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

Great Op-Ed piece in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/opinion/29DOWD.html

Starts with:
"WASHINGTON ? The awful part is that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein were both staring into the same cracked spook- house mirror.

Thanks to David Kay, we now have an amazing image of the president and the dictator, both divorced from reality over weapons, glaring at each other from opposite sides of bizarro, paranoid universes where fiction trumped fact.

It would be like a wacky Peter Sellers satire if so many Iraqis and Americans hadn't died in Iraq.

These two would-be world-class tough guys were willing to go to extraordinary lengths to show that they couldn't be pushed around. Their trusted underlings misled them with fanciful information on advanced Iraqi weapons programs that they credulously believed because it fit what they wanted to hear."

Brilliant. Sad, but brilliant.

Ste

This post has been removed.

What I was trying to get at is how far do any of us think our own nations Goverment amd leaders would have to go towards being dictators by force or duping us with propoganda and misinformation before we would welcome a foreign army to free us of their tyranny?

Being in neither the US or UK, I feel comfortable translating BB's question from a few posts ago. As I understand it, the question was roughly this:

"Since it was okay to oust dishonest Saddam by force, is it okay to oust dishonest Tony and George by force."

Is that about right BB?

Now, after that little public service, I'm going to take my own advice. Perhaps I'll come back in February.

In the US? Now.

The UK? Wait til the next Tory govt.

Ste

"OK a question to UK and US poster but anyone can answer really.

Givent that one claim to justification (if you can call it that) for the Iraq occupation is that it ousted a leader who was dishonest and undemocratic. Given the way that Bush and Blair have behaved in terms of honesty and democracy lately how far or have they gone far enough that you would welcome an invasion that deposed a dishonest leader that had sent people to their deaths and ignored the will of the people?"

Hmmm, what you seem to be saying is: 'do Bush and Blair deserve to be deposed in the same way that Saddam was?'

The answer must be no.

Bush and Blair have blatantly lied to their people and to the world. They are lying, cheating autocrats who are responsible for thousands of needless deaths. So by their own standards they deserve to be invaded and forcibly deposed. But therein lies the problem. If their standards are to become acceptable morality becomes a thing of the past and the law of the jungle applies.

Nations are sovereign and for one nation to invade another for the purpose of taking out a government it finds unacceptable is nothing more than an act of terrorism. No outcome can possibly justify that kind of action because that action establishes a dangerous precedent. Dangerous because it implies that one nation has the right, or ability, to sit in moral judgement over another.

There's also the fact that outcomes are never absolutely certain and and it can never be said with certainty that the result of deposing an undesirable leader will be a desirable one.

So, yes, that which bush and Blair have done is easily as horrendous as anything that Saddam Hussein has ever done (worse when you consider their greater power and influence). But, no, for them to be treated the same way that Saddam was is not appropriate.

Let's hope the world never sinks to the level of finding that kind of thing acceptable.

"Since it was okay to oust dishonest Saddam by force, is it okay to oust dishonest Tony and George by force."

Ta trunt

The UK and US lied as a pretext to war, which is pretty bad as things go. But nothing they have done has been as bad as Saddam's past. Chemical warfare, torture, (I was going to say invading other countries at will, *ahem*), terrorising the populace. The whole political set-up of Iraq just didn't compare with the democracies of the UK and US. In the US the political pendulum will swing back towards some sanity one day, so I don't think any blue-helmets are necessary just yet. Blair is moderate enough, I just have no idea why he went so enthusiastically for this war, it's bizarre.

Ste

I don't think Blair is in the same league as Saddam, ES. Bush/the US establishment I'm not so sure about. I've said before I wouldn't like to see what Bush might be capable of without the constraints of the constitution, still less Saddam with as much military clout as Bush.

But I agree that consistency demands that if you're opposed to the invasion of Iraq you'd be opposed to any other invasion. And I'm certainly not ready for the UK to be invaded.

Hi Ste.

Noggin

I agree, Blair is not in the same league as Saddam/Bush. Except by association.

AGA TCG CTA GAT CGC GAA TAG GAT TCC
UCU AGC GAU CUA GCG CUU AUC CUA AGG

Ser Ser Asp Leu Ala Leu Ile Leu Arg

S S D L A L I L R

hmmm, that's all I can get. Any more clues?

dave

I thought it was a bunch of nonsense after his name, frankly. I'll see Ste tonight though, and ask him to explain it...I'm one of those humanities people, see, and science just makes me nervous.

I don't think the US or UK should be invaded, any more than I thought Iraq should be invaded. So no, please no more violent overthrows of sovereign governments, thanks. If Tony keeps going the way he's been going, you don't need to worry about him much longer (I'd say he's got six months, even with the close of the Hutton inquiry). And unless every single person in the US is truly brainless (yes, I know, there's a frighteningly large majority of them), Shrub should be a lame duck by the end of the year.

Oh, still not liking my options. John Kerry scares me. I think it's the perfectly coiffed hair. Or perhaps his insider-ness. Or perhaps it's just because the man is a republican in all but name.

Montana, which democratic big names do you consider not republican in name only?

dave

Well there's Homer...Homer Simpson. Them there's Lil...who else?

£27 decimal 2 billion per year Dave...BBC income from punters in UK alone.

very interesting...

Think so...not boring, not sad, not amazing, but just interesting?
Our troops go without proper kit. We have to pay for others get for free.

Oh, I see, Dave - you're claiming it was "humour - awk awk..." Well, sorry, the joke fell flat.

huh? I think Kerry is a republican in democratic clothing, as is, possibly, Edwards. Dean, Liberman and Clark are actual democrats, although I think Clark's a little closer to center.

is that what you meant?

<>
Oh dear! Sarge is *never* intemperate, or insulting. No? Then what is the above?
Snapped. What more can I say?

Yes Della and people I thought were reasonable people seem to be ok with it.