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

Isn't there the possibilty of the fear that if Saddam is removed from power a fundamentalist may take over ?
thus creating the 'first' (discounting Afghanistan) fundamentalist Islamic state which could become the beginning of a fundamentalist 'union' of adjoining countries?

I think that at the end of the war they will do what they did in Afganistan and put people in power that suits there own needs not the needs of the people in the country. The Taliban was bad but the northern alliance was actually just as bad in some ways.

Adib

Sharon's stewardship of the Sabra and Shatila massacres are well documented but he will never face the same kind of genocide charge as does Milosovic. I would think the people who might just be in a big sweat over this impending war is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. One more bad step and the walls could come tumbling down taking the arrogant Kuwaitis with em. But the afore mentioned attrocities are nothing to the war crimes committed in Afghanistan. The Mazar i Sharif killing fields and the murder of 27 container loads of Taliban prisoners, hundreds dead and witnessed too. The so called Northern Alliance responsibility? Who knows?

Yeah I know. The northern alience are just as bad as the taliban but for different reasons.

Adib

Yes, that's the impression we've gained here, reading a lot between the lines,because the news media here are slavishly por-American. F'r instance, this morning on the radio we heard that 'the White House has broken its silence, to state the empty missile tubes are sufficient cause for war'.

Della. Of course the US is spoiling for a war, the only pity is that a vast majority of the US public know nothing about the area except that their current boss calls it part of the evil empire! Any excuse will do but I can see on the other posting on this subject that there are some who really care. Sadly it won't deflect the foolishness of the Bush administration which at the end of the day is looking for revenge! Trying at every twist to pin September the 11th on Iraq is just one way of doing it. Sure it was a heinous crime, but it also aimed a blow at the very heart of the capitalist system taking out many lives but for some even worse the very symbols of US economic strength, those twin towers. Now that really hurt!

Just ask those who survived the chemical attacks by the US on Vietnam, the countless people maimed and injured in many wars in Africa, Angola for instance. San Salvador, Nicaragua the list goes on and on. Above all the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Of course there should be NO weapons of mass destruction and that should include the USA but they will never disarm, neither the UK. They don't say too much about China on this subject do they? Israel for sure not. Small wonder there are a lot of sceptics of the motives around. So when Iraq is bombed into submission and we all see the results only then will it become clearer. Just take a look at the last wars the US has instigated. Er... Panama, Haiti, Grenada, Afghanistan (ongoing)not to mention Somalia. Mmmm really tough stuff huh! Gulf you say? Well wasn't that a coalition effort? Like Kosovo now that was a tad lucky when Milosovic blinked there was no ground war. Now is the world a safer place for all this. Well that's debatable too because what we have is a more serious war that is of terrorism. I suppose it will be when the US controls every aspect of our lives, controls the worlds mineral resources and there's a Big Mac on every street corner! Only then we can feel safe eh? Perish the thought!

There is some (limited) good news, because some of the American public is becoming aware... Here is a link to a story in our local paper about American peace protests:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3052048&thesection=news&thesubsection=world
I was reading a book by Helen Caldicott last night, and she was talking about the massive environmental damage caused by depleted uranium weapons in the previous Gulf War. Between that and defoliants in Vietnam, the Americans have a massive amount of mass destruction to account for!

Hi Della. Yes I think the message is beginning to sink in but once that great big steam roller gets turning, it gets hard to stop. I am not only talking about big armies but big egos too eh! Sometimes the ego trip is the hardest one to overcome. I dislike politicians intensely but what is the alternative as the man said "someone must do it". Also we get to choose (well sort of). The Iraqis don't have much choice and it's no prize for guessing what they would prefer. But...we will see how they end up, maybe the Bush administration would like Sharon to take charge Hmmm now THAT would REALLY be frightening. It's like playing Russian Roulete with a machine gun. I read some guy said send in an SAS team to take Saddam out. Even that is laughable as Saddam has at least 2,5 million yes million informers to keep him in power and to imagine him standing still long enough to be bumped off is also shaky. In fact in the gulf war the only other soldiers the Brits lost (apart from those killed by American aircraft) were in fact SAS men. Never mind we can still play Land of Hope and Glory as the troop ships sail away eh!

