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

>Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens are the only two, so far, on the Left in the media <

I don't know about Nick Cohen, but I had always got the impression that Christopher Hitchens is on the left in the same way Tony Blair is - he's just pretending! (Or in the case of Hitchens, his conversion to tack-spitting libertarian RW fury is not so hidden.) Am I wrong?

"Fair enough, so how are we going to take action to remove Saddam Hussein, thus making the world "safe" for the Iraqis? I'm afraid it will take action of some sort."

I don't think action is what most people are against. You seem to be lumping togeather and ascribing motives to anyone who isn't willing to follow to the letter the US government will in this matter.

Action should not right of one or two nations ignorint their own populace. That never has good results.

I also belive that full scale war serves no other purpose that a 'big show'. The US government hasn't seemed to have trouble in the past with 'government change' without a big flashy war.

Someone else onece tried pushing the international community. He had a funny little mustache and wasn't challenged until taking poland.

I have wondered, Apparition, whether in 100 years, my (theoretical) great grand-daughter might be reading in her school history books, about the scourge of the 21st century, the world conqueror, dictator, and candidate for anti-Christ (as Napoleon and Hitler have both been called) - Dubya!

"I don't know about Nick Cohen, but I had always got the impression that Christopher Hitchens is on the left in the same way Tony Blair is - he's just pretending! (Or in the case of Hitchens, his conversion to tack-spitting libertarian RW fury is not so hidden.) Am I wrong?"

Are you sure you're not confusing Chris Hitchens with his right-wing (and not particularly libertarian, from what I've read) brother, Peter Hitchens? Chris Hitchens is definitely left-wing.

>Are you sure you're not confusing Chris Hitchens with his right-wing (and not particularly libertarian, from what I've read) brother, Peter Hitchens? Chris Hitchens is definitely left-wing.<

Possibly, but I am not sure I am confusing them. No offense, Zagreb, but you're pretty much centre-right. Are you sure you're not over-estimating the extent to which *Christopher* is left-wing?

Della is right. Christopher Hitchens is not usually regarded (by those on the left) as being left wing. He used to be, but he's been moving to the right in his old age.

By the way, I found a good quote, it's not about Nick Cohen but it is much the same sort of idea I was trying to get across: "Pro&#8209;war leftists sometimes write as if by their endorsing a war, their motives will determine the conduct of the war, in place of the motives of the U.S. government determining the conduct. But in the real world, when Washington (or any other state) goes to war, its motives, not those of pro&#8209;war leftists, prevail." (from [Broken link removed by Moderator], a worthwhile read)

Check out my space. I've got information about how you can help stop the possible war. U185266.

Cheers,
Vidmaster

On a day when the CIA tells the world that saddam poses no credible threat to the US, unless he's attacked;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

and MI5/6 finally tell us what we had known all along about links between Saddam and Al Queada;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,808843,00.html

I can only wonder what spurious reason wwe will be given next for the continuation of the war on terrorism.

"No offense, Zagreb, but you're pretty much centre-right"

No, I'm leftist with libertarian leanings. I support the welfare state, socialised medicine, corporate responsibility, public services, human rights (hence my position on Saddam). I am suspicious of corporate and state power. I believe in the sanctitiy of individual freedom, but I don't link it to economic freedom and irresponsibility as the libertarian right sometimes do.

You assume I'm "centre-right" because of my comments on this forum. This is typical of how the "liberal-left" has created a "year zero" as far as left-wing think goes, with a set-in-stone set of beliefs. According to this docrine you must be staunchy anti-war, even if a war would end human rights violations (this ignores that in the 1930s, many on the Left were pro-war - look at the example of the Spanish Civil War (in which the left also supported a (temorary?) armed citizenry)). I'm a free-thinker, I know what I believe in and I respond accordingly.

"On a day when the CIA tells the world that saddam poses no credible threat to the US, unless he's attacked;

I can only wonder what spurious reason wwe will be given next for the continuation of the war on terrorism."

Washington may insist this war is about disarming Saddam (as you said, the evidence that he has silos bristling with WMD is scant), but I see this as a war to remove a murdering dictator that (so far) only the Americans and the Israeli's want to prosecute. Nobody else has suggested a credible way of removing this despot, so why shouldn't we support the only people willing to do it?

I think you should take a look at history regarding reasons for wars. World War II doesn't sound so righteous when you say "We went to war with Germany to protect our soverignty and Empire" instead of "we removed a despotic regime that was butchering Jews and other minorities". Nonetheless, there are many people, some alive today, who would have been killed by Hitler if we hadn't attacked him for our own, selfish, reasons. No one ever goes to war for pure white moral reasons and it's pointless to critises the United States for having ulterior motives when every nation that goes to war does so too.

I think you'll find from my record on this site that I am one of a handful of researchers who have never sought to hide from the reality behind the causes of WWII.

