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

I think the new polls should go like this;

"Do you approve of invading Iraq?"

"Yes sir, I certainly do!"

"Splendid. Here's your uniform. Go wait in the back of the lorry."

Although I daresay some sap will miss the point and point out that an untrained force would be of no use...

"Yes it is. It becomes a trade off. Then again, how many civilian casualties are you expecting. More to the point, how many would you expect compared to those Saddam could kill while siphoning off aid funds to build his next palace?"


It really makes me sick to see people like you Geoff, pontificating on the value of life in a foreign country, when that life (as you stated) is linked to *your* standard of living.

Now I'm assuming you are a civilian, so as such I will fully support your argument when you take your sorry ass to Baghdad, paint a big target symbol on your chest and make sure that *you* are the first civilain killed in any war *you* advocate!

I believe that official statistics are about 500,000 expected Iraqi civilian casualties as per the 'Martin Luthor King' speech previously posted.

"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!"

If 'I' want to send my fellow country men to fight in foriegn lands?
Are you under the Illusion that you are speaking to the president of the United States? Should I follow suit and pretend you are Nevil Chamberlin? Do you believe that Screaming at someone will promote your agenda?

"If 'I' want to send my fellow country men to fight in foriegn lands?
Are you under the Illusion that you are speaking to the president of the United States? Should I follow suit and pretend you are Nevil Chamberlin? Do you believe that Screaming at someone will promote your agenda?"


YES! And I mean *you* screaming at *your* government representatives to make sure *your* fellow countrymen don't get sent to their deaths based on speculation.

ok few things

App: I am not sure what tactic you were pointing out in dang gota look it back up-3669 I think- ok that statement that you pointed out was saying that UN Resolutions should be followed by all memember countires including but not limited to Russia, US, Isreal, New Zealand and so on...I am sorry I don't see what tactic I was using becides trying to justify my argument...I thought that was everyone's tactic in a debate not just me and birth????

oh there is nothing wrong with being Anti-American...I don't hold anything against someone 'just' cus they don't like my country...

Della I guess birth already mentioned why he made his post about groundwar being as dangours to Civi's as an air campain...if his explanation wasn't sufficent than I can try to expand upon his reasoning

now on alternate fuels...there was a great article in Scientific American (oh my god it has American in the title must not be acurate or something *joke*) that I am trying to find a link to but while I am looking for it here is another
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00073502-CFC5-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

Hopefully I will find the one I am looking for


()

Oh dear, I seem to have upset the Amoeba's sensitivities. How will I sleep tonight?

*yawn*.

Guess what, folks? This war will or won't happen with absolutely no regard for what is said here, so if some of us want to have fun playing devil's advocate I don't see the point in getting all precious about it. This is an informal discussion board, nothing more.

Perspective, please!

Oh yeah...
To whoever suggested that those who approve of the war should grab a gun and get in a lorry....

Why do you think we pay taxes to the army?

And anyway, Neugen has misread my post. Well over a million Iraqis have already died as a direct result not of sanctions, but of Saddam's redirection of the oil-for-food proceeds. (He now has a personal net worth in excess of $7bn). Many more will die if the status quo is maintained. Will that be more or less than the number killed in a war? This is the trade off I was referring to.

regards,

Geoff the pontificator.

oh I am reading through the links posted on the thread...I guess one supporting the argument that hey look this nothing new that Rumsfield and others have been trying to do this for a while and all that...

What I want to know is what exactly is wrong with that...These people viewed Sadam as a threat the same as Clinton...but thought Clinton's could handle it in another method so they sent him a letter outling their ideas...Clinton didn't use their ideas because he had his own...now some of these people are in positions to make these types of decisions and you are shocked that they still feel the same way...or that they feel that current events add to their argument?...A course of action is a course of action whether it was made in 1967 or 1999 or even 2002...This is the same thing as being upset that posible future President Clinton has an idea of what she wants to do concering health care...she becomes president and something happens like a big doctor strike or something and she feels that her plan would then be accepted by the American people so she decids to put it into action...whether she came up with the idea or plan of action when she was a first lady, a congress woman, or when she became president would have no bearing on whether it was a good corse of action or not


()

"Guess what, folks? This war will or won't happen with absolutely no regard for what is said here, so if some of us want to have fun playing devil's advocate I don't see the point in getting all precious about it. This is an informal discussion board, nothing more."


