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

Noam Chomsky (Zagreb's bete noire) has written a lot about your media - there's a very dense book called 'Manufacturing Consent' I read a while ago, check it out!>

Della it has been sometime since you brought up the far lefts poster boy.

Noam Chomsky (Zagreb's bete noire) has written a lot about your media - there's a very dense book called 'Manufacturing Consent' I read a while ago, check it out!>

Della it has been sometime since you brought up the far lefts poster boy.

I just knew deep down you could not be anti-starbirth

Because I was commenting on what Lentilla said I meant the American media. *Ours* is wildly variable!

Wow... it's about time somebody started asking questions about *why* Iraq was invaded. Especially when Wolfowitz has come out and said that there wasn't any real evidence to support WMD, it was just something that everybody could agree on as a cause.



I should read some Noam Chomsky... I suspect it'll make me even more of a raving peacenik than I am right now.

here's an interesting comment　on the thug that runs the pentagon by Robin Cook
http://www.iht.com/articles/98418.html

Great... I was eager to hear what became of those people who resigned from the cabinet, and I'm glad to note that their voice is not silenced.

"I find "Anhanga" an interesting (and somehow disturbing) misspelling of my name." - take your pick of bad spelling or memory for that one

**********************

"We need to get out of there! Enough is enough - what are we doing, waiting around to make sure that France doesn't get a piece of the pie?"

So are you advocating blow the place up and leave? there's a phrase "you break it, you fixt it" - simple but clear (ofcourse I don't mean you in the personal sense)

I agree with apparition. The US must stay to put Iraq in proper order.

After all can not have the far flung outposts of the empire in disarray.



Starbirth looks around the room as he feeling the oncoming counterblast he decides on a course of action .

Blow the place up? We've already done that, right?

I think the question becomes: what kind of 'fixing' does Iraq need? I agree - we need to fix what we've broken. We've destroyed their current governmental structure, so we need to make sure that a new one is in place. We've blown up several of their buildings, so we need to get some experienced construction workers in to rebuild. I'm afraid that we're going to draw this out - instead of getting in, doing our dirty little deed, and getting out, we're going to make this a ten-year occupation of Iraq, just like Russia occupied Afghanistan.

I don't want to see a forced organization of an America-friendly government installed in Iraq - one that will let the U.S. put a military base there. This seems to be the main reason why Wolfowitz advocated the invasion of Iraq.

I also don't want to see the new government forced to give drilling rights only to those countries that are friendly with the U.S.

However, while our current president is in charge, that's exactly what's going to happen. I'm not feeling very optimistic right now.

"I agree with apparition."

I must now start out on an adventure where-upon I meet a band of animals , one by one, and tell the Queen that the sky is falling

Great article, thanks!

"Wow... it's about time somebody started asking questions about *why* Iraq was invaded. Especially when Wolfowitz has come out and said that there wasn't any real evidence to support WMD, it was just something that everybody could agree on as a cause."

Here's a cause: Saddam Hussein.

Saddam was a thug who rose to power by killing his political opponents. In 1988 he used Chemical Weapons (yes, I know Rumsfeld helped supply them) to murder 8000 Kurds for the crime of Being Kurds. In 1990 he invaded Kuwait. In 1991 he was kicked out and left alone to murder 100s of thousands of people in his own borders by good old George Bush Sr.

The UN put sanctions on his country that killed 500,000 of his own people - people who had no power to remove him, despite what Mark Thomas would like to pretend.

In 2003, George Bush's son decided he was going to remove Saddam from power. I thought this was a good idea for all of the above. In fact, I'd been arguing it should be done for a while, back when the Official Left still thought it was a good idea (ie before the evil Yanquie Empire agreed with them and they were forced to change their position)

Apparently, this makes me a Bad Person.

People who advocated letting Iraq's people overthrow Saddam "on their own" without the disgraceful Internationalist idea known as "outside help" are calling themselves "good people."

Ho. Hum.

It appears that you *started* supporting the idea of war when Bush did

Zagreb - the problem I have is not that Saddam was ousted. Yeah, he was a baddie, and needed to go. I think everybody can agree on that!

If we can justify the invasion of Iraq, what's to stop us from justifying the invasion of another country? Like Iran? Or Cuba? There's lots of countries with cruel and unusual dictators.

