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

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

Erm, in Real Life, Apparition. Funnily enough I didn't emerge fully-formed when I first logged on here in 2001. I only started arguing the case for removing Saddam here when Bush brought it up.

"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"

I never said that. In fact I'm sure I've said here a few times that it is wrong to label anti-war as anti-American. What I *have* said is that I think some of the anti-war protesters are guided more by an opposition to the United States than by any fundamental beliefs on International Law, the rights and wrongs of dictatorship etc. Certainly the fact that many criticised Bush Sr for *failing* to invade Iraq to support the uprising in 1991 and then condemned his son for intending to invade in 2002 suggests this.

I thought some of you would enjoy this Thomas Friedman commentary. Hopfully the link works if not you can find it on the new york times site that is free to join. It is dated june,6th 2003 and named "we knew we could I believe.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04FRIE.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

Any opinions?

"What I *have* said is that I think some of the anti-war protesters"

You see, that's the problem. The only time I see you use the word "some" is when you are defending your statements.

"What I *have* said is that I think some of the anti-war protesters"

You see, that's the problem. The only time I see you use the word "some" is when you are defending your statements.

>> 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!<<
Yes, this is the heart of the matter, Lentilla!
Zagreb, ousting Saddam was *not* the stated reason at the time, and that's what matters about the non-existent WMD! Plus which, I know you don't like this argument, but I still maintain that it was up to the Iraqis to decide to 'liberate' *themselves*
and it would seem that they could have, if they had wanted to, without having their infrastructure destroyed and themselves under foreign occupation for the foreseeable future!

>>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.<<
People in your camp ideologically, Zagreb, keep insisting that the above statement is the case... but please, be specific! 'Giz a f'r instance', as my libertarian sister is wont to say!

>>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.<<
It's a false dilemna, Zagreb. *Your* side imposed the sanctions and they could always have been lifted or modified any time without war. The sole purpose was to engineer an uprising against Saddam by imposing hellish conditions on the people, thus making them blame him... But it didn't work, they blamed the *correct* parties - the Yankees and
the pro-war British!

>>In fact I'm sure I've said here a few times that it is wrong to label anti-war as anti-American. <<
Nonsense Zagreb! YOu have *never* said that, any time, ever!

Yes we are all happy that Saddam is gone but the bottom line is that the end never justifies the means. The white house and Downing street's lying, manipulating and 'precision' bombing that have led to the current ill-considered occupation are no more justified as a means to remove a dictator than carpet bombing Germany in 1937, or strangling Joseph Stalin at birth would have been. Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' doctrine is simply a case of US officially adopting the might-makes-right doctrine that has been their unofficial policy since the 1880s when US commercial interest come up against foreign sovereignty issues. The U.S. govt has historically been will to prop up the nastiest dictators when it served their economic and political purposes and remove them when it served their purposes to do so. Most countries practice such 'realpolitik' and always have, the difference is that the U.S. goes to great pains to portray itself as the beacon of all that is right and good, while taking part in sleazy underhanded dirty work that would make Machiavelli blush....

Della, you say Zagrebs 'side' imposed the sanctions against Iraq. The santions were imposed by the UN and the UN represents the international community. This makes Zagrebs 'side' the world communities side. Since I know you would never defend Saddams side I take it you are on the side of the world. Imagine that Della and Zagreb Ally's

* Due to upload problems I had to divide my post into 2. The second half is labled part 2. {anyone else have upload problems to this site? It seems to be a reoccuring problem with me.

In response to Della - part 2
You go on to say that the sanctions were design to engineer a uprising {regime change} So you are telling us that the UN conspired to overthrow the Iraq goverment. The UN represents the world community.

Following this line of reason the world community intiated a policy of regime change about a decade ago. This policy caused much suffering and death in Iraq in addition to the damage
Saddams rule caused. A truly untenable situation.

This being so Bush and Blair are responsible for carrying out the original wishs of the UN {world community} by removing Saddam.
Their actions ended a decade long failed policy of the UN in three weeks that was devastating the Iraqi Nation. This makes Mr. Bush and Mr. Blairs decision to invade Iraq not only compliant with the UN's original policy's but also far more humane.

Della I did not know you were a covert bush/blair aficionado.

"Nonsense Zagreb! YOu have *never* said that, any time, ever!"

Rubbish! I *have* taken that position and I retain it. Kindly don't try and tell me what I do and do not think! (something you consistently try to do).

"Zagreb, ousting Saddam was *not* the stated reason at the time, and that's what matters about the non-existent WMD!"

I don't care. Saddam was still ousted. As I've said before, Britain and France did not attack Germany in 1939 to save thousands of Jews but that is precisely what happened.

"Plus which, I know you don't like this argument, but I still maintain that it was up to the Iraqis to decide to 'liberate' *themselves*"

In 1991 the Iraqis rose up against Saddam. Bush Sr let them "do it themselves". Saddam slaughtered them. You might see why I find this argument silly to say the least.

"and it would seem that they could have, if they had wanted to, "

See above

"without having their infrastructure destroyed and themselves under foreign occupation for the foreseeable future"

Their economy and infrastructure were already damaged by the sanctions and the policy of "containment" which included sporadic bombing. I don't think the occupation will last more than a few years.

"but please, be specific! 'Giz a f'r instance"

Bosnia - UN inaction allows thousands to die.

Rwanda - UN inaction allows millions to die.

Somalia - UN inaction allows warlord rule.

The Congo has been in a state of civil war for years with many thousands dead. The UN has finally started sending peace-keeping troops there. It's yet to be seen if it the UN will give the troops the all-important right to use force to protect civilians.

"You see, that's the problem. The only time I see you use the word "some" is when you are defending your statements."

If I *have* lumped the antis together then I apologise. I know they don't all hold the same opinions.

I notice you didn't bother replying to any of the points I raised in the same post re: the turnaround of the anti-war people.

Lifting UN sanctions on Iraq was brought up many times.

Want to guess who vetoed it?

I agree with you, your Reverend. Two words - Manuel Noriega...

"A few years" - they may find that a few years too long, if you ask me! (Yes, I know you didn't, but here I go anyway...)

Er... *what* turnaround?

"Er... *what* turnaround?"

Condemning Bush Sr for failing to support the Iraqi uprising in 1991 and then condemning Bush Jr for attempting to finish what his Dad wouldn't in 2003. I mentioned it above somewhere.