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

Okay, I know that everybody already knows there were no WMDs and that Saddam had no capability to construct any, but I would think that the White House announcing this fact -- especially without any apology -- would be a bit more of a headline story.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050112/w011232.html

Perhaps they are taking their well-trodden path of "It's been covered elsewhere, so why bother" which saves them from having to admit that, when the rest of the Universe was saying that there were no WMDs, they were towing the Bush Admin. "There are WMDs and were a'gonna find 'em." barge.

Bush and Blair should, of course, have made the case of regime change in Iraq some of us had been making for a long time - the fact that the regime had murdered thousands of it's citizens and killed approx 100,000 putting-down the 1991 uprising, that the regime was plainly unwanted by the Iraqi people but that they had no capability to remove it themselves (as was seen in the 1991 uprising), that the sanctions that were in place as a direct result of Saddam Hussein being in power (which the Iraqis could do nothing about) were punishing the Iraqis (approx 500,000 dead through sanctions) but not Saddam Hussein (and therefore agreeing to sanctions but not regime-change (as the UN did) was immoral) and that the Ba'athist regime was supporting suicide-bomber terrorists in Israel and Palestine.

All of those, in my opinion, are sound reasons for regime change and should have been sound reasons in 1991 when Bush's father betrayed the Iraqi uprising in a typically Reaganite piece of short-sighted opportunism.

"Perhaps they are taking their well-trodden path of "It's been covered elsewhere, so why bother" which saves them from having to admit that, when the rest of the Universe was saying that there were no WMDs, they were towing the Bush Admin. "There are WMDs and were a'gonna find 'em." barge."

I think it's quite telling that the Bush administration has got off so lightly over this. Bush (unlike Blair) made the case for war as, first and foremost, protecting the United States. Whilst I believe it was correct for Saddam Hussein to be removed from power, I now doubt very much he was a credible threat to the United States (Iraqis, yes, Israelis, yes (see above) but not the USA) so Bush's *stated* prime reason for war has been demonstrated as false. Conservative America has a track-record of castigating Presidents that get American troops killed in foreign wars that are not about American interests first and foremost (see Somalia) so why has Bush got off so lightly? I'm no expert, but American politics strike me as very tribal and I get the feeling that because Bush is a Republican it is assumed he would never do anything not, first and foremost, in America's primary interest and so those who, ideologically, should be attacking him feel compelled to defend him. If John Kerry had invaded Iraq on exactly the same premises, I suspect the "red staters" would be foaming at the mouth with fury, alongside Michael Moore and all the usual suspects.

I agree Zagreb with pretty much everything you're saying. Before 9/11 an international effort was begun to creat the international legal framework which would not simply allow but require the community of nations to intervene in a country such as you describe Iraq to have been. The report of the International Commission came out shortly after 9/11 (I'm sure you've seen me link to that report elsewhere). Sadly, I fear that Bush's unilateralism (thinly veiled behind the "coalition of the willing") has set back for years or decades the wonderful hope that the Commission represented.

"Sadly, I fear that Bush's unilateralism (thinly veiled behind the "coalition of the willing") has set back for years or decades the wonderful hope that the Commission represented"

I'm not that pessimistic. If there really was a desire, internationally, to shake off the old Cold War ideas about the role of the Internationally Community in a nation's internal affairs then I hope they press ahead with it - and I hope America joins us.

One of the most important developments the European Union should be pursuing is the formation of the Rapid Reaction Force - a pan-EU force drawing troops from member nations (and presumably as an alliance within NATO). Unfortunately, the EU is too busy dealing with tedious things such as the EU constitution. As someone (I forget who) said "There is too much talk about what Europe should *be* and not enough about what Europe should *do*".

I think the Bush/Fox attack on the UN is beyond unhelpful, as well.

I hope your optimism borne out, Zagreb.

"I think the Bush/Fox attack on the UN is beyond unhelpful, as well"

I know a lot of criticism of the UN is ideological in intent, but the UN deserves a lot of the attacks made on it. In recent years, it has proved ineffectual and overly-concerned with talk rather than action on matters of humanitarian urgency (Iraq being just one of those). Often, such as in Yugoslavia, it has taken a non-UN agency to do the job the UN should have been doing. Personally, I think the United Nations is the only way to ensure the universality of basic liberal values (including human rights) but in order to do that it must become an organisation of action, not talk, and must not pander to special interests. If, to do that, it needs to be knocked-down and re-built from the ground-up then so be it.

I think Mudhooks explaine it all very well in post 3 along with Zagreb in post 4.

I never bought the president's rationale for war. I think Zagreb's reasons make a lot more sense. That's what justified it to me. As long as the president was doing what I wanted, I wasn't going to look too closely at his stted reason. That may be the reason that the conservatives haven't been very critical of the president.

I haven't much to add except that the insurgents have used chemical weapons. They haven't done so effectively.

Isn't the official announcement to take place tomorrow? I'll be interested to see how that goes and if it get's more than 40seconds air time.