Let's say you've just got this brand new lawnmower, and a five-gallon jug of gas. You look down the street and see that all the neighbor's yards are overgrown with weeds and look terrible. So you start mowing. You mow all the lawns on your street. Chances are, the neighbors won't mind. Your street will look nice. And you'll be a hero for a while. But what next? Will you be expected to mow *all* the lawns from now on? What if a neighbor of yours didn't want their lawn mowed by you - he didn't want to feel obligated to you for mowing his lawn, and is embarrassed that you decided to mow it for him without asking? What if - even worse - you mowed over a flowerbed and destroyed some plantings? (Al-Jazeera!)

You see what I mean? We can extend this silly analogy further and say that the U.N. is the lawn service, and they've been contracted to mow the lawns on your street. You've gone in and mowed the lawns instead, and this has thrown off their schedule and screwed up their books.

This is a new and very left-field attitude for the U.S. to be taking. Are we now going to go around and *be* the U.N? Take on the duties of the U.N.? And why are we doing it? Is it solely for humanitarian reasons? Or is there (as I believe) other more personal economic reasons for the invasion?

I do appreciate that Bush Jr. has cleaned up the mess that his dad has made. First of all, Bush Sr. should never have left Saddam in charge. Second, the U.S. should have worked with the U.N. to ease the sanctions and give the people of Iraq some support. Third, instead of lying to the U.N. and the world, why not tell the truth? 'We left this person in power, and he turned out to be a right b*****d. We'd like to remove him with the help of the U.N.' It felt very much as if the U.S. was treating the U.N. like a bunch of idiots. 'Here, let's bamboozle them - pull the wool over their eyes - they'll never be able to put all the facts together before we can marshal our troops and invade Iraq.'

Now that the dust has settled, I don't feel comfortable with a president that has actively lied to the American people and the world to get what he wants. It doesn't matter to me that he did it 'for the good of the Iraqi people.' I can't trust him to tell the truth!

"This is a new and very left-field attitude for the U.S. to be taking. Are we now going to go around and *be* the U.N? Take on the duties of the U.N.? And why are we doing it? Is it solely for humanitarian reasons? Or is there (as I believe) other more personal economic reasons for the invasion?"

Well, first of all you might well have to "be" the UN, since the UN certainly hasn't been living up to it's obligations. Nor do I expect it to in the future, sadly.

Of course there were personal reasons for invading Iraq. That's not really the point, Saddam was still removed from power and the US was the only country willing to do it. If there's a problem in the world, you have to take the best going option to get rid of it. Britain did not go to war with Germany to save Jews, remember.

"It appears that you *started* supporting the idea of war when Bush did"

Meaning? I've supported the removal of Saddam for years. I was sick and tired of seeing Iraqis dying in hospital beds whilst a solemn BBC voiceover entoned "these are the only victims of the UN sanctions", whilst going on to say how Saddam and his loathesome sons were living the high life on what was left of the Iraqi GNP. So, yes, when an American President came along and said "I will get rid of Saddam" I put aside the fact that I didn't care for his politics and supported his intentions to get rid of That Old B**tard. And I'm sorry, but I couldn't give two hoots about the WMD or the oil or any of the other things that "mattered" so much to so many people. I was sick of what the sanctions were doing to Iraq and what our "containment" was doing to Iraq and I wanted to see it put to a swift end.

So, no, I didn't start supporting the war as soon as Bush did. I'm not Tony Blair.

I can appreciate your position - I'm certainly happy that he's gone. I just don't like the 'the ends justify the means' attitude that seems to be so popular right now. Deceiving the American public is what really bothers me. We're all in favor of getting rid of Saddam - why did there have to be so many lies?

If America actually supported the UN and upheld the decisions that the UN made, it would be a lot stronger than it is right now. There's a real trust issue, and it can only be resolved with greater involvement from the U.S.

hmmm... the Blair Which project.

"In fact, I'd been arguing it should be done for a while, back when the Official Left still thought it was a good idea (ie before the evil Yanquie Empire agreed with them and they were forced to change their position)"

So where had you been arguing this for "a while"?

Or should we expect that in line with your throw away statements the people only object to the war to be "anti american" - the convenient sticky labell

"In fact, I'd been arguing it should be done for a while, back when the Official Left still thought it was a good idea (ie before the evil Yanquie Empire agreed with them and they were forced to change their position)"

So where had you been arguing this for "a while"?

Or should we expect that in line with your throw away statements that people only object to the war to be "anti american" - the convenient sticky labell