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

"And the troll pokes his head out from under the bridge..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F122145?thread=271986 Trolls should be careful when using the labell troll. ----------------------- Alectrician, "The inspectors couldn't find them, surely that says more about the capabilities of the UN?" Actually it says more about those who wouldn't let them finish. They had no promlem finding any thing after the first war. But then there was no issue over wether or not they existed. *typos fixed V1.0

...take another shot apparition...

alec.

It's as it should be. Everyone knew they existed the first time around.

Alectrician, typos happen. It's a poor reflection on yourself to treat another researcher in such a manner.

Ste

Trolls apparently aren't smart enough to figure out sequence and cause and effect. I'll give you a hint... the dates appear on the forums. F62051?thread=145132&skip=40&show=20

zoomer: "I agree with the UN that they have much more experience rebuilding and with the legitimacy issue." - What experience do they have? What success stories do they have?

"I have found the *international* flavour of help and rebuilding to be only a sad list of mobile hospitals and refugee camps from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and some eastern European states. The *nation building* seems to be exclusively US." - That's an odd observation, considering that almost no contracts have been awarded yet. The only nation-building that has gone on so far is the formation of the interim government. Apart from that, the only activities have beenb US and UK forces providing security and stability... which they are obligated to do, under the Geneva Convention.

"As I have said we will have to wait and see but in the mean time valuable world opinion is being frittered away by the US not to mention their image in the Islamic world." - If by "world opinion" you mean the antics of the French and Russians, and those who would sympathize with them, then it's just as well. As for the rest... they already hate America anyway, and it can seemingly do no right, so why worry what people think?

I think an awful lot of the left are so angry about the current situation because they thought the campaign was going to be long and ugly. The fact that it was swift and resulted in very few casualties (our side and the civilians, anyway... the Iraqi army was devastated by casualties, though nobody will come out and say it), and they're upset that they were wrong. And they were even more upset when the citizens welcomed them with celebrations and hugs, rather than AK-47's and Molotov cocktails.

A brutal dictator has been removed. A nation is being given a new opportunity to build a better government. Stability is being brought to a perpetually unstable region. And it was done at a pitiful fraction of cost of lives when compared to the combined atrocities of the former regime (except to the regime itself, and they're no big loss). Where is the bad part of all this?

Is there any actual evidence that the French have been supplying Iraq with weapons since the first gulf war?

I have to say I think the Iraqi people will be better off from now on, but I still can't help thinking that the war wouldn't have happened if there wasn't potential profit, or an opportunity to pull out of Saudi Arabia whilst maintaining influence in the area.

I'm also worried about the consequent reaction of Sunni extremists. The Jihad against the infidel westerners to create a new Islamic State seems to be becoming almost a mainstream view in the Arabic world.

With the state of the Arabic media, that's not a surprise. It seems to be expressing news in the most reactionary terms.

I don't know of any hard evidence of French supplies since the first war, but the circumstantial evidence is sufficient for strong suspicions. The first war involved a prolongued bombing campaign, and the highest priority targets were SAM batteries... you can't bomb at will until you remove the threats to your bombers.

During the 12-year hiatus, reports came out of Iraqis activating SAM batteries and illuminating US and UK planes as they patrolled the no-fly zones. Those planes responded by targetting and destroying those batteries.

Then came the latest war, which did involve extensive bombing, though not for a prolongued period of time. And, as usual, the SAM installations were the first targets.

They Iraqis should not have had very many missiles left, if nobody had supplied them since the first Gulf War. The military was very surprised to find large caches of French-made SAMs. The embedded reporters showed live pictures of them.

Hard evidence? No. But certainly suspicious.

Suspicious? Yes, indeed. But French made does not necessarily mean France sold them, and let's not forget that most of the chemical and biological weapons were supplied by the US many years ago.

As to your other points, I have alread supplied a site that has Canadian involvement over the decades through the UN with rebuilding economies and infrastructures, do you really need the entire list? As to the non-involvement of the world in that rebuilding, you only have to look at today's UN vote which craftily tied the lifting of sanctions with the US's sole involvement rather than making them two separate questions.

*they already hate America anyway, and it can seemingly do no right, so why worry what people think*
Oh, the arrogance! Should the US no longer care what other people think? That would be a convenient way to justify almost anything...

Of course the people met the liberators with open arms and welcome, no one has ever disputed here that they were not under the thumb of a brutal dictator. But to use that as an excuse to do anything further is ridiculous.
*Where is the bad part of all this?*
Yet to come I imagine. Again we agree to wait, but as you admitted before at least one of my concerns has hard evidence to back it up. As to the rest it deals with intangeables like world opinion and cultural differences, for that we may have to wait longer.

"Oh, the arrogance! Should the US no longer care what other people think? That would be a convenient way to justify almost anything..."

Perhaps if American intentions were responded to with open-minded reason instead of "Oh, you're just in it for yourselves and oil!" cynicism, Americans would take more notice of what the rest of the world said.

"Surely you *knew* Saddam's government was secular, not Islamic fundamentalist! Revisionism, all right!"

I'm saying that Islamic Fundamentalist government would be just as bad as Ba'athist government. Both are hard-right, dictatorial, oppressive regimes no one should have to live under.