"In recent years, it has proved ineffectual and overly-concerned with talk rather than action on matters of humanitarian urgency (Iraq being just one of those). Often, such as in Yugoslavia"

What are those who like to bad mouth the UN afraid of? Aside from their salavating over Iraq, the only example they ever produce is Yugoslavia.
I know the slavs much perfer the UN peace keepers to the uranium shells left behind by nato.

Bain, are you a fellow Irishman? You mention marksmanship, are you in the army like me? I don't think so, because if you were you would know how the UN operates at the higher levels. Firstly, an Irish army investigator sent home 55% of UN police in Liberia on one occasion for corruption. He was then sent home, as the UN was worried that their forces were too spread out. Also, during my OWN posting in Liberia, I saw the following: UN officials (some seen on TV during the Iraq campaign) parading CHILDREN on a UN boat, choosing which ones they would rape. That is no word of a lie, friend. The UN are such a complex bureaucracy that operatives at any level are able to function invisibly, and while they do good by stopping people from fighting in civilian areas (by fighting them in civilian areas if they appear) they do massive amounts of damage to any country they go to.

I thought the package on newsnight (2nd segment) was interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

In particular Paxman's patient savaging of Eric Joyce (17m.09s on RealPlayer) "labour loyalist" as he was introduced, for the later's ignorance of the text of resolution 1441, the breach of which became Joyce sought to remind Paxman was the reason for going to war. Paxman dourly read out the opening line of 1441 which names the "threat Iraq's non-complience with council resolutions and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses to world peace."

In view of todays hush-hush admission of what most people speculated about since the start: that there were NO WMD's - to continue to argue that 1441 contains within it all the justification for war when it is as falliable to the absent weapons or 'Figments of Mass Hysteria', seems to me to be frankly laughable and ultimately rather tragic, considering the sheer number of lives that have been offered up to support the worst case of bad foreign policy in years.
Not least if as memory serves there was no unanimity over what 1441 *meant*, oh it garnered unanimous backing for promising "serious consequences" for the aformentioned breaches - that is true and much vaunted but it was at that point that consensus failed to be reached and thus was born that abomination that was the 'coalition of the willing.'

--------

There was a slogan I saw in the American election: 'if your not outraged, you've not been paying attention.' It is a sentiment I agree with.

Should this be a bigger issue? Absolutely. Should heads roll for this? I wish they would. However, we are now so far in advance of that decision, insurgency and elections (a mere 2 weeks hence, fact fans - my that came around quick didn't it?) it is something of a moot point, sadly.

I'm still all for kicking Blair in the teeth come polling day, since its the only chance I'll get to tell him what a duplicitous B'd I think he is. I have been paying attention and I'm mad as hell.

I do not hold out much hope that that will make a difference.

So it should! I did hear that on the BBC WS this morning - and it warmed the cockles of my little ...

If you want to kick blair in the teeth, there is currently only one effective way to do it. at the general election, vote liberal democrat.

the conservatives have now committed so many own goals that they cannot defeat labour at the next election, and are also failing to be an effective opposition, having agreed with labour so often that they have no credibility when they try and hold them to account.

if enough people vote liberal democrat, then they will become the official opposition, and stand a chance of defeating labour next time.

Update - I watched the TV news on both channels tonight (which wasn't easy!) Both mentioned this story - and with a bit of excuse-making for Bush! As if there can *be* any excuse!

Vote conservative! oh my that's funny.

Of course I'll be voting Lib dem.

I think what really makes me wildwas when they aired a clip of Bush last night saying somethign like: "Saddam continues to relentlessly pursue weapons of mass destruction. Faced with such peril, the United States must act we cannot ignore the possibility of a smoking gun...when the smoking gun may come in the shape of a mushroom cloud."

What part of that entire speech is accurate?

how is that kind of incendiary language a rational appraisal - given what we know now to be true.

How come no-body has been made in anyway culpable for stoking the fear of attack by indulging the fears of apocalyptic destruction?

Blair fared no better: there was clip of him saying something like: "to all the people who think this is a fantasy cooked up by us I say to them wait until the Iraq survey group reports and then well see."

Well he started rowing back from that one at the Labour Party conference last year - but I think it merits at the very least an apology and what is more if Blunket can go for miss-handling visas of Beverely Hughs can resign for miss-leading parliament or Estelle moris can resign for not handling her office compentantly - I suppose its a little much to ask the primeminster to consider his positon for missleading parliament and the nation into going to war?

that sould be "or Beverley Hughes's "

Perhaps they were hoping that people would still be so caught up with the Tsunami disaster that they wouldn't notice this particular news item?

Given that this *isn't* exactly 'news' to anybody anymore . . .

Scumbags.


az

When I watched the news they were talking about 'america's loss of credability'

Then it occured to me that those who believed in the face of reality and weapons inspectors from the 90s and the lead up were sycophants anyway.

<>

True, Bain...