eyes the good out weighs the bad.

While I love my country and somewhat conservative that does not mean I approve of war and killing people. The only way that I would personally kill another human would be to protect my family. The only war I could truly believe in would be to protect my family my country.

I think a few other Questions we should all ask are:

Will a invasion of Iraq spread to a bigger regional war?

Will Saddam think a lack of UN resolve and power means a weakness he can exploit?

Will allowing Saddam not to comply to UN weapons inspections give him the ability to build WMD that will find their way into terrorist hands?

Is Saddam stockpiling WMD as we speak to use in a bid to take over countries in his region or wipe out isreal starting a war that will draw the world into?

I had more here but when it did not post I lost half of this response sorry that I do not have time to rewrite.

Good questions, Starbirth. I wish I knew the answers. Certainly, the possibility of an invasion of Iraq leading to a wider conflict is a real risk, and one of the concerns that has been frequently expressed on this thread.
For the rest I'd guess that it all depends on whether SH thinks his best chance of staying in power is to keep his head down or to throw down the gauntlet, so to speak.

I'd like to see the UN take a tougher line. Equally I wouldn't like to see the US go it alone as I think that carries the biggest risk of a wider conflict.

Worst news for the US has to be Israel's support. The US should tell them that if they REALLY want to help they could best do it by impeaching Sharon, removing all illegal settlers/settlements from the OT and recognising in principle the right of the Palestinians to their own state. Can't see it happening though.

Noggin

The best that Saddam managed to do during the gulf war is fire a few antequated missiles at Israel. To extrapolate this capability to inter-continental missiles amidst UN sanctions is tough to believe. He may be able to attack some of the US bases in the region, but certainly not the continental US.

Terror attacks like 9/11 and even suitcase nuclear weapons are a real threat to the US. The argument being that by invading Iraq, killing civilians and using any religious overtones in doing so will spawn countless new terroris-martyrs with a renewed determination to their cause. Israel's actions have shown us that killing terrorists and civilains just creates more people determined to die for their cause in the name of revenge, justice, religion or whatever reason.

Not long ago Their was a term of endearment being used by many nations to discribe the US. It was used because the US went out of it's way to avoid armed conflict. The logic at the time used by the US leaders was to show a blind eye to the terrorist who attacked us as we knew many of these terrorist were conected with nations we called friends. To acknoledge this would be politically embarrasing and had the potental to alienate these so called friends and upset the status Quo. What it did was create a mind set in those enemys that the US was nothing more than a "Paper Tiger. That policy has lead to the blatent attacks on the country cumulating with 911.

The 911 incident I believe was a watershed event that brought a profound change to not only US policy but the actual national mindset. This new perspective will ultimatly bring about a multi pronged effect. While it will open many americans eyes to the goings on in the international communitie more then in the past it will also create less tolerance of any enity that may represent a threat to the US.

I really do think that the UN's inability to inforce its mandates is the biggest reason we are in this situation with Iraq right now. Seems theres a new tiger in the world scene.

I don't believe anyone doubts the US ability in armed, military conflict. The resolve of the US government and public are a different issue. At this point I still haven't seen a good reason why Bush Snr stopped attacking Iraq in the gulf war. He had the mandate and forces in place to remove Saddam yet pulled back. Clinton also pulled back from Somalia at the first sign of resistance. It seems that the moment that there are any casulties, the government (not the armed forces) becomes scared for it's political life and pulls back.

I love Blues Shark's description of the shadow cabinet's leader. A balding sock monkey? I think that's right. What's wrong is the idea that SH would launch any long-range missiles against a member of the UN. To climb to the top of the heap in Iraq shows an unparalleled survival instinct. The man would know that such an attack would be suicide.

Excectly what I was speaking about in the last post I made. Although in the last gulf war I do believe it was more a combination of Bush taking in the coalition input {mainly the arab allies} an d most likely even more to the point was who could step into saddams shoes and keep the country from fragmenting. {this would have most likly drew a NATO ally turkey into a conflict with the kurds}

I think I see a common ground in both sides of this. Do we all agree that the biggest danger is the escalation of conflict. That if it isn't done right it will just create more ill feeling and potentally more terrorist support.

Terrorists may be evil and in cases madmen but they are not without motive and the worst thing to do at the moment would be to give them more motive or precieved motive.