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

It has to happen while the season is right. Wieland have me an article last year around september/october out lining all the preperations needed, including filling the national [oil] reserve and time of year etc.

"Can't we all just get along." If Nicholson said that in Mars Attacks, he was quoting Rodney King (the LA police brutality victim).

Dogster, it's a tempting view, but it sounds like you're admitting the means are not pretty, but the ends justify them.

People in Saudi Arabia might live better lives if we invaded and tried installing democracy there, but once you give into this kind of thinking, almost anything can be justified.

Zagreb,

I haven't been able to find links to it, because the best I can think of to search for are "Bush Iraq plan" -- there are way too many sites and stories to find this easily, but I'm sure I read that the Bush administration had a plan for attacking Iraq. That's not so hard to believe. I'm sure the military does this all the time, even for nations that we don't have to worry about very seriously. What if Quebec broke away from Canada and tried to attack Maine? I bet they have all kinds of plans prepared for different nations that we might one day have to "liberate" for whatever reason, and they certainly have detailed plans for the most likely nations, Iraq, Korea, maybe Russia or China, Cuba.

Also, there is a widely known memo that Rumsfeld wrote on 9/11 or the day after, about the possibility of attacking Iraq right away. (Maybe he thought the terrorists had come from Iraq or been aided by Iraq.) I'll try to find some credible links on that one.

It's not a conspiracy to imagine that they had some kind of contingency plans for war with Iraq. The Clinton administration probably had the same kind of plans in case war became necessary (or possible). Actually it's not very damning evidence against Bush, but I can't imagine the ungodly amounts of money being thrown at the military not resulting in some wargamey reports from armchair specialists in the Pentagon.

"Some of us have moved out of the 1800s. Heat your house with oil?? Oh and oil doesn't make a good enough grade of plastic for computer components and all the important bit are silicon, metal and ceramic."

You know as well as I that I was making a blanket statement that oil is the main energy source that fuels the world economy. Surely you can find better points of attack against me.

""enemy of America" since when has that defined bad? (starbirth and tac will probably have a feild day making up interpertations from that)"

Apparition you do not need anyone to point out you anti-american agenda. So your trolling will not draw me in. However I will make one suggestion: You might think of applying to Shroeder for a Public Relations Job.

"You're sounding like Bush Starbirth: faith-based evidence. If you *believe* he has it, then he has it! If he has wmd, then provide proof: get of you ass and do some work investigating and at the end make sure you have something more then hot air."

I could say the same thing to you. It is a know fact that they have in the past had these weapons. Prove they do not have them anymore. back up your words with proof. That really settles alot!

Apparition,
Tidal power? Most of the power in my country comes from hydro power dams, a few gas feilds and a geothermal plant.


From: New Zealands National Statistical Agency {a department of New Zealand Goverment}

New Zealand's consumer energy (energy used by final consumers) is dominated by oil, comprising 204 PJ per year (48 percent), with electricity 113 PJ (27 percent), coal 32 PJ (7 percent), gas 36 PJ (8 percent), and renewables such as geothermal, wastes and wood making up the remainder.

Electrical power and Consumer energy are diferent things, do you have a link? Or is it like your statement muslems. Not that it matters as your information is irelevant. Is there an end to your obsession?

"Apparition you do not need anyone to point out you anti-american agenda." you either didn't read the rest of the post or are ignoring it. Your delusions aside, try to keep up.

Della cool down my god you will bust a blood vessel.Is it my turn next after Zagreb to feel the wrath of your ire? You are ussually more restrained. deep breath inhale-exhale.
All I said was if it came down to a ground war with no air suppoert that the republican gaurd would fight us in the cities among the civilain population. They have learned something since the last war and that is they stand no chance in the open desert. Common sense dictates their tactics. I did not say they do not have a right to fight for their country. I was responding to a post that infered a ground war would have less casualties than an air campaign.

If the 'French' invaded 'Bug Tussle' USA I would not like it. However I would have utter confidence in 'Bug Tussles' police departments Sheriff Billy Bob Cornshuker III and his six deputies to completly roust the French Army. While his cousin Leroy Bubba-Tee Smiths fleet of shrimp boats takes out the french Navy.

sorry above post in respose to post 3680 below.

"birth:"The first thing the republican gaurd would do would be to blend into a city such as Bagdad. This would insure massive civilian causulties as well as military.
Starbirth, I cannot be-flipping-lieve you! The US is invading their country! They have a right to kill you with extreme prejudice, by 'blending into the city' if that's the besyt way to do it.
How would you feel if say, the French, were to invade Bug Tussle, Tenessee or Bug Splat, Arkansas, or wherever *you* live? "

When it come you it I don't have any sympathy for a country energy need when they produce vehicles that get "The average SUV gets 10 or 11 mpg"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/05/earlyshow/saturday/main505520.shtml

"When it come you it I don't have any sympathy for a country energy need when they produce vehicles that get "The average SUV gets 10 or 11 mpg"

Well that sure comes as a surprise.

Wow, you-all sure have been busy this weekend... While I was busy drinking and watching tv. Hmm...

Couple of comments to catch up with the group - I read just recently that wealthy businessmen in Iraq fund Al-Queda, including, rumor has it, Saddam himself. I'm going to go home (yes, I'm at work... shhhhhhh...) and find that article and come back tomorrow and summarize it. It was verra interesting.

Also - alcohol will power your car, no problem. It's a much hotter-burning fuel than gasoline, so your engine will get trashed a lot quicker. If the lifters and rings are replaced with heat-resistant materials (ferro-ceramic), I think this will fix it.

It frustrates me that we have the means to get ourselves out of this hole and continue to spiral around the drain, sucking down more oil. If we got the farmers currently growing weeds on subsidy to grow material that could be turned into alcohol - corn, hemp, etc. - then we'd have plenty of alcohol to run our cars. Remove the demand for oil, and the power struggle in the Middle East would go away.

Here's a good article showing excerpts of Rumsfeld's memo on September 11 in which he suggested hitting Saddam Hussein. "Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL" - meaning Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Also there's a group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - who urged Clinton in 1998 to remove Saddam. More details in the article.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/01/27/news/local/5025024.htm

And while you're at it, check out this photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Doubtful that MSNBC or CNN doctored the photo.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg (which was attached to this article: http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/17b2c36bf4cd8a/www.msnbc.com/site_elements/bantop_ATTACK.gif?a1

oops. That last article link should be http://www.msnbc.com/news/812805.asp

Back-a-ways know, but to answer Apparition's request that I support my claim that hydrogen is not yet viable as a fuel...

In his state of the Union address, Mr Bush proposed $1.2bn dollars for "research" into hydrogen. California, the EU and others have all introduced "strategies" to develop hydrogen. If it still needs all this research and development, then it ain't workable now.

"...There's no infrastructure *now*. - That's not difficult..." - care to expand? (ha ha, gotcha back ). Seriously, my point was that, difficult or not, there's no infrastructure now and no plans to install one that I'm aware of.

"...It's not *that* dangerous..." - isn't it? Somebody take the matches off this guy ...

"Throughout the 20th century," Bush told the US last week, "small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit."

George Monbiot quoted this today, as news broke that Dubya wants another $9 Billion for defence funding...

"I could say the same thing to you. It is a know fact that they have in the past had these weapons. Prove they do not have them anymore. back up your words with proof. That really settles alot!"


I'm not the one risking the lives of soldiers and Iraqi civilains. If you want to send your fellow countrymen to fight in foreign lands, endangering the lives of civilains in those lands, then YOU DAMN WELL BETTER HAVE SOME PROOF!