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

~*~Who attacked you in Iraq Mr X?~*~

No one, that's why I opposed Iraq. I was talking about 9/11 just there.

so who where you referring to Mr X when you said:

You would rather lie down and let them walk all over you? Not our style; you attack us, we slaughter you.

I was referring to Iraq.

Donald

Sorry Mr X, you might make it clearer next time when you talk about slaughtering those who attack you - since some slaughtering is going on in Iraq and therefore there's an implication that Iraq had attacked the US to validate it. (Are you talking for the US or just you personally BTW?) So do you mean that you are anti- the war in Iraq and pro the war in Afghanistan?
It is right of course that an eye for an eye or a slaughter for an attack just leads to more bloodshed, I mean Israel and Palastine have been going at it for thousands of years and still haven't managed to negotiate a peace. If a person kills someones son, then they just want to pay that back until it escalates over the years. A different approach might work if we could all stop being so gung ho about everything.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mohandas K. Ghandi

<>

Exactly! They are comparing Fallujah to Hue, according to this...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111504A.shtml

~*~So who where you referring to Mr X when you said:

"You would rather lie down and let them walk all over you? Not our style; you attack us, we slaughter you."~*~

I was speaking in General. I don't let people intimidate me.



~*~Sorry Mr X, you might make it clearer next time when you talk about slaughtering those who attack you - since some slaughtering is going on in Iraq and therefore there's an implication that Iraq had attacked the U.S. to validate it.~*~

I was exagerating. Historically, when someone has attacked the U.S. thinking that we would quickly give in to their demands we completely tore them down. (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.)

~*~(Are you talking for the U.S. or just you personally BTW?)~*~

I can't speak for the entire Nation obviously, but this has been my observation. Feel free to disagree with me if you want, that's kind of the whole point.

~*~So do you mean that you are anti- the war in Iraq and pro the war in Afghanistan?~*~

Basically.

~*~It is right of course that an eye for an eye or a slaughter for an attack just leads to more bloodshed, I mean Israel and Palastine have been going at it for thousands of years and still haven't managed to negotiate a peace. If a person kills someone's son, then they just want to pay that back until it escalates over the years.~*~

I'd never take it to that extreme though.

I mean, I don't support Dictators at all, and I doubt the people in Iraq were really that thrilled about them either. But it seems to me that if they were really ready for a change they'd stage their own revolt.

I mean, I don't support Dictators at all, and I doubt the people in Iraq were really that thrilled about them either. But it seems to me that if they were really ready for a change they'd stage their own revolt, rather than having us force it on them.

Mr X

America has supported Saddam in the past. America trained, supported and financed Osama bin Laden. They are both American creations and creatures.I'm certain that other people can also think of some past and current dictators supported by the US simply because they are not on the side of the perceived enemy of the US.
Saddam also spent lavishly on a military buildup. The United States, Israel, and the NATO powers were happy to sell him anything it wanted.
Even those historians clearly hostile to Saddam will point out that the western powers kept him supplied with the materials needed for chemical weapons right up to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, including material cleared by the U.K.
Without cutting ties with the Soviet Union, Saddam struck up a tacit accord with the United States in the days of Ronald Reagan. None other than Donald Rumsfeld came to Iraq to seal the deal. What was the deal? Iraq attacked Iran. This was partly to gain territory, partly to weaken the Shia opponents inside Iraq, partly to achieve pan-Arab prestige, partly to strengthen his own military. The United States, at the time regarding Iran as the chief danger to its interests in the Middle East, thought this was a wonderful idea and gave, directly (and via its allies such as Saudi Arabia), armaments, biological and chemical weapons, and intelligence support to Saddam Hussein.

>> I was exagerating. Historically, when someone has attacked the U.S. thinking that we would quickly give in to their demands we completely tore them down. (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.) <<

If this gun-ho attitude is prevalent in the USA I don't hold out much hope for any peaceful settlement to anything for the next 50 years or so.

Its the same old story, the USA trying to apply a military solution to a political problem. It fails every time.

Northern Ireland is an example. It was realised at a very early stage that if there was going be a permanent solution to the problems of Northern Ireland it could only ever be a political one.

The IRA didn't want a political solution because they knew it would not favour them so they tried to force a military solution with their bombs and bullets.

