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

First off, I'm not sure we need anyone's permission. We can act in our own interests. We've built up some sort of coalition. I expect that we are sharing infomration with some of our allies.

I don't really see what the problem is. We need intelligence, and we can't protect our sources (I say ours, but its probably mostly borrowed from others) if we expose our information.

If we were to share informoion with an international tribunal, that information would asuridly be in the hands of the enmey in minutes. That would compromise what limited intelligence assests that we do have in place.

A trial is probably in the distant future, if it will occur at all. Once we have the criminals rounded up, then we can start looking at declassifying our intelligence.

A little background on grand juries. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there's enough evidence to go to trial. The grand jury hears eveidence in secret and they're powerful investigative bodies. If the grand jury is satisfied that the government has probable cause that a crime has been commited, and the person named in the indictment commited that crime, then that person is indicted. If they haven't been arrest for the crime yet (which is common in federal investigations but rare in state cases) then a bench warrant is issued for the persons named in the indictment. Once the person is arrested, the person is bound over to the court for trial.

So the US state has blood on it's hands? So the US and others have committed acts of State-Terrorism? So there's massive amounts of hypocrisy here? So Henry Kissinger is a war criminal?

I already know this. I've known this for years. So have a lot of people. The point is:

THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED ON THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER AND IF SOMEONE CAN BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE FOR THAT THEN THAT IS A GOOD THING.

So there

This post has been removed.

Spanish president Juan José Lucas Giménez and Federico Trillo-Figueroa Martínez Conde, his defence minister, have not today announced plans to bring together a broad coalition of countries to support Operation Infinite Retribution and launch what has not been described as "limited military actions" against the British nation for harbouring and failing to hand over the Chilian terrorist General Pinochet.
British sources, if asked, would have claimed that after looking at all the evidence it was decided Pinochet was 'too ill' to stand trial and, anyway, was not even in the country.
The Spanish navy's concentrated build up off the coast of Cornwall, if it were there, would be ready for action and Spanish special forces are said not to be 'on English soil and preparing for action.'
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has stated that Pinochet "was a great friend of the nation" and denied his tenure as leader of Chile was characterised by brutality, killings, disappearances and general crimes against humanity.*
Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, dithered a bit, mentioned an 'ethical foreign policy' and then disappeared up his own arse, saying "it's really nothing to do with me govenor."


* This bit is actually true.

a very charming news message which is a bit true! Realy inspiring

Re: post 264. H2G2 now forbids the use of satire?

...and now they've made me look stupid by reinstating the post. I'll just ramble on to myself for a while.

You left a number of items out of your list including the slave trading, bombings at Dresden, nuclear bombing of Japan, Panama, Somolia, Grenada etc.... The litany goes on and on. I see your point. The US has done some horrific things in the last 200 years.

During that last 200 years of American history, every other country in the world has played nice with each other? No other countries have done horrific things to one another? What other lists do you have?

Zagreb,

the part in capitals is ALSO something everybody *knows*. The problem is : who will be brought to justice and how.

It is also true that thousands of innocent people die every year of hunger, exhaustion and poverty. I know there will be people here who will react by saying: "hey, there's a difference : this is a terrorist act." That's true as well, but do you really think these poor starving people care about that difference? This poverty also has a reason, and there are people -directly and indirectly- responsible for it. You think those people will ever be brought to justice?? No, they won't, because they're on the 'right' part of the world...

Now, for the justice you seem to want in order to take revenge: bombing Afghanistan is the answer? I don't think so. Because only more innocent people will die or suffer even more then they are suffering right now... There isn't a simple solution to this problem, and everybody knows that...

America haven't got much time to catch the man who lives in a cave and uses his cell phone to co-ordinate the destruction of the free world. (as some over-excited Yanks would have it). Life expectancy in Afghanistan is 47. Bin Laden is 43.

I'm pretty sure we only used nuclear weapons in Japan. I don't really recall any great crimes we committed in Panama, Grenada or Somalia. Somalia was a humanitarian mission.

Incidentally, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate targets.

