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

"There is an obvious flaw. If being anti war is anti american. Then what about all the americans who were anti war?"

You have your own obvious flaw. I never said opposing the war was anti-American. I said *some* of the anti-war movement struck me as anti-American.

*You have your own obvious flaw. I never said opposing the war was anti-American. I said *some* of the anti-war movement struck me as anti-American. *

You are right Zagreb it is ever apparent in those who would oppugn anything with a association with the United States even to the point of nearly diefying a murderous tyrant.

Blatherskate, the references were outdated for a purpose. I merely wanted to point out that information was prevalent when the conflict was being justified. As to the future, I look forward to what it brings.

As far as bringing down tyrants, I am surprised most of you believe Saddam was the only or even the best choice.

And just in passing and in regard to the effectiveness of the UN, here is just some of what a country with one tenth of the population and resources of the US has done within the system:

http://www.50more.com/50mnewsweb/news/1147.htm

Blatherskite - "They're simply reducing the scale of the operation, because they don't expect to find weapons out in the open"

But now the US has free and unhindered access to all the scientists they wanted interviewed by UNMOVIC.

Plus just about everybody else that the US claimed was involved in the fabled weapons programme.

So why aren't these people telling the US where the 10,000 litres of anthrax etc are ? Why are they telling their interrogators that all the substances were destroyed many years ago ? They have every reason to cut a deal and 'fess up if they know anything...

Could it possibly be that what they are saying is correct ? That all WMDs were disposed of years ago ?

Robin Cook thinks so. Hans Blix thinks so. Tex Ritter thinks so. The former head of Iraq's weapons programme thinks so - http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

Why can't you accept the fact that we were all lied to ?

er...'cos it's not the truth.

alec.

"er...'cos it's not the truth."

er... based on, faith maybe?

Peachy: "Why can't you accept the fact that we were all lied to ?" When did you become omniscient? Why cant you admit you're jumping to conclusions?

And now that I'm done answering inflammatory rhetorical questions in kind, let's ask a real question... why did the Iraqis interfere with the inspections if they had nothing to hide?

I can remember just a few months back the anti-war people were Predicting a doom and gloom scenario. From the US being bogged down in a war filled with casualtys and human suffing beyond imagination to WW3. The Doom and gloom preachers whe shocked when the US walked into Bagdad and The city fell within days from start to finish less them a month.It happened so fast that these people are in shock.

Peachy accept it the war is over. Saddam was a murdering thug who brought Iraq to its knees and murdered its people for fun while looting its national coffers. Whether in your eyes the wars was justified or not surely you agree the Iraqis are better off without Saddam in power! ..................peachy?



Act 1 over. Message sent.
Operation 'Ideology Spigot' a hit!

Blatherskite, someone just told me you have a large barrel of anthrax in your basement. I'll be right over to search for it, do you mind? Actually heard Texas has it's own nuclear threat so my buddies and I will be there shortly to search for it. Don't worry, I have an OK by a third party to do it, so there is no international law problem or anything.

*Blatherskite, someone just told me you have a large barrel of anthrax in your basement. I'll be right over to search for it, do you mind? Actually heard Texas has it's own nuclear threat so my buddies and I will be there shortly to search for it. Don't worry, I have an OK by a third party to do it, so there is no international law problem or anything.*

This may be a closer anology: Starbirth we {the UN} have heard you has WMD on your property. Our security council represents the UN which in turn represents most of the world. It has voted unanymously since you have a past record of using wmd to search you property
We are going to send in some inspectors to go through your grounds and we reqiure you to help us. We also want to talk to your family with you not around to intimdate them. If you show us all your records and co-operate fully we will keep a coalition of over 40 nations from going in and forcing you to reply and also removing you from power.

Since I am not a murdering meglomaniac and want to continue living I would have cooperate.

My point was that Blatherskite in all probability does *not* have a barrel of anthrax in his basement any more than the Lone Star State has nuclear weapons. I am reasonably sure that he would kick up a fuss and *interfere* with me searching his home even though he has *nothing to hide*. Especially if he didn't particularly like me in the first place.

"You are right Zagreb it is ever apparent in those who would oppugn anything with a association with the United States even to the point of nearly diefying a murderous tyrant."

Starbirth's own version of 'you're with us or with them' That's lazy.

Let's see how thin we can stretch this metaphor, cl...

But if I'd already gassed my kids, I've lost my right to protest over your search. And if you have a court order to search, and I refuse to cooperate, you've got every reason to send in the police.

So, fussing and crying aside, it's in my best interest to just bite the bullet and let you search, so I can get you out of my house as quickly as possible. Besides, I need to go back to work... the rest of the kids are starving.

*So, what do *you* believe it was about birth? It was supposed to be about WMD! Are you saying you knew all along that was a lie?*

No not a lie Della. There are bio agents, gases and delivery systems in Iraq. Della were you not one of the people wanting to give more time to the inspections teams. Why the rush now that it is the americans looking for the WMD?

