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

Joseph K. states:
"The trouble with Mr. Hussein and his country, Iraq, is that they are not so harmless. Maybe like a
speeding truck without brakes is harmless. (Add nitroglycerin as cargo for full effect)"

One problem with this statement. We cannot lump Hussein and the people of Iraq together. This is a mistake made by those who oversimplify the situation. It is also a popular method in government propoganda. They would want you to think that Iraq is composed of just one person: Saddam Hussein.

We cannot forget about the common people, the children, mothers, fathers, and familes that live in Iraq under great hardship due to western bombing and sanctions,.

I have to agree, America is not a evil rouge nation (look at all the countries we have helped), what we have now is leadership that is ready to do an unpopular but necessary action to once again help the people of our mostly harmless planet.

Which nations have you helped? Isn't the history of the last 50 years all about the contries you have destroyed or undermined? Did you 'help' Allende out of office? Did you 'help' 2 million Vietnamese people out of life? Were you 'helping' Korea, what about Panama or Grenada? You certainly 'helped' Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and indeed Suharto, and unfortunately as an Brit we did too, surely something to be ashamed of rather than a source of pride?

The truth about Sadam Hussain is that he is a tyrant, a terrible man who has lots of blood on his hands and has a history of using chemical weapons.

This does beg the question why on earth did we put him into power? Why did we take a relatively stable country such as Iraq and replace their King with Sadam Hussain?

Until 1991 when we (I'm British by the way and hate to acknowledge we were very involved) attacked Iraq the country had one of the highest levels of education in the Middle East. They had schools, hospitals and modern facilities. All brought about by Sadam? - I don't think so. These were well in place before we put him power.

So why? Well, of course it comes down to Oil. In the Middle East everything comes down to Oil. At the time we wanted him (America and Britain wholeheartedly supported him) fighting Iran, as long as these two were at each other’s throats we could happily take our oil from Saudi and leave them to it. It was also useful to have a healthy arms market.

It's true that Sadam had chemical weapons in the eighties. Well, America sold them to him so they should know. It is also true following the use of these weapons to kill 5,000 Kurds that British and American ambassadors went out there in full knowledge of these atrocities to sell him more weapons. Douglas Hird is photographed on a sofa with Sadam nailing down an arms deal some eight weeks after the event! According to Scott Ritter, the UN arms inspector appointed following the Gulf war he was disarmed at the time. The reason the inspectors were thrown out and not allowed into Sadams palaces? Because at every opportunity CIA agents were reportedly bugging everything they could find.

Since the war in 1991 we have enforced an illegal no fly zone over Iraq only stopping to allow Turkish planes in to attack Kurds and once to allow Sadam to use his helicopter gun ships to quell an uprising of Kurds (believe it or not he was allowed to keep his helicopter gun ships following the Gulf war 'in order to keep order'!!!)

Now we are faced with a situation where Iraq has been blown into the dark ages, really has very little to loose and there is an incredible (and understandable) anti-American feeling worsened by the regular bombing of the country since 1991 (yes we're still at it!).

My point is that yes, Sadam is a very bad man. Something needs to be done but by the Americans and the British? I think not! If we are serious about sorting this out then the American and British armies need to kept well clear. Maybe the UN could be left to do their job for a change and try to sort the situation out? There again maybe the spoils are too great - the last thing we want is the world’s second largest oil reserve to be freely administered by a non-puppet government.

The real sadness is that we support many despicable regimes, the suffering of the peoples of those countries are just not on the agenda.

I love the term 'regime change' as used in the war propoganda. Read a really interesting piece in 'War On Iraq' by Scott Ritter that states 60% of Iraqi's are Shi'a Muslims (the predominant religion in Iran), 23% Kurds and just 17% Sunnis (Hussiens religion). So what kind of 'democracy' do the Americans want to impose? Certainly not proportional representation of the religious groups there. My guess would be another puppet Sunni who will be allowed to continue much in the same vein as Hussein (though naturally with a pro-US approach to oil trading.

There are lots of countries that pose a greater threat to the health & safety of the people of the world. Top of the list comes the US. Next, I would put Israel. We mustn't forget the UK, of course.

The US has used chemical weapons, viz. agent orange, in Vietnam. US military personnel exposed to this chemical have received compensation for the illness caused thereby. As far as I know, the Vietnamese people, who, being in the drop zone, must have received higher doses than the US military, have received no compensation whatsoever.

The US is the only country to have used nuclear bombs in anger.

Perhaps we should ask the UN for a resolution demanding that the US decommission its WMD?

Dry.