Revisionist nothing.

"a) It should have been *their* choice
(b) why are they (in your eyes)better off with the Americans in power?
(c) Why did you Yankees not give a toss about Saddam when he was one of yours, back in the 1980s (and presumably was just as much of a murdering tyrant?"

a) It's absurd to expect a people who were brutally crushed the last time they rose up against their government to try again. They were scared of the regime and understandably so. What is so wrong with removing it from the outside?

b) A brief examination of any Amnesty International report on Iraq in the Saddam era should answer that. That and the mass graves they're finding. And so far Bush has not fired Chemical weapons at ethnic Kurds with the express desire of wiping them out.

c) So, the Americans were wrong to support Saddam in the 1980s and now they've changed their mind. Are you attacking America for doing the "right thing"?

"Suspicious? Yes, indeed. But French made does not necessarily mean France sold them, and let's not forget that most of the chemical and biological weapons were supplied by the US many years ago." - France manufactured them. If they were purchased through a third party, France still needs to take responsibility. They should know where their weapons are going.

As for the UN and nation building, your Canada-UN link doesn't give any reference to nation-building success stories. The only nation-building I can discern there would have been the former Yugoslavian nations. Calling those a success would be premature. Otherwise, Afghanistan could already be credited to the long US resume.

"Should the US no longer care what other people think?" - I'm with Z on this one. If the resistance were well-reasoned, we'd listen. The opposition just doesn't bother to make any sense most of the time.

For instance, there is a lot of resistance to the US occupation. What are the alternatives? Much worse than US occupation, believe me. The power vacuum they'd leave behind would devastate the country more than Hussein ever could. It had been done before... Afghanistan's civil wars from the end of Soviet invasion to the beginning of the US-led invasion being just one example.

And yet the madness continues.

I admitted that your concerns had justification. They have no hard evidence. The talk of bases in Iraq is still in the conjectural phase.

“Perhaps if American intentions were responded to with open-minded reason instead of "Oh, you're just in it for yourselves and oil!" cynicism, Americans would take more notice of what the rest of the world said.”

While everyone is on about proof (or is proof only needed when America is accused?), do you have any that America was/is not in it for oil?

As for the beginning of your statement. Cynicism is a healthy part of reason or do you want only good intentions considered when America does anything.


“France manufactured them. If they were purchased through a third party, France still needs to take responsibility. They should know where their weapons are going.” – This is too easy. Anyone care to comment of where US made weapons have ended up. I’ll start off with M16s in the current military action in Indonesia.


“Afghanistan could already be credited to the long US resume.”

Reference?


“I'm with Z on this one. If the resistance were well-reasoned, we'd listen. The opposition just doesn't bother to make any sense most of the time.”

Interesting wording, “we’d”, are you part of the administration or just speaking for your country? Do you think abbi or subcom (for example) would appreciate the umbrella?

“just doesn't bother to make any sense most of the time”
Oh yes, like the french sold X are interested due to Y. Evidence you say? No but there circumstantial suspicions.

Followed by: “I admitted that your concerns had justification. They have no hard evidence. The talk of bases in Iraq is still in the conjectural phase.”

That pretty much shows that the only requirement for evidence that the pro war party has is for accusing the US of anything. If only the pro war people would live by their own demands.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept "innocent until proven guilty."

It is impossible to prove a negative, so asking for proof that the US is *not* involved for the oil or that they are *not* trying to force permanent bases on the government is a futile gesture. This is basic logic.

The pro-Saddam party is the side making all the accusations at this time. They bear the burden of proof.

"innocent until proven guilty."
So let me get this straight, that applies to the US but not France...is that it? Or are you only answering the points you can answer to your own satisfaction.
*France manufactured them. If they were purchased through a third party, France still needs to take responsibility. They should know where their weapons are going.*- we can't take that and subsitute the US in not only Indonesia but in regard to the chemical weapons Mr. Rumsted was shaking hands over a few decades ago?

The US did not sell chemical weapons to Iraq following the ban of such sales in accordance with UN resolutions. And if Iraq had cooperated with UN instructions, the chemical weapons would have been destroyed. These French weapons have been received since the ban.

M-16s are quite different from surface-to-air missiles. That's not to say that the US is not responsible for their weapons as well... but an appropriate analogy would be a convenience store, in which the Indonesians got their hands on a pack of illegal cigarettes, while the Iraqis smuggled the entire beer fridge out the door.

Nice to hear that for selected things the UN isn't a worthless organisation in your eyes.

Nobody stole anything! The pack of smokes and the beer fridge were sold. (Does that ever sound odd....)

Let's have none of this "pro-Saddam party" talk. The only people who are pro-Saddam are his cronies. We're just worried about what the alternative might be.

And as for the Arab news networks being anti-American, yes that's very likely, although I don't watch much Arabic TV and I have a sneaking suspiscion you don't either, but then western news is hardly unbiased either, just our lot are better at making the bias less obvious.

When was the last time you saw a highly respected American religious leader go on telivision and tell his/her followers to kill the arab infidels and tell them if they do they will be rewarded with 72 virgens in the next life?

When was the last time you saw a highly respected American religious leader? I don't know any...