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

Regarding this, I came across an interesting hypothesis, possibly on the bulletin from www.peace.moveon.org
Apparently,there is a campaign under way to denigrate Hans Blix - so if a negative report is delivered by the UN team, the chimp and his buddies Rumsfeld and Cheney can say that Blix is corrupt and/or incompetent, that the WMD *are* so there, so let's have a war! Dubya wants one really, really bad!

birth, excuse me while I !!!!!
>>is a large amount of black market sales that can only be estimated. Also Saddam has a open checkbook to that money.<<
These black market sales and S's access to that $$$ are myths. Why would he risk being overthrown by angry, starving, dying people if he could do sopmething about it with hidden supplies and $$$?

Sorry, I shouldn't worry about the motives behind it. It's technically correct. It's still absurd.

"When you say something insulting like that it could lead to someone in turn saying something insulting like:

The use of semantics to infer ignorance on a fellow researcher attests to the lack of cognitive content on the part of the one who makes such inferences.

I however will take the high road and not."

This reminds me of Eminem's "Cleaning Out My Closet" in which he claims to be sorry for hurting his mother's feelings, then says a lot of new insults and insists that she'll never see her granddaughter again. You can't throw out a hypothetical insult and then claim you took the high road and didn't use it.

Oh well. Sorry I took the low road first.

>This reminds me of Eminem's "Cleaning Out My Closet" in which he claims to be sorry for hurting his mother's feelings, then says a lot of new insults and insists that she'll never see her granddaughter again. You can't throw out a hypothetical insult and then claim you took the high road and didn't use it.

Oh well. Sorry I took the low road first.<


Novel approach using a Rap singers lyrics to commensurate a basic online value system. Ethical codes aside insults ussually engender insults. Then again we have all taken the low road now and again.

Della maintains:
>These black market sales and S's access to that $$$ are myths. Why would he risk being overthrown by angry, starving, dying people if he could do sopmething about it with hidden supplies and $$$? <

It could have something with his being a sociopath who also suffers from megalomania. Phychosis will do that to you. {you are kidding with me right?}


























]

"These black market sales and S's access to that $$$ are myths. Why would he risk being overthrown by angry, starving, dying people if he could do sopmething about it with hidden supplies and $$$?"

How do you know that they're myths? More to the point, why would the Iraqi's rise against Saddam when last time they did it was easily crushed?

War....hmm....good god y'all.

"Apparently,there is a campaign under way to denigrate Hans Blix - so if a negative report is delivered by the UN team, the chimp and his buddies Rumsfeld and Cheney can say that Blix is corrupt and/or incompetent, that the WMD *are* so there, so let's have a war! Dubya wants one really, really bad!"


The people who refuse to believe that Saddam does not have WMD refuse to accept any evidence that refutes their belief. The premise: "innocent until proven guilty" is discarded in favour of: "if the President did not have evidence, he would not have made the statement."

And this evidence, in the end, may not be clear cut. The term "weapons of mass destruction" is already being used interchangeably with "capability to build wmd". So is capability the same as having wmd? If yes, then most pharmaceutical companies in the US, England, New Zealand will have the "capability" to build chemocal and biological "weapons". Certainly not advanced the delivery devices, but then any crop-dusting ligh aircraft will do. And that may be enough "evidence" for Bush to be convinced and declare war.

"The people who refuse to believe that Saddam does not have WMD refuse to accept any evidence that refutes their belief. The premise: "innocent until proven guilty" is discarded in favour of: "if the President did not have evidence, he would not have made the statement.""

The "weapon's inspectors" are a waste of time and money, they are there solely to "legitimise" action. They can't work either way. It's not too hard for Saddam to hide WMD if he has them and if the inspectors don't find any, the US can argue that it is acting on the whim that this is exactly what Saddam has done.



