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

I'm not sure that the NRA has a postion on warfare.

Well so I did write that. What do you know? I tend to be a little flipant (is that the right word) in how I write. I consider war to be very serious business. Not grave, but serious.

I often inject levity into deadly serious situations. I'm tempted to offer an example, but it would take us off topic. Heck, here's one that's on topic:

During Desert Storm, I was the first person in my battalion to cross the boarder into Iraq; my crew and I were the first ones to take prisoners; and I was the first person in my battalion, possible the entire corps, to fly a kite over occupied Iraq.

How did you feel about invading a country purely for financial gain?

I rather doubt Mr. Moron made much money on the trip...

Actually, I did alright. I recieved comabt pay, and all my pay was tax exempt. I wound up blowing it all shortly after my return. I returned in April, and I was dead broke by June. I was lining up rows of nickles ina bar before someone took pity on me and bought my buddy and I a pitcher of beer.

And, that's the story of how I learned to tolerate beer.

Not exactly what I meant....

How did you feel about invading a country purely for US Economics & V8 Engine Fuel Prices?

I don't think Iraq really had that in mind when they invaded Kuwait. I think they just wanted to possesss all that oil so they could sell it.

Iraq was retaliating for, and tryiny to stop the kuwaiti's drilling oil wells at an angle to reach iraqi reserves and was blatantly stealing it as they'd exhausted most of there own reserves!

Z.

I don't think that justifies invading another nation.

I do think that an invasion of a sovereign nation; interfering with the international trade of oil, an essential resource; and destabilizing the entire region does justify war. We fought the war for the limited objective of restoring our sovereign trading partner and reducing Iraq's ability to reinvade.

I think we should have done more. By allowing Hussein to stay in power and continuing to impose sanctions we've wound up with an expensive unworkable embargo, and Hussein has been able to rebuild his army and thumb his nose at the US.

Expensive ? Hmm.. 1 Million people died mainly sick children and old ladies. Sadam still in power... but hey yeah your car fuel price is much more important.

The US put Sadam in his job and you chose to leave him in his job. He shot his predecessor in the head with a 9mm in parliment and the US supported him "A Man we can do business with". The US produced almost all the weapons that killed people both the 162 friendly fire casualties and the 10,000 odd Iraqi and US casualties. US sold him the weapons that killed your friends.

If I feel that the US is destabilizing the entire Middle-East region does that mean I can invade the US ?

You're right, we should have taken him out of power. It would have been a lot easier than dealing with what's left over there.

Every country makes mistakes. Hell England let Germany take land without opposition before World War II. Alliances shift. When you have a lot of nations who seem to have concerns other than civil rights, then you deal with whoever is most acceptable. Of course, I wouldn't mind closing down trade with China.

If you do make a mistake, does that mean we should have allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait? Was their dispute over where Kuwait was drilling for oil really give them the right to invade?

No matter how you twist it, we were liberating a sovereign nation from an invading nation. I think that justifies a war. The fact that it was an important trading partner and that the invasion threatened Saudi Arabia made it important enough for the United States to get involved.

I really couldn't care less how many Iraqi soldiers died. That's part of being an soldier opposing the United States of America. We will treat you as well if you surrender, if you don't we will use the most lethal means at our disposal, short of NBC weapons, to kill you.

Incidentally, I never noticed any American made weapons, tanks, or military equipment. Of course, all I ever saw was the stuff that the front line troops had. As I recall, they had some American made planes, but they sat out of the war. We may have provided support from time to time, but it's not as if we funded the whole war against ourselves.

Your nickname is perhaps the most appropriate one I've yet seen on H2G2, Mr. Proper Ganda. Nearly everything you say is, as your name suggests, propaganda. Say something worthwhile, and I might engage you in debate (I'm cheered that Mr. Trigger Pumping Moron has had this much patience with you, but were he to ask me, I'd advise he discontinue replying to your posts until such time as they are worth responding to). Continue to spout things you have read somewhere (without saying where) and are willing to believe because it agrees with your own preconceived notions (apparently due to some deep-seated dislike of the USA) and you'll find the only thing you're likely to get in response is people getting annoyed. This, it appears, is your personal goal - "winding up Americans" I think it's referred to as. Speaking for myself, I don't get angry that easily and am not (contrary to what you might personally believe, again perhaps because you want to) angry with you or your posts. I'm a bit depressed by them. It just saddens me that you continue to degenerate such worthwhile criticisms and debates into the deliberate and pointed statement of unsubstantiated (rarely do I see a source for any "fact" you post) and sometimes simply inaccurate propaganda - all for the sole purpose of stirring up emotion. I fail to see, as have I always when confronted with such "logic," to see any point in it.

That's a bit brutal JD.
Well maybe very technical, but I believe this forum are about the points of view of different people on the good and bad things about US foreiegn policy.
Fact - The US funded Iraq and saddam for the duration of the Iran?Iraq war, maybe not directly giving them US weapons, but giving them the money to go and choose what hardware they wanted for their dollar.
Fact - Oil reserves under Iraq were being plundered by kuwaiti oil rigs that drilled several miles at severe angles to reach inside Iraq.
Fact - Millions of Iraqis have died and suffered from the US led embargo
Fact - Kuwait has a very bad human rights record with lots of non-citizens treated apallingly

Can we move on to other areas, such as Israel. NMD, and China?