Saddam isn't Hitler. I'm afraid the pro-war lobby pretty much lost any of my support when it became obvious that the trump card in their pack was 'But he's the new Hitler!' No he isn't. He has neither the power base, nor the money, not frankly the clout to be that dangerous to his neighbours. I think it was summed up in this thread when someone described him as the neighbourhood drunk.

It's pretty much like being the first person in any debate to use the term fascist to describe their opponent.

Well, there is an egomaniac involved here; unfortunately for the Hawks of the US it is not whom they'd like you to believe it is. As an American, I am ashamed, disgusted, and feel utterly helpless. What sickens me the most is how much in the minority I seem to be. Are any of my Legislators going to stand up and be heard? We are on the eve of a monumental power being granted to a madman--a wide, sweeping, univarsal leverage to anything he da*n well pleases and nobody here is going to do anything about it?! I don't know what to say.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6404

takes you to a big set of questions asked by a US senator...

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002.


1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may again attack the United States -- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the United States. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

33. Is it not true that since World War II, Congress has not declared war and -- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? "



And its no suprise to me that *that* speech aint widely publicised by the corporate media.

But there are dissident voices. Public opinion aint so pliant and war hungry as we are led to believe.

Thank you for that link, purplejenny. Rep. Paul raises some very good points with those questions.

As for you, King of the Jews, when you said "and nobody here is going to do anything about it?", did you read my earlier post? People are trying to do something about it. You can help too rather than just complaining about how nobody else is doing anything. It still isn't too late to act. Tell everyone you know about this, urge them to act quickly. Tell them to tell everyone they know as well, and to continue doing so down the line. Then something will start to happen.

I'm making a big deal of it on this site, because I know that people here care about issues like this, and will be willing to take action.

My personal space has information on contacting the government. You can copy and paste the letter I wrote, and I encourage you to do so if it will save you time.

Act before it's too late. Spread the word. U185266

THE NEW YORK TIMES 3:22 PM ET
The House voted 297 to 132 this afternoon to give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq.

[Unsuitable link removed by Moderator]



Ste

Oh S**t.

Hmm,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2315327.stm

I wonder if that one is acceptable?

Ste

"Washington may insist this war is about disarming Saddam (as you said, the evidence that he has silos bristling with WMD is scant), but I see this as a war to remove a murdering dictator that (so far) only the Americans and the Israeli's want to prosecute. Nobody else has suggested a credible way of removing this despot, so why shouldn't we support the only people willing to do it?"

Erm. Sharon and Bush want to attack Hussein. Sharon kills on a daily basis. His record of 'collateral damage' is horrific. When he was in power in the 80's he ordered soldiers into Palastinian refugee camps and had men, women and children slaughtered. Bush has sent many convicted criminals to their deaths, and during the Afghan slaughter, managed to kill over six thousand civilians (with a little help from his friends).

So being democratically elected makes murdering OK, because you're not a dictator as well? How does that work?

"Nobody else has suggested a credible way of removing this despot, so why shouldn't we support the only people willing to do it?"

Right. Good thinking. So you have a drunk guy shouting in the street, you think it's a good idea to get gangsters with machine guns to sort him out? Because the world would be a lot safer afterwards, wouldn't it?

I haven't read all the backlog on this, probably won't be able to keep up with the upcoming discussion in this thread. Just wanted to point out how some people in the media have been comparing current congressional vote about Iraq with the old "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." But at least with that fiasco, a naive person might have believed that we were retaliating against an attack on a US ship (whether or not such an attack ever really happened).

This time around, there's no pretense of retaliation. They didn't even bother to manufacture an instigating event, or hype up a little radar glitch as if it might have been an attack.

"Erm. Sharon and Bush want to attack Hussein. Sharon kills on a daily basis. His record of 'collateral damage' is horrific. When he was in power in the 80's he ordered soldiers into Palastinian refugee camps and had men, women and children slaughtered. Bush has sent many convicted criminals to their deaths, and during the Afghan slaughter, managed to kill over six thousand civilians (with a little help from his friends).

So being democratically elected makes murdering OK, because you're not a dictator as well? How does that work?"

When did I say Bush and Sharon were squeaky clean? What are you trying to say? I said that attempts to remove despots should be supported. The people who do it are never going to be angels. Since so many of you (rightly) don't trust Bush to support democracy in Iraq, why are you so keen for those nations strong enough to put pressure on America to stay out of any action and thus deny themselves any say? What good does that achieve?

""Nobody else has suggested a credible way of removing this despot, so why shouldn't we support the only people willing to do it?"

Right. Good thinking. So you have a drunk guy shouting in the street, you think it's a good idea to get gangsters with machine guns to sort him out? Because the world would be a lot safer afterwards, wouldn't it?"

Comparing Saddam to the "neighbourhood drunk" is a good way of ignoring the fact that he rules a country of several million, and he doesn't "shout" at them. Many of them he murders. Getting a bunch of "gangsters" to remove someone like that is acceptable, yes. The alternative is allow him to continue his reign of terror.