"And this evidence, in the end, may not be clear cut. The term "weapons of mass destruction" is already being used interchangeably with "capability to build wmd". So is capability the same as having wmd? If yes, then most pharmaceutical companies in the US, England, New Zealand will have the "capability" to build chemocal and biological "weapons". Certainly not advanced the delivery devices, but then any crop-dusting ligh aircraft will do. And that may be enough "evidence" for Bush to be convinced and declare war."

You're missing the point. The US does not want to topple Saddam because he *could* create WMD, they want to topple him because a) They think he financially supports terrorism (despite Iraq's poverty, Saddam has plenty cash) and b) If he *obtained* WMD there is a likely chance of him using them against Israel. And, yes, they would quite like the oil too, but that's not their main priority in Iraq as I've been trying to demonstrate.

Britain, NZ etc could create WMD if they wanted to (some already have) but their previous actions do not suggest they are likely to use them against some hated target.

dismising the inspectors is an error I hope not to many will make....their job is dificuilt but if bush has evidence against Sadam that is anything but circumstancel then the inspectors should be using that data with planning their inspections...I also think it was a wise move (just a little tid bit I read so I might not have the full story) that the inspection teams were not going to anounce one way or another their conclusions until they feel fairly certain...this I hope would prevent bush going off half cocked on a small report from one day of inspections

oh and to the question war what is it good for? actualy human nature being the way it is it is a great modivater and catelist for social and technolical change and progress...also it thins out that pesky over population problem we seem to have around the world (last bit was ment as a joke mabye not a good one but one non the less)


()

It's also an excellent way of distracting people's attention from the situation at home. All the signs are that the US economy is not in a healthy state. Unemployment is rising, public services are in terminal decline etc etc, and the only ones doing well are the fat cats in the corporate boardrooms and their stooges in the White House.
Bush seems to have already decided on war, WMDs or no WMDs, hence the shifting goalposts, from possession to capacity for possession, to "well he'd like to have some to defend himself from the US."

Who polices the world's policeman?

Noggin

""The people who refuse to believe that Saddam does not have WMD refuse to accept any evidence that refutes their belief. The premise: "innocent until proven guilty" is discarded in favour of: "if the President did not have evidence, he would not have made the statement.""

The "weapon's inspectors" are a waste of time and money, they are there solely to "legitimise" action. They can't work either way. It's not too hard for Saddam to hide WMD if he has them and if the inspectors don't find any, the US can argue that it is acting on the whim that this is exactly what Saddam has done."


If you were trying to demonstrate the point I was making Zagreb, you did an excellent job!


"You're missing the point. The US does not want to topple Saddam because he *could* create WMD, they want to topple him because a) They think he financially supports terrorism (despite Iraq's poverty, Saddam has plenty cash)"

Almost everyday (did anyone hear about the software firm in Boston?)we hear of another connection of terrorism support from Saudi Arabia and you're (like Bush) trying to pin the blame on Saddam!? Wake up Zagreb!


"and b) If he *obtained* WMD there is a likely chance of him using them against Israel. And, yes, they would quite like the oil too, but that's not their main priority in Iraq as I've been trying to demonstrate."

Bush, Chaney, Rice, White, *ALL* come from oil companies, Chaney and Enron drafted the US domestic energy policy, Iraq has the 2md richest oil reserves, etc., and you still don't think it's about oil!? How many more dots do we need to connect for you before you see the picture?

"Almost everyday (did anyone hear about the software firm in Boston?)we hear of another connection of terrorism support from Saudi Arabia and you're (like Bush) trying to pin the blame on Saddam!? Wake up Zagreb!"

re-read what I said. I said it's what Washington believes. The September 2001 attacks freaked them out. Saddam would have been one of their first suspects. Incidentally, he has financially supported terrorism in Israel so it's no great step to assume he'd sponsor terrorism against the US.

"Bush, Chaney, Rice, White, *ALL* come from oil companies, Chaney and Enron drafted the US domestic energy policy, Iraq has the 2md richest oil reserves, etc., and you still don't think it's about oil!? How many more dots do we need to connect for you before you see the picture?"