Z.

On Iraq:
I don't think that the almost horizontal drilling was the only factor instigating the invation. Hussen wanted more sea access and probably wanted to test the US's stance in the area. In the Iran Iraq war we supported the lesser of two evils I believe. Seeing as I know virtually nothing about that conflict I will leave it up to better informed minds to debate, or untill I take a look into it. Kuwait *has* a bad human rights record but Iraq has an even *worse* one, again, the lesser of 2 evils. And there is no way around saying that millions of Iraqis have died from the embargo. But it is not entirely the coalition's fault. Food and medical supplies that are getting in are being diverted for the profit of the Iraqi gov't, the money from the oil-for-food sales are not being used for food. It is our fault that Saddam is not dead, that his regime is still there and also that his military is now again almost as powerful as it was.

NMD:
Is most everyone opposed to this because it "upsets the ballance of power"? What are the other arguments against it or is this the only one that can hold water?

China:
.........Who knows what's brewing......

You seem to have misunderstood the nature of NMD: it's designed to defend against limited attacks from countries other than the existing major players, so all it can do is annoy China.

In case you were unaware of it, China kept well out of the whole arms race thing: they possess less than a tenth of the nuclear warheads that either the USA or Russia have, having reasoned that there wasn't much point building more weapons when you already had enough to blow up the world and no-one could stop an ICBM. Obviously, even an NMD system which had limited capacity could significantly diminish the potential effectiveness of China's small nuclear arsenal, and the only way to redress that balance would be to build some more missiles.

JD I am the ONLY one with links in this whole discussion. I read all sources of news I can. The BBC is one of the more balanced news sources and I suggest that you start to question my opinion by informed research. Other useful sources include the Economist, CNN, Deutsche Welle, Itar Tass. (Perhaps the most prominent Media groups in the world.)

I agree that I try to stir up emotions. I think it is important to show emotions when you discuss such important topics.

Back to NMD:
Don't worry it doesn't work just like the Patriots didn't in the gulf.
3 of 19: Failed the exam (Partial success just doesn't cut it.)
16 of 19: Didn't even turned up for the exam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/monitoring/media_reports/newsid_823000/823196.stm

Foreign Policy:
I think it is the US that suffers from paranoia. Will Bush make the Arabs wear the half moon, just like the the Jews were made sew the Star of David in all their shirts?

President Bush : 1 May 2001
They hate our friends. They hate our values. They hate democracy and freedom, and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of their own people. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1307000/1307438.stm

You may post links, but they don't do much to support your positions. I followed your link that you posted about NMD. It went to a letter from the Federation of American Scientists. It didn't state any facts, including the numbers you posted about the Patriot, it was just another opinion.

I really don't know if NMD will work. If it does work, then I think our government should impliment it. Even if it doesn't, basic research is rarely harmful.

NMD is only a threat if you are anticpating attacking the United States. The United States has no interest in an unprovoked attack on another country. We're not ruled by a secret cabal. Our leaders are elected, and without the support of public opinion, they wouldn't try it. If China wants to spend itself into bankruptcy to try and overwhelm NMD, let them. I wouldn't mind seeing the fall of the last great communitst government.

I was under the impression that the Bush family was quite fond of arabs.

As for the quote from the president's speech, there are obviously people who are like that in the world. Some people may be justified in that hatred. Americans have been attacked and killed around the world. In some cases these attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. That covers about all of the elements of President Bush's speech.

(The numbers refer to the NMD not the Patriot.) They are very well publicised so I will not post a link.

I would like to think that Federation of American Scientists is a little more than just "another opinion"

NMD is not about spending money and research it is about US breaking an international treaty. "Basic Research" would destabalise the Nuclear Balance and could help cause a war as described by the scientists. This would be breach of possibily the most significant treaty of the 1970-1990s.

Perhaps Bush should encourage peaceful incentives rather than building walls. But I don't understand why you would want China to fall? How will this benefit you or your country?

Just a small point so please don't kill me but does Bush have the support of public opinion? it was my understanding the the elction was won by a hair's breadth, (didn't he loose one or other of the 'popular' or 'total' vote counts?) but on that basis, he is putting forward radical changes like NMD with a very slender majority in the ......senate (?) 1 or is it now 0?

What with the whole Kyoto thing, the NMD, and China there's an awful lot of tension everywhere all of a sudden. and just when everyone seemed to be getting along so nicely....

What I found scary about the US is their government's budget. They spend about 10 times as much on their military than they do on education or healthcare? About 1/3 trillion dollars. How can the people of any country let that happen?

It also makes one wonder whether the Soviet Union could have actually worked if the US hadn't bankrupted them with the arms race. An arms race that the US still seems to think is well on by the looks of it.

Just a few thoughts....

Steve

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_925000/925574.stm

Right at the bottom 3rd Paragraph.

There are other references that confirm that not a single Scud was intercepted by a Patriot and that a Computer glitch was responsible for the incorrect hit stats published during the Gulf. I can confirm this further if necessary.

Sad but true:
In fact a patriot killed 28 service men (US) in Dahran, Saudia Arabia due to a software glitch. See [URL removed by moderator] Search for "Dahran".

This is not a dig at Americans it is a dig at Propaganda. I certainly think that the Patriot has improved dramatically now in the last 10 years but was it ready when it was deployed?.