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

client nation of US industrial military complex = good guy = do what you like to people who we dont like because we dont give a flying f**k.

well at least until such time as they p*ss off the undemocratically elected president then just like a B movie western they become the bad guys.

This is certainly what happened with Iraq, the mujahadeen, Osama bin Laden and his merry men, Panama etc and could so easily happen with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel to name just a few.

"They've already done it in Afghanistan. Kharzai wouldn't have been the first choice of the epole out there, I don't think."

Kharzai is probably an interim leader (Germany didn't get democracy back until a few years after the end of WWII). Let's see what happens before assuming that Afghanistan will be a puppet-state indefinitely. Cynicism has always done more harm than good.

"(as an aside, who here realised that sales of the burka have gone *up* in the newly democratic, no longer hard line Islamic Afghanistan?)"

Maybe they have. Whatever, women are no longer required to wear them. If they are, it's social pressure, rather than state-pressure. Are you arguing that the new Afghan government is as hard-line as the Taliban?

Incidentally, wasn't the war in Afghanistan supposed to herald mass-terrorism and the collapse of moderate or pro-western governments in the Islamic world? Whatever happened to that? More to the point, why are the very people who were *completely* wrong about the outcome of the Afghan war on world security still being heralded as the "voice of reason" over Iraq with exactly the same arguments?

whilst I think that the "war" on/in Afghanistan was wrong in so far as that the objectives were unclear & ultimatly unmet & the methods used caused too many civilian casulaties, it was always unlikely to cause any significant level of additional terrorist activity given how reviled the Taliban were by the moderate muslim world.

At least with Afghanistan there was some semblance of an acceptable reason for prosecuting an armed conflict - the hosting of bin Ladens merry men by the Taliban; unlike the current situation with Iraq.

"At least with Afghanistan there was some semblance of an acceptable reason for prosecuting an armed conflict - the hosting of bin Ladens merry men by the Taliban; unlike the current situation with Iraq."

So Saddam Hussein's murderous government isn't an "acceptable reason"? Do you think murdering dictators should just be left alone?

>Are you arguing that the new Afghan government is as hard-line as the Taliban?<

Pretty much, yeah. The Mojahadeen, which is what most of these guys were, had a truly appalling human rights record, and particularly with regards to the rights of women and they way they treated prisoners.

Oh yeah, and they view flodding the west with opiates as acceptable behaviour. Nice people to do business with.

Zagreb, as I have said on this thread many times before treat all murdering dictators the same i.e. attack them all or leave them all alone, otherwise ones actions smack of hypocrisy and self interest.

If the west wants their former client out of Iraq because he is no longer flavour of the month then be honest that this is the reason, do not use all this stuff about him murdering his own citizens (which is true) as justification because if that was the case we would have attacked him back when it happened not 10 years later.

Oh and whilst we are about it we better attack the Turkey, Saudi's, China, Philipines, most of South & Latin America, Pakistan, probably India etc etc etc. because they are run by ruthless dictators/military governemnts that are prepared to "murder" thier own citizens!!!!!!

So what do we do about Sharon, then Zagreb? He's more active now that Hussein has been in years. America's in a very good position to do him major damage without firing a shot.

As usual, the argument runs "leave Saddam alone because we won't invade China". I would call this naive idealism, but I think cynicism is closer to the mark.

As I've probably said before, this argument is akin to saying we should have left Hitler alone because we weren't willing to fight Stalin too. There's a chance to get rid of Saddam and people willing to do it. Why not give them a chance? Post-Saddam Iraq could be a better place. Why not look positive for once?

"Pretty much, yeah. The Mojahadeen, which is what most of these guys were, had a truly appalling human rights record, and particularly with regards to the rights of women and they way they treated prisoners."

Realistically, the West have to allow these people some position in Afghan government. The fact that the country is policed by Western troops means that they are unlikely to indulge in excesses unchecked. Whatever, the future for Afghanistan looks more promising than it did 2 years ago. This is all because the West took action, even if it was for selfish reasons.

"Oh yeah, and they view flodding the west with opiates as acceptable behaviour. Nice people to do business with."

Well, that is an issue . However, since America can't stem a drug trade from a weak country on it's own doorstep, we can't really expect Afghan heroin production to cease.

Except of course, the US has used Agent Orange and just about every other tactic known to man to try and stop it in Colombia.

I wonder if there new found friends in Afghanistan will be exposed to the same?

"More to the point, why are the very people who were *completely* wrong about the outcome of the Afghan war" Completely?!? most of the objections I read were to do with civilan death. And that happened.

"Realistically, the West have to allow these people some position in Afghan government." So appart from opportunity, what's the difference between these people you want given a chance and Sadam?

"There's a chance to get rid of Saddam and people willing to do it. Why not give them a chance? Post-Saddam Iraq could be a better place. Why not look positive for once?" - what posttive is it that *you* are looking for?

Vidmaster,I wrote to Dubya last week, because a guy on the radio here was urging his listeners to write to: [email protected] (not .com, cos that's a porn site) and tell 43 that they (his listeners) *support* war and are not represented by our Prime Monster, who doesn't. (Yayshe doesn't!!!) Well, I wrote to the email address and told Dubya that I *do* *NOT*!!!! support war against Iraq, that the Prime Monster really does represent me, and that the radio guys doesn't!

A libertarian, on a NZ libertarian site insisted *most* strongly, and angrily, that there is no such thing as 'libertarian left'!

As a leftist, I am used to being assumed about, including the assertion that *my* beliefs are 'set in stone'. Not so! Yes, *I* am staunchly anti-war but I do not require this of other leftists, and most leftists I know, are anti *this* war for excellent reasons that are being, and have been discussed here in plentiful detail.

Recent developments, BTW, such as the declaration on the evening news last night, that the House of Representatives have given Dubya a green light, make me sick to my stomach!

>Your analogy I am sorry to say lacks substance. Saddam is a ruthless psychopath who posseses WMD and has used them on his own people. Hardly a drunk shouting in the street. To compare a whole nation with gangsters shows not only a lack of grace but is just plain cloddish.<

birth, Saddam's possession of WMD had yet to be proven to anyone but Dubya's satisfaction, whereas it is a certainty, that *Dubya* posesses WMD! May the Zartanians come in and invade Warshington, and deal to the USA's own 'ruthless psychopath'? No? Why ever not, you say Dubya can do it to Iraq...

"Whereas it is a certainty, that *Dubya* posesses WMD!"

Quite right.
You know the US signed a nuclear atmispheric test ban in the 1960s when France didn't. Wouldn't happen like that now would it.

""There's a chance to get rid of Saddam and people willing to do it. Why not give them a chance? Post-Saddam Iraq could be a better place. Why not look positive for once?" - what posttive is it that *you* are looking for?"

Yes, App, and

1) there's no proof it will be a better place

2) WHO are the people willing to get rid of Saddam?

3) WHAT are their motives?

4) "Why not give them a chance?" WHY should we?

5) ARE they even a majority?

"4) "Why not give them a chance?" WHY should we?"

WHY should WE

WHY can't they do it themselves? If they are in the right (I mean correct, and possibly right) their strength should be as the strength of ten because their hearts are pure!!!

"Realistically, the West have to allow these people some position in Afghan government."

Zagreb, I don't think it's the West's responsibility to run the Afghan government (or who gets in it).
In fact if the West does run the Afghan government (or who gets in it) that defeats the purpose of having an Afghan government.

Well, see, Landrover Man, Dubya doesn't *like* some nations having Governments they choose for themselves, at all at all!

Nope....not even his own country.......