Opps I answered my own question.

*It must be a peace without victory. . . . Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser; a victor's terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last: only a peace, the very principle of which is equality, and a common participation in a common benefit.*
      - Thomas Woodrow Wilson, in an address to the U.S. Senate

Now I know some of you will see Wilson as a poor example in that he was an isolationist and generally against war, but his point about the *vanquished* should be taken in regard to a nation imposing more than just a dramatically new form of democracy on a citizenry of different legal, religious, and moral kind. Western democracy, Christian ideals, and our support of Israel will all leave a *...sting, a resentment, a bitter memory...* Wouldn't the rebuilding of Iraq be best left to countries of a similar kind, one that doesn't want to create a weapons platform or a chain of McDonalds?

Wilson was talking about the sort of punitive victory that closed WWI, and resulted in WWII.

At the end of WWII, the Allies tried it a different way. Instead of a punitive victory, they simply disarmed the combatants, and then forgave debts and helped them rebuild their nations. Japan and Germany have both been good citizens of the world since, so it seems to work.

The Iraq model is far more similar to the WWII model than the WWI model.

What do Christian ideals or support of Israel have to do with building a government in Iraq?

Just as there is a plurality in Christianity, there is a wide diversity in Islam (like African, Asian and Arab Sunnis, Asian Shiites, African and Asian Ahmadis). Like Christianity there are extremist and terrorists. The separation of religion and state is not as easily achieved in the Muslim world, since even moderate, liberal believers have an entirely different view of government than Westerners. Islamic legal theory (usul al-fiqh) is far different from our legal system and government (even democracies) have an entirely different base, one which is more tribal and less centralist, than most Christian governments. Saudi Arabia, North Yemen and Oman have largely evaded Westernization and maintained traditional legal systems applying Islamic and customary or local laws (three legal traditions play a part, civil law, common law, and Islamic law). To quote Frank E. Vogel, a noted expert in Islamic Law - * Islamic law exhibits pervasive concern with a distinct morality of property and exchange, summed up in the Qur'anic prohibitions of riba (interest), gharar (uncertainty), and akl al-mal bil-batil (unjust enrichment). This morality is the source of much of the law's systematic nature and many of its unique rulings.*

The governmental systems are based on these legal beliefs as well as some very different models. The first Islamic state was in Medina, until just after World War I. There was a Caliph, the leader of the Muslims, and an Islamic government briefly. In 1923 Islamic government ceased and ever since there have been struggles in the Muslim world to adapt or overthrow the Western and European models which were imposed on them. Lots of places have been successful but most have been a constant struggle between extremists and moderates, fanatics and liberals. The point is, who are we to say the dynamics are over and we are the people to lead them to a better system? Especially when that system is based on an alien belief system and pushed by a country who supports another country who is widely believed by them to be an enemy?


Rumsfeld has already ruled out the possibility of an Islamic government OF ANY KIND, even the moderate type of his allies.
http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/867638p-6058084c.html
Can you see the general populace accepting that with open arms and no suspicions?

The point of my Wilson quote was not to make an historical parallel, but to echo his sympathy for the vanquished who have done no wrong- the people of Iraq. Perhaps I should have used older quotes- *The people who remained victorious were less like conquerors than conquered.* (St. Augustine) Or even better (and who cannot benefit from advice from a dog)- *I feel sorry for someone who has to win at everything.* (Snoopy)

Sorry, I should have read the Rumsfeld quote more carefully, but the comparison to Pakistan and Turkey is widely held to be false since they have either a dictatorship with no sufferance of religious beliefs other than their own, as in Pakistan or a tettering democracy with it's own intolerance, such as Turkey and the Kurds. The Sunnis would take Kurdistan and convert it, the Turks would take it and annihilate them.
If Rumsfeld can find an alliance between all the ethnic and religious groups he will have to do it by force, rather than letting an Islamic group determine their own destiny.

"At the end of WWII, the Allies tried it a different way. Instead of a punitive victory, they simply disarmed the combatants, and then forgave debts and helped them rebuild their nations. Japan and Germany have both been good citizens of the world since, so it seems to work."

Agreed. The problem is do Rumsfeld et al have the suitable grasp of international politics and history that would make this workable in Iraq. The key idea is not to *impose* indefinitely. Although there will need to be at least another year of "interim government" (ie effective temporary colonial control), they will have to follow it up with a government the Iraqis will accept. Elected government works in the Islamic world (see Turkey, or even (to some extent) Iran), but Islam will need to be taken into consideration. Although I would agree with Rumsfeld that a hardline Islamic state is undesirable, a totally secular non-religious state on the US-model (and although the US has a christian majority, officially church and state are separate entities (and this is fairly unique, even in the West)) may be hard to implement and attempts to do so may be disasterous.