We seem to get closer and closer to war, yet I am conscious of no great passion around me. Everyone disagrees with the idea of war, yes, but where are the heated protests, the pointed questions, the rational arguments ? Are we to simply lie down and allow our prime minister to lead us into a war which has no purpose other than to shift a foreign potentate he does not particularly like?
Here is the rationale as I see it - Twin towers in new York are destroyed. We are told that the villain responsible is someone called Bin Laden. We all go off to war in Afghanistan - where the villain is apparently holed up. At the same time we are told that we are also to go to war in Iraq. We ask why. We are told that there is another villain living there who happens to be the leader. We ask - what has that got to do with the twin towers? There is no answer. We ask again, and are told that there is 'evidence'. We ask to see the evidence - but there is none. But Mr Hussein is a bad man and there must be evidence as he is in the 'axis of evil'. So, we ask, what is this axis of evil? Ha, we are told, it is a list of people we dont like. And that, my friends, seems to be why we are going to war. But wait ! We are told that he has weapons of 'mass destruction'. So now the option is - If we dont go to war, he may not use them. If we DO go to war, we know he WILL use them - assuming, that is, that he has got them ! Is this not a mad world ? Yours chaotically - Patrice

Interestinglt though you will find that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Osama was not behind it. I can tell you it all if you like. Also A was against terrosim does not justify Iraq as we are supposed to be invading Iraq not just because it has (supposidly) weapons of mass destruction but because they say Sadam and Osama are allies. Maybe in there dreams but not in reality.

Adib

Patrice, AdibQasim, that is it! The most frustrating thing - there is no evidence! It's all about oil!

I know. Bloody murders. (Aimed at bushand Blair and thouse who follow and agree with them while nowing the truth.)

Adib

No, I dont think its even about oil - US has enough oil - we have enough oil - lots of people have oil - The only reason that I can see is it is all about papa Bush, and the great american myth - a bloke's gotta do wot a bloke's gotta do - you only have to watch young Bush's body language - pure cinema.

This post has been removed.

We had extracts on TV News of his state of the Union speech - there was a beautiful example of a mde up word, as he does...

The US, UK, etc. actually sold Saddam the chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds and the Iranians, in the full knowledge of what he would do with them. Isn't that complicity in murder...?

You may be interested to hear what US State Dept official George Kennan said in 1948:

"The U.S. has 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to MAINTAIN THIS POSITION OF DISPARITY without positive detriment to our national security. To do this we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objective. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the LUXURY OF ALTRUISM AND WORLD BENEFACATION. We should CEASE TO TALK ABOUT such vague and unreal objectives as HUMAN RIGHTS, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans the better." (Emphasis added, quoted from "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know" by Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt ISBN 186 197 636-4)

Also, it is unlikely Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are linked. The Sunni Baathists, who rule Iraq, are secularists who have mercilessly tortured and murdered anyone suspected of Islamic extremism in Iraq. That was one reason for the Iran-Iraq war.

And Osama bin-Laden's militant Al Qaeda network is an Islamic extremist organisation (which was, ironically, supported by the West just like Saddam Hussein, to provoke and fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) that is completely idealogically opposed to Saddam's Baathists, and bin Laden has called for Saddam's assassination on countless occassions.

If the US wants to look for "terrorist-sponsering" nations it should start at home. According to US dissident William Blum, the US sponsers anti-Castro operatives (many supporters of the US-backed dictator Batista, who has a much worse human rights record than the present far left dictator Fidel Castro) who bomb hotels, drop pesticide on fields, and commit other indiscrimate attacks on Cuba, killing many civillians.

This is an open writing to the people of Great Britain. I am a citizen of the United States of America. I do value what all of you say about Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair and George Bush. Let me point out a few things that I, as a conservative, will point out with no 'spin.'

First, America is the world's only super-power. As we say here, 'pick a better country.' We have a sense of what our part is and should be in world affairs. This is not any different than what has happened historically with other great European empires including Rome, Great Britain, Spain and to a lessor degree, France. We have paid for this acclaim through the blood our men have shed in the name of bettering the world. Yes, the empires of Europe have been brutal at times. What sets the United States apart from the others is our conquests are over ideals and resources, and not particularly the land and its peoples. We would prefer foreign people to govern themselves in a responsible manner. Iraq is not being governed responsibly.