Well Geoff, if you are not willing to stand behind what you say then your words, like your pathetic self, have no value. Why not have some fun speculating about your own brutal death? I'll be more then happy to offer some value judgements for an efficient end.

Hi Geoff,

I haven't been following the debate about hydrogen or alternative fuels on this thread very closely, but I think I see your point. There may be cars that run on hydrogen or methanol or electricity today that work pretty well, but try to cut off oil today and tell everyone with regular cars to get the better ones. It's something that definitely needs to happen, but it will take time, and it will require a desire to change by millions of consumers and thousands of car companies and fueling stations and repair shops.

As for the danger level of hydrogen, I've heard it's about equally as dangerous as gasoline, except that leaking gasoline mostly settles to the ground or low points, whereas hyrdrogen floats. In some cases, that might be good. Wait a few minutes after an accident for the hydrogen to dissipate, and then it might be even less dangerous than a car with gasoline spread all over the inside and all over the ground.

"...Well Geoff, if you are not willing to stand behind what you say then your words, like your pathetic self, have no value..." - then don't waste your precious time on them; it's not as if I care a great deal.



Burnt at stake by angry pacifists (irony irony).
Drowns in own bile.
Stabbed with blunt instrument many times.
Ebola virus.
Killed by wife after she finds him in bed with half the male population of Widnes.
Goes to great-grandson's 21st birthday, and has heart failure while actively seducing the boy's girlfriend.
Castrated.
Blown up in terrorist outrage.
Heart disease from far too much beer and bacon.
Killed on stage by punter with no sense of humour who inserts microphone into a place with no amplification.

Which one takes your preference?

Dang I found the article I wanted to show you guys from the Oct 02 issue of Scientific American titled "Vehicle of Change" but it looks like you have to pay to get at it...here goes the link anyway

http://www.sciamdigital.com/cart_http.cfm?ARTICLEID_CHAR=3D2ED6FE-BE55-40BD-BCF8-B301AC7E562


()

""...Well Geoff, if you are not willing to stand behind what you say then your words, like your pathetic self, have no value..." - then don't waste your precious time on them; it's not as if I care a great deal."


Appears you don't care about a great many things Geoff? Don't care about what you say. Don't care about civilian lives in Iraq? Don't care about the lives of your fellow countrymen fighting a war in Iraq with *your* tax money.

Personally, I'd like to see you die from shame. But there's little chance of that I guess....

"...Personally, I'd like to see you die from shame..."

Good job I don't value your opinion then, isn't it?

Sanctimonious prat.

NA some of the posts above remind me of the society in Starship Troopers (the book outlines it better then the movie)

The only people that can vote are citizens...the only people who are citizens are people that have worked in a gov't job like the military...the only catch is while you are working in that job you cannot vote it's only after you complete your tour of service that you get your citizenship...you are not forced into service but if you don't serve you cannot vote and some things are easier for citizens then for others such as getting a license to have a child or getting a scholarship for school...and somethings you have had to serve before to do like run for political office


()

"Good job I don't value your opinion then, isn't it?"

Just add it to the list:
Don't value Iraqi civilain lives,
Don't value the lives of military personnel of my own country,
Don't value Neugen's opinion.

It does appear that people who have actually served in wars tend to view them differently. Here's a few websites with acommon theme of veterans against war:

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

"Burnt at stake by angry pacifists"

Yet another person who totally fails to understand the concept of pacifism.

ok sorry but had to put this up "pacifists always try to a pass on fists"


()