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

> As far as voting for impeachment, I posted that a long time ago and lots of Americans are signing on. But, remember, Clinton was impeached, but he still didn't have to leave the Presidency.

You're right, anhaga. This website has been around for a while. Problem is, it requires a majority vote by the House and Senate before the impeachment process can be started. With a Republican majority in the House and Senate, Bush Jr. will never be impeached.

Which is why we need to VOTE!

As to why Clinton didn't have to leave the presidency, it's because he was found not guilty. An impeachment doesn't mean that the President has done wrong; it's just the process of assembling evidence and charging him with a crime. Which is why I'd like to see the impeachment process started for Bush Jr. - there's lots of things he's done that scare the crap out of me, and I'm sure that an investigation will dig up quite a bit more.

For those of you who would like some more information on how Presidents are impeached, check out this website.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

I like the idea of pressing the yikes button on posts that we find objectionable, but how do we know we won't get crazy? I mean, I've seen some pretty nasty stuff from a couple of people. If people can act that immaturely, how do I know they won't punch the yikes button just for the heck of it?

On the other hand, I don't want to take away anybody's right to say what they want. I'd rather make a pact with everybody that we'll try to keep the personal comments to a minimum, and just stick with the facts. Every time somebody gets insulting, the whole debate grinds to a halt and I have to skip over about five pages of pissing and moaning.

Montana made the excellent point that a person's quite valid views are destroyed by insulting personal comments. We'd all look a lot better in each other's eyes if we could stick to the facts (or at least what we believe are the facts!) and not our preconceived notions.

I pledge (right now) to ignore any insult thrown my way, and only respond to posts that are on topic.



It's nuts, you know. If this microcosm of the world (or at least all the English-speaking members of it) can't get along, what the heck are we doing? We look pretty foolish trying to figure out the world's problems from our armchairs when we can't even speak civilly to each other.

There is but one way to make sanctions efective. That is to get the financial institutions and law enforcement agencies worldwide to focus on illegal transactions.

A lot of progress has been made toward this goal. I see your point very clearly Anhaga. In the case of Iraq no less than two UN Aid directors resigned because they could not get food and medicine to the ordinary people.

Now, it is one thing to shoot someone with a firearm, but it is another less immediate act to support regimes which starve people to death. The people who die are non-combatants.

Anhaga this is a desperate struggle. I hope you can see this. I know your view, but please in the name of mercy, could you not divert your attention to the hidden killers. Inherently this is a deadly passtime. The folks involved care little for life.

"It's nuts, you know. If this microcosm of the world (or at least all the English-speaking members of it) can't get along, what the heck are we doing? We look pretty foolish trying to figure out the world's problems from our armchairs when we can't even speak civilly to each other."

Well said (even if I am from time to time a quilty party)

In regards to an embargo being like a seige, to an extent it is. Even if essentials such as food and medicine are allowed to be brought into the country you are starving the people. The problem with dictatorial governments are they simply do not care if their people starve. The starvation could be downright litreral, al la Somalia. Which BTW is a perfect example of why the UN should not get into military operations. Or it could be the economic stagnation of a country. Iraq is what, second in world oil reserves? Yet this place is so poor it reminds me of Haiti. Why? Because of sanctions? Millions of dollars of illegal oil flowed out of this country yearly the fact is Saddam cared nothing of his people so long as his palaces were nice.
There has to come a point where diplomatic pressure and sanctions need to give way to military action. I am still working through that report. There are good points and bad points. One glaring bad point is the comment about force protection. Easy for people who never wore a uniform to say that it isn't important to protect your troops.
The whole idea of interceeding on behalf of a nations populace is a very new one. Brand spanking new historicaly speaking. Give the world time to figure out how to do it. Imagine that, a world were sovreignity rests on the shoulders of the people, not the government. Sounds like a pretty good definition of democracy.

Also, there is another question that has been bugging me for a while. Was Billy Bob Clinton an imperial nation smashing tyrant? He did invade Kosovo without UN sanction and when scandle started brewing he did suddenly have the need to launch military action against (can you believe it?) Iraq.

ES: Your, illegal unelected, government has illegally and immorally invaded two countries, for no good reason, causing the deaths of thousands of people.

I'll give you illegal and unelected, and I'll give you illegal and immoral on Iraq, but I'm not going to give you Afghanistan. Sovereignty be damned, that was a justifiable action taken in the wake of 9/11, and no one, not even the UN, said "boo." Are you going to argue that the Taliban should have been allowed to continue their reign of destruction and terror? That bin Laden declared war on the US, and the US had no right to retaliate?

