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

I think Saddam is a different threat now from the 1980s. Back then he was only interested in keeping Iran at bay (hence the Western support) then in 1990 he thought his client-state could somehow gain control of all the oil in the Middle East (the US may have been smarting about Kuwait, but it was Saddam turning his eyes on Saudi Arabia's oil fields (Saudi has by far the largest oil reserves in the middle east) that steeled any resolve).

Since then, he may or may not have backed terrorism against westerners and may or may not have WMD's to use against (probably) Israel. We simply don't know and the sad fact is the UN-inspectors can't really tell us for definite.

I agree about NATO and Robertson. Robertson is a pathetic stooge and NATO is certainly more aggressive these days. What is interesting is the fact that Europe has taken more control in NATO (The Yugoslavia war was all about European interests (refugees) and there was a successful European-led NATO operation in Macedonia recently). The aggressive stance might be down to the ineffectualness of the UN which has proved itself hopeless at dealing with crisis situations (see the Yugolslav wars and Rwanda). It's all-too-easy to decide that NATO is being belligerent and ignore a hopeless UN. Iraq might be the final nail in the coffin of the organisation as any sort of moral or political force and it must take some of the blame for that itself.

"Bush is not an intelligent man, but that doesn't stop him making intelligent decisions."
How is that possible?

"How is that possible?"

If the decisions are not taken for him. He just, effectively, rubber-stamps them. The whole "war with Iraq" thing is almost certainly not something Bush cooked-up himself.

Oh I see.
Somebody else makes the intelligent decisions for him.

"Bush's major problem is US isolationism."

Laughable. If the US is so isolationist, how do you explain that we've tromped through another "humanitarian intervention" on other continents every two to three years for the last decade? Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, continuous bombing in Iraq ever since the Gulf War. Does this sound like a nation that shies away from fights in other countries? I doubt we'll see any US troops in Africa after that PR blunder in Somalia, but the US is one of the least isolationist, one of the most involved in other nations' affairs militarily, of any nation in the world. Has there been a five year period in the last thirty or fifty years during which the US has not devoted troops or resources to a conflict in some other country?

Bush's problem with selling this war is that most people don't believe Saddam is a special case. He might have sold you on the notion that stopping Saddam will prevent Iraq from attacking other nations and oppressing his own people. Most of the rest of us can see that he's little threat to anyone outside of Iraq, and that there are other equal dictators around the world about whom Bush is conspicuously quiet. Bush's timing is so transparently convenient, everyone can see he's resuming the Gulf War right now not because it's necessary, but because he can get away with it in this political climate post 9/11.

'I suspect the Republicans knew an economic downturn was coming up and weren't going to choose one of their "big hitters" for the 2000 election...'

I don't know their motivation for choosing him, but at least we can agree on being stupefied by this choice of candidate. It still confounds me that the Republicans couldn't find a more intelligent-sounding candidate in the whole nation. Not that I want them to win, but they have others who at least sound intelligent.

The UN's decisions regarding Iraq will definitely seal my opinion of whether they are "a moral or political force," whether they can take a moral stand against US military aggression or if the whole point of their existence is to give the appearance of international endorsement of US actions.

I think stopping people like saddam was one of the reasons the United Nations was set up. however it is not a role they have seemed to have persued to often.

If it had been another nation who had been calling for war with Iraq (Britian on its own, or France, or Germany) there probably would be more people in favour, however seeing as its the U.S. it looks more like they are trying to show their muscles to the rest of the world.

""Bush's major problem is US isolationism."

Laughable. If the US is so isolationist, how do you explain that we've tromped through another "humanitarian intervention" on other continents every two to three years for the last decade? Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, continuous bombing in Iraq ever since the Gulf War. Does this sound like a nation that shies away from fights in other countries?"


Non-isolationist does not constitute picking fights with other countries. It'll be like calling a school bully (who spends his time picking fights and intimidating people) an extrovert! In human terms, people who use violence to solve conflict often lack the social skills (and sometimes the mental capacity) to resolve conflict through peaceful means.

