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

If he overtly disagrees, then he has no influence. He can though have a little influence in adding his weight to the Powell camp in Washington, in their perennial battle with the Rumsfeld camp. As such he becomes one factor in the number of small decisions that Bush takes towards one side of the other - Middle East Road Map or no Road Map - threaten Syria not threaten Syria etc, etc.

Sprout

As to weather or not America would 'go it alone', I think they certainly would, having already gone ahead with no support from teh United Nations. But as we have seen in the the UK forces might not have the massive size and air power of the US forces, but the US has historically been quite poor at the street-to-street fighting the UK troops, especially the special forces are quite well trained in. So they would go alone, but would have a harder time by doing so. Seeing their total disregard for civilian life, I don't suppose a minute they give a weevils slobbering fangs about the lives of any of their troops, so I doubt this would bother Bush or the military generals.

Oh how I wish those of you who aren't in the US could get an idea of the difference in public opinion between the US and the UK... no, public opinion isn't exactly the right word for it. There's a strong feeling amongst many people here that it's America's duty to bring 'freedom' to anyone they feel don't have it, and anyone they feel has any link to 'terrorists'. I heard a vox pop yesterday on America's equivalent of the Today programme. Whilst there were some voices against the unmentionable big thing over there, there were also voices who thought that US troops should roll on into Syria and why stop there? I think those opinions are far more common here than they are in the UK. Those are Shrub's people. Those are the people who either voted for him last time or will do so next. Once he gets that mandate from the electorate, there'll be no stopping him, the Shrubbery (who, incidentally are leading him, not the other way around), and the US army.

I got an inkling of the difference in opinion on this matter, and the huge difference in 'world view' (if thats the right termanology), from my Lodger, who hangs around too much on some gaming sites... Whilst the kinds of people who spend a vast amount of their time involved in 'Quake' and 'urban terror', might not (I b****y well hope not) representative of the US general population, I do get the feeling that there is a certain percentage of the US population with the view that 'freedom' is synonimus with 'American culture'. So any country/culture not like that of American's is obviously wrong in their eyes.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head there mate.

Well I know a few people who hold the same view, unfortunately they arn't on H2G2, as a couple of them in particular are a ton better at expressing what they saying than a mere bafoon like myself. Its been helpful for me, having people I can talk to, far more knowledgible than me on history and politics, which has cast a different light on a lot of the recent politics of teh world. Of course I'd like to add, that I've nothing against the American population, unfortunately the views of a few can maar the majority of sensible people.

has anyone pointed out that in the alternative universe from Mostly Harmless, Damascus had been amputated "The world had moved on from surgical strikes. THe official term had in fact been 'Damasectomy', meaning the taking out of Damascus"

Spooky.

Crossing Syria of holiday list for a while.

CH

i don't know if the US would be fool-hardy enough to go after Syria, militarily. What i can't believe is the statements from people like Jack Straw, who has told Syria (a country coming back into the international fold - i believe Jeff Hoon's over there at the moment) that it (and by implication everyone else) should accept the new reality in which we live (i.e. the world has bow down to the militaristic might of the US; roll over and do whatever it asks - after all it is powerful enough to take the whole world on with one hand tied behinds its back) and think carefully about compling with the US's demands. the new reality as seen by the british government? state sanctioned bullying

I don't get the US's problem with Syria manufacturing chemical and biological weapons (i have a problem with anyone developing chemical and biological weapons) - but why is it a problem that anyone other than the US has these weapons? terrorists could possibly get a hold of them?... but wasn't the recent anthrax scare in the US thought to be a home-grown threat?

just a quick question, how realistic is it that the (preceived) freedoms and democray that the US 'enjoys' can be transferred to the middle east, where there is a strong sense of familial/tribal loyalty? is it right for west to 'impose' its own set of ideals on other cultures. just a question, not much of an opinion, i'd be interested to know the view of those living in the region.

Something I don't think I can access at the moment, which is a pity. But, in the National Library of Congress in teh USA, you can find many incidencies of the CIA, using biological weapons on the United States civlian population. One I can remember off the top of my head, and I appologize for not being able to provide the reference, is the spraying of whooping cough over atown/city (the name of which unfortunately excapes me), in the 21950's, (if memory serves correct). I can't remember the exact figures, but prior to the 'experiment', annual incidence was about 300 to 400 cases, and an average of one death. This increased hugely the year of the 'experiment' with (I think) over 1000 cases of whooping cough, and many more deaths. Another case I seem to remember was the spraying of croops with a fungal rust, to assertain its effectiveness as a weapon in warfare, to effectivily starve out an opposition force (I guess).
So the US itself is not exactly 'clean' when it comes to developing biological warefare weapons.
As for the idea that the 'western' style of 'freedom' and 'democracy' can be forced on wildly different cultures is rediculus, and problems with such have been demonstrated through history. A history that the US military seem happily oblivious to.
Take the looting and such, evident after the end of the main military push in place not too far fromSyria, there seemed to be a certain degree of unprepardness for this, in utter disregard for this being exactly waht happened in Croatia region after conflicts recently there.
It might also seem that there is some problem with teh view of the whole middle east region. Again, not having read their history, it seems there is a belief that the countrys of the middle east are exactly that, when in reality I imagine the region has had some of the most changed borders in recent history. Rather predictibly (well by me, obviously not the war mongering baffoons of the US military generals), removing one leadership from a country made up of many factions and tribes/religions, is going to have the result of reinvigerating all the old claims to teratory and bring about a whole set of new problems.
With which in mind, the military then seriously* consider invading another nearby country/state.
I feel as if I've been regularly passing out over the last year or so, suffering bouts of unconsciouness, as that would be the only logical explination to explain the lack of logic and intelligence demonstrated by the US administration since the terrorist attacks of September the eleventh.