We can agree on a lot of things, ES, but I'm not going to give you that one.

All I saw was Della's posting asking for the link (which I've not had time to find today, since I taught two classes, attended a third, and then worked 8 hours at my non-academic job).

Did wraith swear at me or something?



I'm really confused.

Wraith is confused himself..never mind you MR.

A big thank you to Anhaga for getting the thread talking constructively about how things might be handled in future.

Didn't see the yikesed post, so I'm equally in the dark, MR. Hope Wraith comes back, if he's lurking.

<...that is to get the financial institutions and law enforcement agencies worldwide to focus on illegal transactions.>

True, but many of the illegal transactions require the *cooperation* of the said financial institutions. International banking and financial rules should be as high on the agenda as more overt forms of imperialism.

Noggin

Well, this has been going really well: you've managed to get back on topic and chase somebody away.

Personally, I really liked flipper's gay bashing comments. That was charming. Nothing quite like expressing a desire to punch out a faggot to get everybody on the soldiers side. Perhaps he'd like to tell us about his love of wife beating and Jew gassing next.

Flipper, I don't care that you're in Iraq pretending to fight for our freedoms: If you're talking the way you've been talking, you're fighting against our rights and freedoms; you're standing shoulder to shoulder with all the others who "hate our way of life". If flying off half-cocked with the kind of crap you've been dealing is an example of the discipline expected of American soldiers, then God help the ordinary Iraqis.

ES. Britain is far from innocent in all this. However there's been a time of nation hand wringing over the lies and atrocities. There's been a parliamentary enquiry, the suicide of an MOD expert and high level heads rolling at the BBC. Thats certainly one take, but the people who probably should be making the apologies and tendering rsignations aren't. Heres another view of the Hutton report and its reprocussions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F97290?thread=374636 Of course now Rumsfeld is planning a similar enquiry in the US wonder what the outcome of that one will be?

Trunt, come off it bud. Granted some of my postings were a little less than cordial. There is no excuse for that. As there is no excuse for the rantings of ES and Wraith. Sweeping accusations aimed at Americans in general and the US military specificly are even less creative than my array of returned jabs.

"Flipper, I don't care that you're in Iraq pretending to fight for our freedoms" I do not now nor have I ever pretended anything.

We all hail from democracies, the Kiwis are as entitled to their skewed opinions of Americans as I am to my skewed opinions of them individualy. I think the email incident transcended the line.

I am fully capapble of pursuing either kind of discussion here. Trading of facts and well thought out arguments as well as the childish talk that we have devolved into lately. I even do both at the same time, multitasking if you will. In the last day or so we seem to have left the bashing behind. Can we see if we can let it end right there. No one is right or wrong. Every single one of us here to some extent or another has committed the offense. No declared winners or bad guys. Just a move forward back into civil conversation.

This constitutes my third attempt at this. If there is any hope it won't be met (yet again) with a fresh barrage.

Sorry, Flipper, your comments would be subject to criminal prosecution where I come from. You threatened physical violence while describing your intended victim with a term of hatred for an identifiable minority. In fact, your wording suggested that you wished to perpetrate a homosexual rape on the individual accompanied by pretty extreme violence. If you can't see it then you really need to take a long time reading and thinking about your posts before you hit the send button.

I'm certainly no "bud" of someone who stoops to the crap you have.

Would be a difficult case to prove "bud" as the means are not currently available to us. Like I said drop it and move on. We have all said stupid things and many of them would be subject to an a$$ beating were many of us come from.
Just so that it is fully clear and understandable to all here.

I formally offer my regrets for all of the Flamming that I have participated in.

Now the way I look at it Trunt and all other like minded individuals we either cut the crap and move on or simply hit the unsubscribe button. Precious few other options are there?

"Are you going to argue that the Taliban should have been allowed to continue their reign of destruction and terror? That bin Laden declared war on the US, and the US had no right to retaliate?"

BinLaden is not the Taliban and vice versa. The most that could be said is that they were harbouring BinLaden (probably) (that's never actually been proven).

The invasion of Afghanistan amounts to a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Attacking the only visible connection to alQaeda.

As early as January 2002, theree months into the US invasion of Afghanistan, the innocent civillian deaths there as a direct result of the invasion exceeded the death toll on 9/11. Revenge had more than been done.

The only agressor, the only terrorist in Afghanistan is the good ole USA. Why are they still there?

"The only agressor, the only terrorist in Afghanistan is the good ole USA. Why are they still there?"

