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

What are your opinions concerning the war, GWTBhat?

~Aufilena

I'm of the opinion that I'm too ill-informed of the facts to hold a reasonable opinion. What's your opinion?

Or opinions.

As a result of sanctions, or as a result of Hussein not being able to cut his cushy salary to provide his people with some proper medical care?

Aufilena

I always feel ill-informed and ignorant. I must say that I am beginning to lean in favor of war, though.

Maybe that's just what 'they' want you to think.

I've heard people say this before, and have considered it. To me, the idea that "the people in the White House don't know any more than you do" is just a lame attept to stroke one's own ego and slam President Bush. If everyone has access to just as much information as the White House, then why bother to elect a president? America is not a total democracy, and there is a reason for this.

~Aufilena

'They' may well include your president too, mind ..

Hmm? Meaning "they" want to pull the wool over the president's eyes, or meaning "they" is also the president?

They is also the president.

It doesn't matter whether or not the president would have me believe that he has a whole bunch of inside information. I already believe it. It seems logical to me that the president would have access to more inside information than an ordinary citizen. Some people don't believe that. That is their perogative, but I think that it's a bit presumptuous and a tad egotistical to assume so.

I never said the war in afganistan was started for any other reason than to go after the al-qaeda who had set up operations there. I am under no illusion that the US acted to free afgani women or protect afgani civalians from a totalitarian fanatical goverment. These things however are the by product of the war and are a good thing.

Zagreb,

No, I don't know how much the day-to-day life of Afghans has improved since the war. I've heard that the interim government doesn't have much control over the whole country, so much of it is still run by regional warlords. I don't know if they're all new regional warlords, or the same people who ran the country under the Taliban. I know there were accusations against the Northern Alliance of rape and war crimes from long before the war, and these are presumably the people who once again run the North of the country. I've heard that girls are back in school, that women have experimented with removing their burqas, but that cultural feelings about burqas remain about the same.

As far as I know, the situation in Afghanistan is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

If the lives of the surviving Afghans are now better, was it worth the lives of those who died so we could approve their new leaders?

This is the same question we'll have to consider after your humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Will our choice for the new regime in Iraq be worth the many people who we will kill intentionally or accidentally?

"I find it hard to believe that you regard the Afghans as anything other than a handy statistic for your anti-interventionalism."

Let me get this straight. War helps people. My opposition to the war demonstrates that I don't care enough about people. In fact, I lie about having any concern for them, because I'm so concerned that US soldiers should remain at home?

Because war is good, peace is too dangerous? I think I'm getting it now. 2+2=5, right?

"Do you care about the many thousands killed by the Taliban and the civil war?"

The US and pals who you continue to defend did not take sides in the civil war to prevent the Taliban from gaining power. Doesn't this demonstrate to you that they didn't care either, until it became convenient and expedient for the US to make war?

"Do you care that thousands and thousands more would have died if there had been no intervention?"

You mean that the Taliban would have killed "thousands and thousands" of people, presumably more than the 3000 civilians and unknown number of "enemy combatants" killed in the 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan? No, I don't understand where you get that idea. The Taliban would have persecuted people unfairly, the same kind of thing that happens in other countries where your warriors do not bother to have humanitarian interventions yet. But do you think that the Taliban would have exceeded the number of civilians and military casualties by "thousands and thousands"?

Is this based on the premise that the Taliban is inextricably tied with al-Qaeda, and that al-Qaeda would have killed thousands and thousands of people if we had not attacked their "protectors," the Taliban? I do not believe the premise that the Taliban was closely tied with al-Qaeda. I'm not convinced that the Taliban was any more responsible for 9/11 than Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

You claim that our war in Afghanistan has prevented thousands of deaths. Al-Qaeda is still operating. Did we make a dent in their operations? We can't even prevent them from reorganizing training camps in the country we just invaded! We haven't prevented them from carrying out new terrorist attacks, as any idiot could have predicted ten years ago, knowing that al-Qaeda operates with independent cells in dozens of countries.

"Do you care that the Taliban oppressed and murdered it's subjects in the name of what is rightly described as Islamic Fascism?"

As if that was the purpose of the war?! Where were your noble installers of democracy when these atrocities of the Taliban became known several years ago? Because it's nothing new, and it's going on in other places around the world. Are your humanitarian warriors choosing sides in the various African wars right now? You are totally disingenuous to imply that those were the nobles aims of the US. You know that these things did not matter to the warriors you keep apologizing for, but you act as though their empire building has positive side-effects that make up for it.

I mean, if you have five hungry puppies and you kill one of them, then it will be easier to provide food for the remaining four. But was it right to kill that first one? If you're one of the surviving puppies, then it was a positive side-effect. The fact that something sorta positive came from the experience doesn't prove that killing puppies is a good or necessary thing, or that it was the only way to adequately feed the other four puppies.

You act like I'm wishing the other four puppies dead and that you care more about them, just because I continue to condemn the bombing of the first puppy.

I hope that democracy is possible in Afghanistan now. I'm doubtful, but I hope there will be enough positive, long-lasting side-effects of our invasion to make up for the people killed, and to make up for long-lasting negative side-effects, like unexploded bomblets that will maim and kill people there for years to come. I don't believe you care for those people, any more than you believe that I care for those people. I think you use them as statistics and poster children, the same way you believe I use them. I don't believe further discussion between us will be constructive.

Somebody's knickers are in a knot.

I just thought, if you had used spiders instead of puppies, your analogy wouldn't have been quite so emotionally charged.

The americans are getting it wrong... The war for oil is going nowhere;let them go for it and concentrate on the right side for us and the rest of the world...

emotional perspective is a favorite augument of some.

The birth of a star is automaticaly signing it's death and this is very easy to understand for everybody...The truth will come out and the majority of people will go for peace because a nuclear war would sign the end of the humanity.Only love will be able to save us...

To all the clever people in England, please go to BBC1 now and listen to stupidity in live!!!!

And he says we shoudn't ask ourselves these questions about existence or not, what a laugh!!! You should have seen all these muppets clapping at the end!!!Makes me sick...Sorry, going to bed...