They can't, is the answer to that quick question. early indications are that given a dfree vote, the Iraqi's will choose a religious leadership that is likely to very anti-western...

The US occupied Japan for seven years, and that was a unified country before it was invaded.

I was a little surprised when I heard the president's threats. It's my belief that we need to let things shake out a bit. A lot of interesting things could happen now. On the other hand, Syria does support terrorism. I think we can slow down a bit and see how things unfold. I don't see any reason to hurry. [I'd touch on a bit more, but I think it would violate the rules.]

Militarily, the United States can probably defeat any nation on Earth in a conventional war. I'd think that an invasion of Syria would be messy. Syria would have a lot more independent and state-sponsored terrorist groups. [I'd touch on a bit more, but I think it would violate the rules.]

I don't have a problem with Syria having WMD. They're a sovereign nation. I don't care for it, but I wouldn't want to go to war over it.

On the gripping hand, President Bush has done a pretty good job, in my never to be humble opinion. Even when I haven't agreed with what he was doing and had grave concerns about how we were doing things, everything has worked out very well.

If the North Korean used nuclear weapons in reaction to an attack by the United States, it wouldn't be collateral damage. Collateral damage is when you destroy something that isn't your target.

There is probably a significant legal difference between modern terrorists and the French Resistance. I'm not all that familiar with them, but the resistance was a partisan movement in occupied territory. The Law of War recognizes the right of citizens to resist occupation. They probably didn't comply with all of the requirements of the Law of War. That would make them unlawful combatants more than terrorists.

Generals don't decide when to go to war in the United States. The civilian leadership does. It was reported in the press that generals were dragging their heels about the war and resisting it. Look at Secretary Powell. He's hardly a war monger. I think you'll find him fairly typical of American generals.

"On the other hand, Syria does support terrorism."

NORAID was able to operate for years unhindered in the US collecting money for the IRA to maim and kill people in my country.

I don't ever remember hearing proposals in Parliament to put British troops on the streets of Boston. I don't remember anyone even thinking of that. Not because America could easily flatten the UK in a war, but because it's wrong.

I've always wondered what legal pretext allowed them to keep functioning. If there was a legal way to stop it, it should have been stopped. I certainly hope it has by now.

" you can find many
incidencies of the CIA, using biological weapons on the United States civlian population"

I haven't finished reading the backlog yet, but I had to respond to the above bit. It wasn't just the United States civilian population; they did it to Canadian and other foriegn cities as well. http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/old_site/GermWar.html

And Churchill gassed the Kurds.

And Israel has more WMDs than you can shake a stick at.

And, frankly, in answer to a question posed by our (Canada's) Prime Minister: it's anybody's guess who's next, but somebody will be next.

I fear that someday before too long the French and the Germans for all their flaws and hypocrisy will be remembered as tragic and visionary heroes in a fight for freedom that's already lost.

sorry for venting. I'm in a bad mood tonight.

Two Bit, in what way does Syria "support terrorism" ?

Peach.

An excellent bit of political manoeuvring by the Syrian government...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2955161.stm

Ok, lets ban all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons from the middle east...

Don't suppose the Israeli's will play ball though

The Guardian featured an excellent piece on Syria this morning;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,938326,00.html

Interesting piece Blues. It just goes to show how little the instigators of the unmentionable thing know about what they've started, and how little they've thought about the long term, other than the dollar signs in their eyes.

Ka-ching!

I found it interesting that when many newspapers in Europe were talking about the US declations re Syria, the subject wasn't even mentioned on www.cnn.com.

" (i.e. the world has bow down to the militaristic might of the US; roll over and do whatever it asks - after all it is powerful enough to take the whole world on with one hand tied behinds its back)"

Is it me or does the exageration keep getting bigger? I mean c'mon, the whole world? Do people tell themselves this because they're eith american or for an easy sense of resignation?

Could there one day be a coalition of the willing vs the current shrub-lead coalation of the killing?

BTW as a scary thing, I'm noticing the same kind of 'it's bluster and posturing and little else' that I read leading up to this thing we cannot mention - also mostly from the same people.



apparition