No, I don't think the main priority is oil. That's an easy, lazy "radical" opinion for those who choose to ignore many key elements about Iraq and US policy in the middle east such as if there is no other reason to invade Iraq then why did they keep bombing them and (my favourite) why did the US *deliberately* cut itself off from Iraqi oil by supporting UN-imposed sanctions?

I don't deny that the Bush government is interested in Iraqi oil, I'm just saying that it's not *vital* to the US future and I think the claims that it is the *main* or even *only* reason for attacking Iraq are rather stupid.

One thing that has been brought up here but not explored is in the 80's when Iraq was at war with Iran we gave iraq substantail military aid. But what is not spoken about much is that at the time Saddam was being assaulted by human waves from Iran and to slow that down he used some gases. Saddam however was very concerned about biologicals and other agents being used against his soldiers. {or so he said} He reqeusted antigens for many different agents that Iran might procure through the soviet union. The response to that reqeust was that some agents do have antigens and others do not as the cost would be prohibative. Saddam then made the offer to research antidotes for these biologal weapons that might be used agianst his soilder.Here was a win win situation for the US these agents could be studied and antidote found all while having Iraqi fund the cost It was at this point that the US made a big error and gave samples of many different biological agents many that had been manipulated to weapons grade. From bubonic plague,Hiv,small pox,yellow fever,west nile virus,influenza,foot and mouth,scarlet fever,ebola and more. So you see this is something the US does not want to tell the world. *we have a mad man who can let loose a thousand pox's on the world*

Zagreb,

The US wants to topple Saddam "because a) They think he financially supports terrorism (despite Iraq's poverty, Saddam has plenty cash) and b) If he *obtained* WMD there is a likely chance of him using them against Israel. And, yes, they would quite like the oil too, but that's not their main priority in Iraq as I've been trying to demonstrate."

If (a) were a real priority for the US, then wouldn't we be rattling our sabres just as loudly at Saudi Arabia for supporting al-Qaeda? The funniest headline I've seen in recent weeks was on salon dot com: "US Urges Saudis to Stem Terror Funding." We invade Afghanistan and threaten Iraq, but for our pals the Saudis, we only "urge" them to change their ways.

If (b) were a real priority for the US, then wouldn't we put North Korea higher on our list, above Iraq? North Korea admits they've been processing uranium to make nukes.

[Even Reuters recognized the double standard...]
Two U.S. policies for "axis" states North Korea and Iraq
http://asia.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1869144

Saddam may or may not be attempting the same, but you'd think he'd be on the back burner until we dealt with a nation insolent enough to admit they're cooking nukes. One might argue that Saddam is more dangerous because he has used chemical weapons, and might use other weapons of mass destruction like nukes if he got them. One would have to talk quickly so one's audience didn't point out that Saddam used chemical weapons with US approval, even aided by US intelligence in order to better attack Iranians with chemicals. One would also have to forget about chemical weapons used by the US on our own troops.

Here's an article from Disabled American Veterans' website. I could probably find other instances if I took more than five minutes to search, but this is a good start. The Department of Defense admitted testing sarin or some other nerve agent on US military personnel in the Sixties. Apparently this had to remain classified for up to 40 years to preserve national security, not to deny benefits or compensations to the victims. What happened *today* that we'll find out 40 years from now when they finally declassify it?
http://www.dav.org/magazine/2002-4/Chemical_Weapons2053.html

Yes, oil and control of the region is top priority for the US, as you can see by the inconsistency and hypocrisy.

"Britain, NZ etc could create WMD if they wanted to (some already have) but their previous actions do not suggest they are likely to use them against some hated target."

US has weapons of mass destruction and used them in areas heavily populated with civilians (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has discussed using "small" nukes in Afghanistan, and have shown their determination to keep nukes a viable part of their arsenal by breaking treaties that even Reagan honored.

What nation is most likely to use WMD again, based on past performance? Hell, based on their known current policy!

starbirth,

"It was at this point that the US made a big error and gave samples of many different biological agents many that had been manipulated to weapons grade."