Paradoxically, the British Army where there to prevent a military solution. Try explaining that concept to a US Marine. You would have more success explaining the intricacies of Quantum Physics to a five year old child.

After thirty years the military solution has failed and now it looks like there is to be a political solution. During that time there have been 3,253 death attributable to terrorism related to Northern Ireland. 2055 attributed to the IRA, mostly civilians, and 368 attributed to the security forces, most of them terrorists.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/

Sure it took a long time, but it far better than slaughtering everyone in sight. By opting for the military solution, the USA, and the UK thanks to Tony Blair, are playing right into the hands of the terrorists.

Donald

I think Blair will be replaced with Brown before too long and our relationship with the US will change radically...

Don't forget demographics. In Northern Ireland and Israel the Catholics and Palestinians have higher birth rates. The politicos recognise this and alternative strategies have to be found to maintain themselves in power. The IRA could afford to play the long game as it was only a matter of time before their supporters became the democratic majority. Sharon realises that he has to totally bottle up the Palestinians because they too will soon be the majority inside Israel. Not sure how this applies to USofA but if Brown gets in he will move us even closer to them. He was an Ameripoodle long before Blair.

>> The IRA could afford to play the long game as it was only a matter of time before their supporters became the democratic majority. <<

If that were the case, why didn't they just sit back and wait for the inevitable instead of bombing and shooting for most of the last thirty years. No, it is the British Government playing the long game and will gladly bow out of Northern Ireland once there is a democratic majority that demands it. Northern Ireland once had strategic significance, but not since the end if WWII. It has no economic significance, in fact quite the opposite. It has been one of the biggest drains on the exchequer for the last thirty years and I think most Prime Ministers would be glad to be shut of it.

The British Army could have defeated the IRA militarily years ago, but the bloodshed would have been horrendous. Its the IRA thats wants everything now. Even with a nationalist majority in Northern Ireland the IRA would still not have got what they wanted which was a Marxists state. With the end of the Cold War they realised that was never going to happen. They were never going to achieve a military victory, so a negotiated political solution is the only option left. A small slice of a large cake is better than no cake at all.

Sin Fein/IRA have finally realised that a nationalist majority is in the offing at some time in the future and with a foot in the door they will be better placed to take advantage of it than if they were still out in the cold branded as terrorists.

However, it will be interesting to see how Ian Paisley and co react to being part of a minority. You could see the British Army back in Northern Ireland defending the rights of a nationalist majority. Now wouldn't that be something!

Donald

>> I was exagerating. Historically, when someone has attacked the U.S. thinking that we would quickly give in to their demands we completely tore them down. (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.) <<

~*~If this gung-ho attitude is prevalent in the USA I don't hold out much hope for any peaceful settlement to anything for the next 50 years or so.~*~

No, no, no. Donald you keep misinterperating what I say.

When ~they~ attack ~us~ first, we're gung-ho. When we start it, we're not gung-ho; but we're not completely against it either, and always open to peaceful solution. After invading Iraq the oppurtunity hasn't been presented however.

~*~It's the same old story, the USA trying to apply a military solution to a political problem. It fails every time.~*~

I'll admit that Republicans have that fault.

Democrats are good at political solutions, Republicans are good at military solutions. Each is useful at different times.

"This one's playing dead... BRATATATAT... He's dead now!"

>> When ~they~ attack ~us~ first, we're gung-ho. <<

Exactly. They were a terrorist organisation with undefined borders and undefined identities. So why attack Iraq? If the 9/11 attackers had been from foreign power like Russia or Canada, I could understand it. But you cannot apply the same criteria to a terrorist organisations. You invariably miss the intended target and kill loads of innocents. Theres a time to be gung-ho and time to adopt the softly softly approach.

>> After invading Iraq the opportunity hasn't been presented however. <<

You are not wrong there, thats for sure.

But the opportunity for a political solution was there before invading Iraq, but it was ignored.

Donald

>> Donald you keep misinterperating what I say <<

RF

Been away for a while,S'up,but i've poured over the archives and have come up,with the help of my magical statistics machine, with this:



America = bad
Saddam = bad
all world governments = bad
The entire population of h2g2 governing the world with they're own crazy foreign polices = good
U.K. = bad

Lets form a world millitary coup.

*Scribbles furiously on a notepad*

I've got the irish cell covered

It's a bad world.

<>

Aye, it is...