The fact is, we believe in ourselves even though many of you may not be with us. We are an extension of English history and we value that history even though there were a couple 'little' disagreements between us (1774 - 1781 and 1812 - 1814). The Englishmen who signed the Declaration of Independance didn't just wake up one morning and come up with the ideals which founded this country. The ideals the USA embraces were borne through centuries of English history: the wars, invasions, kings, and government; both great and not so great. The people of Great Britain should be proud of their people who settled in the Americas. We still have much in common. We were there for you in World War 2 against a common enemy (although, we were slow to react, I admit). President Bush is sincere when he calls Prime Minister Blair (and England) a friend. Americans are basically friends to all peoples who aspire to the values of 'life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.' Americans are extremely close friends to all English speaking peoples. We believe we are right, just and responsible. We are slow to anger but we are a force to be respected when we are pushed enough. We have made mistakes, some of them pretty embarrassing, but the intentions were honorable. We accept criticism where it is due but we ask that all free peoples of the world acknowledge that things would probably be much worse for them if this country were not the force it has been for the last 100 years.

Second, our impending attack on Iraq is about oil but not only about oil. So what? We import very little oil from Iraq. The same can't be said about several nations of the E. U. Hummmm..... President Bush has just announced that this country's goal should be to work towards a hydrogen economy, one that would make the countries of the middle east a little nervous because all of their economies are based on the sale of oil.

Saddam Hussein does not present a DIRECT threat to the USA. His dislike of us, though, could and probably has made for strange bedfellows. Both he and Osama bin-Ladan and/or his followers could utilize the low-tech weapons that Saddam has failed to prove Iraq has destroyed.

I trust your MI5 and our CIA when it comes to intelligence. I feel much of the evidence is known to those who are in a position to do something about it, but not the regular guy in the street like you and me. I feel that taking a proactive approach towards the evil in the world is much better than reacting to an attack by that evil. It is totally possible that, right now, some of England's most cherished sites and people are in the cross-hairs. A proactive approach teaches the world that we mean business and we will go to any length to protect our citizens and those of our allies. We are not going to wait around for another attack, hoping in the mean time we can change the minds of those who want us dead.

The playground bully is less likely to pick on the guy who is known to likely punch back. Saddam Hussein is a known bully; actually, much worse. There is already a provisional Kurdish government operating in Iraq's north where Saddam is hated for the atrocities he has perpetrated on the people there. These tend to go under-reported by most of the press. The people of Iraq will see us much as the people of Afghanistan do. Things won't be perfect in the short term but they will be better in the long run.

I know the USA and its allies have supported Saddam in the past. We have made mistakes. If we eliminate Saddam now, nobody will know whether he would have had the potential to become even more powerful or dangerous. Given his past record, I would rather take him out now instead of later when the consequences of not acting may be dire. This is the lesson of World War 2. Winston Churchill would be on our side were he around to see this.

Whether you agree with my reasoning or not, I appreciate this forum. If you do disagree, please do so with facts, reason and without resorting to the same old cliches. I do believe we are on the right side here. What type of world do you want to live in? One where we live constantly with people that advocate our murder? I choose to live in a world where we can work with people in the name of liberty and peace. Saddam Hussein and the extremists that live in the middle-east are not people we can negotiate with. They want us dead. We are at war whether you like it or not. Unfortunately, it boils down to kill or be killed. I choose to defend my life in this war.

John
Brier, Snohomish County, Washington State, USA

During or before the last world war the UK was bankrupt! The Empire was unravelling and it was clear that the country would not survive a prolonged attack by the German forces. The US saw and took many advantages from this and notwithstanding they lost many of their own they came in side by side with the British. Now this help did not come cheap and I believe even to this day the UK is still repaying it's obligations. But the British Lion became a toothless entity and it had to make way for the new kid on the block the mighty USA. But I believe it went much deeper that just financial and physical help. I think somewhere in the Foriegn Office there lies a secret protocol which perhaps say Churchill signed. This states that the UK government will ALWAYS support the actions of the US come what may. So if this is the case then clearly there is no way the policy of the UK government will change. So we can all huff and puff but there is no way the UK policy will change whoever is in charge!