Here's a partial list of foreign interventions since 1990 that "isolationist" Americans have not raised much ruckus about, if they noticed at all:

IRAQ
1990-?

KUWAIT
1991

SOMALIA
1992-94

YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94

BOSNIA
1993-95

HAITI
1994-96

CROATIA
1995

ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97

LIBERIA
1997

ALBANIA
1997

SUDAN
1998
(Missile attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.)

AFGHANISTAN
1998
(Missile attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.)

IRAQ
1998-?
(Bombing intensified during Operation Desert Fox)

YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?

MACEDONIA
2001

AFGHANISTAN
2001

For a comprehensive list of US Military Interventions from Wounded Knee to Afghanistan, visit http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

Reading this list will be an eye-opener to almost everyone except hard-core students of History. How many times have troops been deployed to China? Russia? You'll probably be surprised.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030118/ts_nm/iraq_usa_protests_dc

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Americans opposed to waging war in Iraq rallied in Washington despite frigid cold on Saturday demanding the White House back down and give U.N. weapons inspectors a chance."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2671119.stm

"Mass rallies are taking place around the world to show opposition to any war against Iraq.

Demonstrations in Japan were followed by protests in Pakistan, the Middle East and Russia. Others are taking place in Europe and the United States.

One of the biggest protests is planned for Washington - ..."



GO PEACE!!!

"Here's a partial list of foreign interventions since 1990 that "isolationist" Americans have not raised much ruckus about, if they noticed at all:"

The Americans are isolationist. They're government isn't. The thing is, they have to justify things to the American people. This is why they had to stop fighting Vietnam. Americans got angry that "their boys" were fighting wars "over there" over things that didn't immediately concern them.

Wasn't there supposed to be a bunker of some sort
under one of the World Trade Towers in New York?
It's a good thing no one tried to take shelter
there on 9/11/2001.

Seriously, where can one go to escape this madness?

"The Americans are isolationist. They're government isn't."

How many Americans have you met again Zagreb?

http://rootingoutevil.org

"The Americans are isolationist. They're government isn't."


That is just simply incorrect. Based upon my experience of living in America for the last 20 months I can assure you that the vast majority of American I have met have been far from isolated from the rest of the world. The government has been correctly labelled as isolationist by many because of its belligerance on the international front; its refusal to join the International Court, its refusal to honour agreements and sign treaties (e.g., Kyoto), its arrogance and hyposcrisy to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and its threats to 'go it alone' in Iraq. I really don't see how anyone could call the US government anything but isolationist...

Ste

"That is just simply incorrect. Based upon my experience of living in America for the last 20 months I can assure you that the vast majority of American I have met have been far from isolated from the rest of the world. The government has been correctly labelled as isolationist by many because of its belligerance on the international front; its refusal to join the International Court, its refusal to honour agreements and sign treaties (e.g., Kyoto), its arrogance and hyposcrisy to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and its threats to 'go it alone' in Iraq. I really don't see how anyone could call the US government anything but isolationist..."



Hear, hear!

http://rootingoutevil.org


Cool link......hence the copy.....

careful... Termershi's post yesterday containing that link got 'ed.

---------

Zagreb “Or will he attempt to rule Iraq as an unofficial colony (inviting terrorist actions against US troops there)”

Language hijacking again? Why you describe is a military ocupation force. How exactly does attacking a military force ruling your country constitute terrorism?

----------

Dirtydingo “I think stopping people like saddam was one of the reasons the United Nations was set up. however it is not a role they have seemed to have persued to often.”

Um, no it wasn't. It was setup to prevent the kind of military action the US perseues

The links is greatreminds me of the commission on human rights report that *China did on the US* after China was sited as inhumane by US.

the gov admitted gasing the citzens in several experiments during the 60's the death penalty we lack health care massive education failures *knowing* Saddam had gases last time around and NO proper equipment for the troops these are a few of the human rights problems in the US sorry wandering off topic again....