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

>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. <

One would also think that taking on a coalition composed of the worlds most potent militarys would be suicide also. -

Yes, but they didn't get him last time - perhaps he thinks they won't get him this time. And he's hardly taken them on, that expression would suggest that he was starting international trouble, not responding to it.

As already pointed out, Saddam is not an idiot to the extent where he will commit suicide by initiating an attack again. He's done that once and he's not going to trust his luck a second time. A premptive attack by the US alone may defeat him militarily, but he would win the public relations battle.

And even if Saddam is removed, who will replace him? For all his ills, at least Iraq is a sectarian state, with (official) sectarian law. It may not be much, but a long way from the public executions and stonings in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chances are, if a replacement comes along, it will be in the form of an Islamic extremist.

>As already pointed out, Saddam is not an idiot to the extent where he will commit suicide by initiating an attack again. He's done that once and he's not going to trust his luck a second time. A premptive attack by the US alone may defeat him militarily, but he would win the public relations battle.

And even if Saddam is removed, who will replace him? For all his ills, at least Iraq is a sectarian state, with (official) sectarian law. It may not be much, but a long way from the public executions and stonings in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chances are, if a replacement comes along, it will be in the form of an Islamic extremist.<

That is the thing that stop his removale 10 years ago and is saving him now. Who can be put in place of him that can hold together the nation without starting a cival war.

That's the $64 Million question isn't it. As attempts to rig the election in Palestine of the only man felt fit to replace Arafat (by the US, at least) failed miserably, it doesn't bode well to try an enforce a suceesor on a country, which, as far as i can tell, is still vehemently anti-American.

powell made statement yeastardy that letting the inspectors back in would go a long way towards resolving the problem with Iraq.

Letting them back in where? The USA or Iraq?

>Letting them back in where? The USA or Iraq?<

Neither I am afraid the most importent inspectors are bio trained and they will be primarily be searching in any free standing ponds located in the UK. They are looking for a bio-hazard that has been recently been identified by HG researchers. The dreaded Hydrocharis mersus-ranae.

Found it!!! It's up there, see?

For anyone who cares, post #508 has been reinstated.

For the record, I look forward to the dossier of evidence Mr Blair has promised regarding Saddam's WMD ambitions. Trusting soul that I am, I'm going to wait for that before spouting any opinions about the possible war.

My views about George "I won because thousands of black Democrats got disenfranchised by my campaign chairperson" Bush have not changed. See www.usccr.gov for details.

I'm everywhere!

>"..so if all this humanitary stuff is getting to the counrty then why isn't it getting to the people?..."

Maybe because it's being siphoned off to build palaces.

I don't object in principle to removing Saddam militarily; I think the timing's bad as there are more important things in the Middle East right now and Saddam's not really rattling cages at present.

However, I DO object to that election-losing racist moronic hypocrite in the White house trying to take the moral high ground.<

Strong words against someone you do not even know.

"And even if Saddam is removed, who will replace him? For all his ills, at least Iraq is a sectarian state, with (official) sectarian law. It may not be much, but a long way from the public executions and stonings in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chances are, if a replacement comes along, it will be in the form of an Islamic extremist."

Yeah, great. Another brilliant excuse for sitting back and doing nothing. Thank God some of you lot weren't about during WWII. Hitler would have obliterated or quelled the Continental mainland whilst you discussed how much worse it could be or what a hypocrite Churchill is.

Starbirth,

"Strong words against someone you don't even know."

Yup. And the problem is...?

In my defence I have researched the guy. Check out the link I gave a couple of posts ago. Also, have a look at the use of overseas military votes in the Presidential election and compare with the disgraceful voter exclusion in Florida. Finally, take a look at Mr Bush's budget cuts as compared with his campaign promises.

The post you are commenting on was moderated, and then re-instated when I referred to evidence. Your turn.

But Zagreb, I'm not advocating doing nothing. Far from it. There are many possibilities open aside from using military force. Colin Powell seems to voice a similar opinion.

By your statement I'm inclined to suspect that you consider anything apart from using military force as doing nothing. If this is the case, then doing something may be worse then doing nothing for the reasons I stated earlier.

"Yeah, great. Another brilliant excuse for sitting back and doing nothing. Thank God some of you lot weren't about during WWII. Hitler would have obliterated or quelled the Continental mainland whilst you discussed how much worse it could be or what a hypocrite Churchill is."

You seem very keen - I'll ask you again, are you going to go for you gun and fight the good fight? Or is yours merely talk of a different nature?
Because if you aren't willing to bear arms, then let's face it, you'll be sitting back and doing nothing as well, just from the other side of the fence.

"By your statement I'm inclined to suspect that you consider anything apart from using military force as doing nothing. If this is the case, then doing something may be worse then doing nothing for the reasons I stated earlier."

As long as it gets rid of Saddam (not just "contains" Iraq) I think any alternative to military force is preferrable by a long-shot. Thing is, sometimes military force *is* the only option.