Two-bit, since WW2 Yankeeeland has been involved in 30 declared and undeclared wars. The invasion of the tiny island of Grenada was the only one in which the the Yanks were the undisputed winners.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate targets for conventional weapons. The use of nuclear weapons against women and children was a war crime - as has been acknowledged by many American leaders/thinkers in the years since.

TBTP Moron

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate, then you have just justified the bombing (planing, sorry) of WTC, Pentagon and Pennysyl-something. We dont know (publicly) who did it but they must have had a bone to pick with the US. In the absence of evidence then we dont who they are and what bone they had to pick. You know if u thinklike that, we should not discuss this thread coz u provide scientific proof to its legitimacy.

Now another citizen of the Us claims up there that Somalia was a humanitarian mission? How do u go and insist you want to help people who have made it clear they dont want their help? And on top of all that insult them by suggesting that it was "humanitarian"!

Did I say I was amazed? Boy am I amazed.

LOOn? Hiding behind an adder are we

Defender of the voiceless

Yeah, of course we should deal with the problems that mean that thousands die from poverty etc. That's what the UN is *supposed* to be doing, but seeing as the only part of the UN that seems to have any real power is the WTO (Ooh, I wonder why?) they don't get much done beyond rhetoric and the odd parcel of dried potato dropped over the Congo. This is something the world really needs to sort out, the First World has spent too long ignoring the problems of the Third and their problems are starting seep into the rich nations.

Bomb Afghanistan? Of course not! , there's nothing *to* bomb. They should really send in ground forces or special forces to deal with Bin Laden and his Taliban supporters. And, whilst we're on the subject, topple the Taliban and let a government of sane people in. None of this "confine them and keep them powerless" rubbish that was done to Iraq. That just led to regular US raids on Iraq, killing civilians (and, lets be honest, the Western power structure regards arab lives as less important than european lives) and making sure Iraq stays weak. Unfortunately, this lead to massive hatred of the West in the middle east and swelled the ranks of "Holy Warriors". The hostile governments in Iraq and Afghanistan need toppled, not "confined". The west needs to treat these people they way it would white people.

If we were at war, the Pentagon would be a legitimate target. The WTC wouldn't be. If a country is willing to escalate a war to the use of nuclear weapons, I don't think that anyone could call it a war crime to use one on Washington. There's a variety of military targets in and around the city. Your going to kill a lot of civilians, but that's really just collateral damage.

Some people disagreed with the use of the weapon. Even Eisenhower didn't care for it. It wasn't a war crime, and I don't care what kind of leftist American thinkers say it was. This is America, you can find some idiot to say anything you want.

The rest of the world baffles me. You want to us to help in a totally chaotic situations like Rwanda. When we do go into a situation like that, as we did in Somalia, then we're criticized. That's why I'm an isolationist. Let the rest of the world go to hell, we'll stay back here and sell arms and food to whoever has money. I wish FDR hadn't dragged us into to this whole superpower thing. You people are crazy.

Somalia started out as a purely humanitarian mission. Leaders in the US Somalia community were practically begging the US to go in. There was no strategic value to Somalia. The US got caught up in playing the world policeman and went into a situation that took hundreds of years to develop and couldn't be fixed in one month. After losing US lives we got out...

Loony

People who have actually lived in those caves say he is not living in those caves. All reported pictures of him show him to be fairly clean and not lice ridden as people who live in those caves are.

Two bit

After listening to many of the post here I agree. Damned if you do Damned if you don't. Maybe Pat Buchanan and his wacky isolationist views are the way to go.

Two-bit, Yankeeland is only keeping the superpower seat warm until China gets its act together. (About 10 more years)

Going by Dubya's announcement that the way to make aeroplanes safer is to carry more guns aboard them, I see those old-style Yank leaders/thinkers are still involved in setting policy.

President Bush has opposed the pilots union request to allow pilots to carry firearms. He has approved money for more Federal Air Marshals. What's unreasonable about that?

I think pilots should be flying the plane rather than fighting. What we need is a substantial door with a substantial lock.