I doubt that the people handing over biological agents felt that any error was made, or that they believed Iraq would only use them for producing antidotes. We knew that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. Here's an interesting article about how U.S. officials "provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2292

So we saw them using chemical weapons in combat, we gave them info about Iranian troop movements and even suggested battle plans for them to use against Iran, but we were blind-sided when they developed biological weapons from the bits we gave them? I don't believe it.

Subcom,

I never said we were inocent

"If (a) were a real priority for the US, then wouldn't we be rattling our sabres just as loudly at Saudi Arabia for supporting al-Qaeda? The funniest headline I've seen in recent weeks was on salon dot com: "US Urges Saudis to Stem Terror Funding." We invade Afghanistan and threaten Iraq, but for our pals the Saudis, we only "urge" them to change their ways."

Re-read that headline. "urges to stem". In other words, they are asking the Saudi state to crack down on terrorist funding within SA. In other words, it is private individuals and organisations funding terrorism, not the Saudi state. Saddam is the Iraqi state and he has funded terrorism before.

More to the point, why do so many people persist in holding up hypocrisy as some holy grail? America is persecuting Iraq but not China? Big deal! It's called politics and diplomacy. Read the history books, it's not new. There's always some enemy you can deal with and some you can't. Pointing out "ooh, look at this hypocrisy" is always paraded as some sort of clever cynicism whilst it's really just harrumphing "I'll-just-sit-here-and-criticise" bluster from people who haven't been anywhere near the responsibilities of power and never expect to.

I'm not saying we should ignore this hypocrisy, just that we shouldn't demand a halt to any sort of action or aid until *all* said hypocrisies are rectified. The simplify what I'm trying to say, do you "leave alone" the wife-beater unless you take on the mafia too?

"If (b) were a real priority for the US, then wouldn't we put North Korea higher on our list, above Iraq? North Korea admits they've been processing uranium to make nukes."

What realistic ambitions does North Korea have? The regime pretty much knows it's days are numbered, that's why it's entering into dialogue with the South. North Korea knows that an aggressive attack against anyone would spell the end of the regime. It's not really a threat outside of it's own borders. The nukes are there so the regime can protect itself, not to threaten anyone else. I don't really care about North Korean "aggression", it'll probably fall to bits in ten years.

Politics and diplomacy in the sense of not taking on things you can't do, (like reforming China) I can understand, but there is a clear case of hypocrisy in Us support for Israel. They have WMD, they terrorise their neighbours, ignore human rights, blow up UN property, and they're not too big for the US to intervene successfully. So what action is the US taking? It's giving them the money they need to carry on. Now that IS hypocrisy.

Noggin

"re-read what I said. I said it's what Washington believes. The September 2001 attacks freaked them out. Saddam would have been one of their first suspects. Incidentally, he has financially supported terrorism in Israel so it's no great step to assume he'd sponsor terrorism against the US."

Why would Saddam be one of the first suspects? Libya, Iran and OBL have a well documented record of attacking US embassys, hijaking and blowing up aircraft....what history of terrorism towards the US does Iraq have?


"No, I don't think the main priority is oil. That's an easy, lazy "radical" opinion for those who choose to ignore many key elements about Iraq and US policy in the middle east such as if there is no other reason to invade Iraq then why did they keep bombing them and (my favourite) why did the US *deliberately* cut itself off from Iraqi oil by supporting UN-imposed sanctions?"

And the personal insults begin!

Try demonstrating your lack of laziness reading the terms of the UN resolution relating to Iraq's surrender. (I posted a link to it a while back). There you'll find the terms reffer to Iraq paying the US (in oil) for the cost of the Gulf War: a price determied by the US! That's not exactly cutting itself off, is it Zagreb? But guess what, Iraq isn't paying, so the US needs to invade if it wants it's oil.
(Incidentally, the sanctions you reffer to were imposed, in part, *because* Iraq is not paying)

Where do you get off calling anyone lazy? Try doing doing some research: post some links or quote a reference to justify your "beliefs" or your "thoughts".