Well that's a very nice little soundbite, but you don't have any idea of what you're talking about really, do you?

If Saddam Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait, he'd probably still be iraqi dictator and our (the West's) best friend.

I think that if he was still our ally in September 2001, he'd have probably launced a 'war on terrorism' of his own: to massacre Shiites, Kurds and dissidents. And Britain and America (etc.) would probably send him shiploads of weapons and money to help him (like we did in Iraq in the 1980s, and for Indonesia to use against East Timor until its liberation).

And we'd probably get him to invade Iran again, although this time it may be as part of a US-led 'Coalition' to route out a 'massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction' in Iran. (which is more democratic than Western ally Saudi Arabia, since Iran has an elected President and Parliament--although it's engaged in a power struggle with the tyrannical Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei). Or maybe a war to restore the 'rightfull government' (a Shah-like leader)

The murderous, heroin trafficking warlords are also aggressors in Afghanistan, who continue to rule all of Afghanistan except Kabul as their own personal feifdoms, ruling through terror and getting people to work on opium farms for squat.

The Taliban weren't really much better or worse than any of the murderous militias in Afghanistan, including some of the warlords in the Provisional Govt., who are accused of war crimes and human rights abuses.

The Taliban was harboring the murderous fascist Al Qaeda militant network, considered terrorists by many countries.

The United States has also harboured--and supported--people considered to be terrorists by many countries, including many state terrorists (mostly from Latin American military junta)

But American is harbouring anti-Castro militants in Florida--many linked to the deposed, fascist Batista regime. Some of them have been involved in political violence throught the Americas, or even in the USA itself.

Many of these CIA-backed militants, considered terrorists by Cuba and even the FBI, have committed horrendous attrocities--like attacking civilians in Cuba, hi-jacking Cuban civilian planes and boats, flying over Cuba and dropping pesticide on fields, and so on. Many Cuban spies imprisoned in America are spying on these militants.

In the 1980s, America under Reagan harboured and supported the murderous, fascist Contra insurgency against Nicaragua, whose reformist Sandanista governmemt that had overthrown a decades-long US-backed dictatorship. The US has now terrorised the Nicaraguans into submission, and a few years ago condemned one of the parties in a Nicaraguan election.

Many people considered to be state terrorists also live in America, and are wanted in there own countries. Many are Latin American mass-murderers and torturers previously supported by the United States.

For example, a leader of a Haitan militry junta's secret police--that murdered thousands--lives in New York. The US govt. refused even to acknoledge a renewed extradition request from Haiti, even as Bush demaned the hand-over of Bin Laden. Even more fugitives live in Florida. If Saddam Hussein had been overthrown during the 1980s when he was a Western ally, he'd probably be given safe haven fro justice in the United States.

Would any of the countries that want these people, if they had the power, have the right to invade and bomb America, and kidnap these "terrorists"? Bush said that those terrorists and those who harboured them are one and the same.

"Well that's a very nice little soundbite, but you don't have any idea of what you're talking about really, do you?"

Bouncy that, itself, is a meaningless soundbite. How about telling me WHY you don't believe I have any idea of what I'm talking about.

If you think you're able.

Bush and Blair won, so they won't be tried for war crimes. It would open the floodgates since, as Chomsky said, every US president since WWII is a war criminal under the Geneva Conventions and the judgement at Nuremburg, and a hell of a lot of British PMs.

Since Nixon's dead, let's look at Henry Kissinger. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending a war that he helped start, and is one of history's worst mass murderers. Over 3 million people (many. many civilians) were killed by the US military in Vietnam by carpet bombing, death squads as well as ordinary fighting.

Cambodia and Laos were carpet bombed, Kissinger was involved in supporting Pol Pot's Khmere Rouge in Cambodia, even when the Vietnamese overthrew them. He supported the genocidal invasion of East Timor by Indonesia, murderous Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected President Salvador Allende.

He is wanted for questioning in Chile and continental Europe. If he was ever stupid enough to visit Vietnam or East Timor (etc.) he'd probably be shot--after a trial if he was lucky.

But the US federal courts haven't charged him with genocide and capital war crimes, have they?

Thanks, Combattante; I think that draws attention to the question of "right intent" that makes a lot of us suspicious of the motivation for the invasion, especially given the shift in justification from WMD to Human Rights. And that remains a problem even if the Iraquis are better off now than they were before. (From this distance that's unclear, but probably true.)

I wonder what it says about human nature at large that "They're a potential threat to us" (even if untrue) was considered a more effective support winner than "He's a menace to his own people" (even though it was true).

Noggin