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

"Firstly that's an illegal and immoral concept. For one country to invade another to take out a government it doesn't like, is nothing more than an act of terrorism"

Allright so what if a country is activly engages in Genocide (seeing as it is a word you are fond of) do you belive so strongly in the principles of Westphalia that we hould stand around and do nothing? I think not. I rather suspect that if the next Rwanda was happening then you would advocate us doing something about it (unless the US was involved then you probably wouldn't).

"Secondly there are plenty of other despots in the world, why choose Iraq? Israel undoubtedly has WMDs, is ruled by a war criminal and is in breach of more than sixty UNSC resolutions."

Well that is a spurious argument... to say that just because there something worse you shouldn't do things about a bad thing. Hell if someone has incurable cancer you still put a plaster on them if the are bleeding... so the same should follow in International Realations yeah Israel might be worse shouldn't therefore mean we dont do anything about any other bad things.

"Dave obvious is the only one here who directly lies about the things people say, don't tell me you've caught that particular disease"

I was not quoting you... however I think it follows logically that if the was "Absolutly" no justification for the war, and nothing good has come out of it all as ou hve often said and implied... then Iraq must have been better off under the satus quo.

Just to clarify though, I was and am still against the reasons why the war happened... I worry that it has formalised the arrangement in world politics where power play is all that matters, what a powerful state can do it will do. However I do realise two things which you do not ES

i) However much I may think it i *KNOW* that I am not always right.
ii) That the world is not Black or White it is infintie shades of gray, and things are not as absolute as you like to pretend they are.

Lastly ES your infantile and ridiculous style of argument rea;;y puts me off... so like th sarge I am leaving this thread.

Bye to al the people who wishes to debate like adults as I have enjoyed listening to what you had to say.

Hmmm, so neither SargentFlipper nor Ferrettbadger have the confidence to stay around here.

Their inane ranting was proof that the loudest noises are synonymous with empty vessels. Now they slink away, showing how easily defeated they are.

Pity. Not surprising though.

Though I seldom contribute to this conversation I have stayed on lurking because I felt I was learning quite a bit from the more politically knowledgable researchers here. But recently it has just been childish bickering and nonsense from a few very disruptive and obviously unknowledgable researchers.

I hope they are ashamed of themselves for ruining what was otherwise an interesting and informative thread.

*unsubscribes*

az

"I rather suspect that if the next Rwanda was happening then you would advocate us doing something about it"

And what exactly did America do about the genocide in Rawanda? That's right... NOTHING, zilch, not a bloody thing. Why? No oil reserves, therefore no prize, therefore no incentive.

"so the same should follow in International Realations yeah Israel might be worse shouldn't therefore mean we dont do anything about any other bad things."

Then why not the worst ones first? Don't be ridiculous, the invasion of Iraq was never about helping anybody. It was about the United States rushing to get its hands on whatever it could plunder. The US has never shown any willingness to do anything about any despotic regimes in the past and there's no reason to think they'd suddenly inexplicably start with Iraq.

"Lastly ES your infantile and ridiculous style of argument really puts me off..."

No... what really puts you off is not having an answer to the things I say. So rather than concede any point, you choose to leave. The ultimate in cowardice.

Sigh.

"I hope they are ashamed of themselves for ruining what was otherwise an interesting and informative thread."

Quite right Az. I hope they are ashamed of themselves too. But they're gone now.

Very funny, Empty Sky. You know very well that I did not mean Flipper or Ferretbadger.

Anyhow, was just checking that my last posting came through.

Any further twistings of words will have to be seen for what they are by whoever remains here.

bye everyone,
az

I do agree, Azahar, even if I may be childish at times.

I have a serious question which is derived from some statements that Gwynne Dyer made some time ago: A lot of people are saying here that whatever our feelings about the justifications for the war, the U. S. has to stay and clean up. My question is, Why? What would happen if the U.S. pulled out tomorrow?
My feeling is that there would be something of a civil war but that it would be largely confined to the Sunni Triangle. The Shias would continue to control their area quite effectively from the mosques and things would settle down. The Kurds would likely take care of their area. And, seriously, the Sunnis would suddenly have nothing left to blow up. Maybe it would look bad for Bush and reelection, maybe not; I don't really care about how it looks for Bush. But seriously, what's the biggest destabilizing factor in Iraq right now? Is it a bunch of angry Iraqis stirred up by a few foreign agitators? Or is it the presence of a hundred thousand U. S. troops with big "bring it on" signs on their backs? I get the feeling some times that the real reason people thing that the U.S. should clean up is a subconscious feeling, to quote George Carlin concerning Vietnam, that they "should leave it in and get the job done" rather than "pull out".

Good point, Trunt. It seems that America hasn't much of a clue what it's doing in Iraq right now and if the Americans pulled out now Iraq wouldn't suffer one bit.

Lives would, however, be saved. A lot of the violence is a negative reaction to the occupation. If the occupation was ended, the Iraqis can get on with rebuilding their country and their lives.

America has decimated Iraq by invading it, they won't improve anything be staying there. It'll only cost more American and Iraqi lives.

It's certainly a thought, Trunt. And if they went in there with no real forethought for the medium term consequences why should they be so concerned, now.

Empty, if you did but know it, both myself, and I think, (with reservations,) Ferretbadger, are actually in agreement with quite a lot of what you say, but feel that you have a penchant for overstating your case, and not being willing to back up a little when it's appropriate.

Noggin

Noggin, I'm quite willing to back up a little. But I can't think of a time, here, when it's been appropriate. I have complete confidence in everything I've said.

However I've had uncalled-for insults directed at me and lies told about me. I've certainly got the impression that there are those who are quite confident to indiscrimately attack me but not confident enough to provide an intelligent answer to the points I've made.

Quite honestly this thread is better off without people like that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3426703.stm

Isn't this incredible. David Kay has resigned, saying he doesn't believe that WMDs ever existed. Even Colin Powell is now casting doubts on the WMDs (surely the greatest confession, yet, from the Americans that they lied).

But there's one person who continues to believe in the phantom WMDs. You guessed it, Tony Blair. I wonder if he also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Peter Pan.

I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Super Man, all I wanna do is bicycle, bicycle, bicycle...

wuf-wufwuf-wuf

Maybe Tony Blair always thinks what he thinks is right merely because he thinks it and doesnt listen to anything that disagrees with his world view. Did you ever think of that....now who does that remind you of

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/25/airport.security.ap/index.html

I think he is right Blick. You might just live long enough to know when the official records are opened in +2054CE. 50yrs time.

"It was an honest but odd mistake," Bennett said. "But it's true that people often don't think about what's in their luggage."

All sorts of people, holiday makers, business passengers, airport security staff.....

Yeah...my supadooper belt sander caused a stir at Haan...Easyjet hub nr a farm..then there were the two F clamps that caused a one and a half hour delay at Stanstead. Stumm was the word. German security guy was a real front line pro. His mate with a Walther PPK sood right by. Top notch...safe as the Bank of England.

my best one was in 80s following emptying out pockets continous beep still had to get "security to stand on shoes in end "steel toe caps" silly me!