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

"but not even consider the evidence of Iraq's", I should have said.

What about the war crimes the West commited in the Gulf War?
(Use of weapons that cause unnescecary suffering, i.e. depleted uranium; wanton destruction, wilful killing of civilians, making civilians the inevitable consequence of an attack, etc.) Also, the West was complicit in many of Saddam's crimes (who sold him the chemical weapons he used against the Iranians and Kurds in the full knowledge of what he would use them for?)

Also, about depleted uranium (DU). Apparently, it emits alpha radiation. This means it cannot penetrate human skin well, and is relatively safe. Unless you ingest or inhale it that is--in which case, since the radiation cannot penetrate skin it is stuck inside you! So here's some free advice: do not eat or drink the produce of the Balkans, Iraq or anyone else NATO members have bombed recently!

"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..."

Do you approve of action against organised crime? Yes? Here's your police-uniform and baton. See you at the raid."

Bizzarely, a sap steps forward. Zagreb, I hoped against hope it wouldn't be you, but then again I hoped against hope that it would. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist, see, so couldn't help myself. I know an olive branch passed between us, but frankly I much prefered it when we were exchanging insults. So here goes;

Regardless of whether you have a point or not (and you so rarely do), your arguments are rendered weak, watery and straw-coloured by your inability to comprehend a concept you don't agree with. Hence:

"Like most bad arguments, falls to bits when you try to apply it's logic to every situation."

Piffle. For starters it plainly wasn't an argument, it was more like a sketch, and it works extremely well when its logic is applied to every situation, albeit a pointless one.

"Do you agree that the pot should be warmed before adding tea?"

"Yes I do."

"Splendid. Here's a tea-pot and some hot water".

Hhhmmm. Might just be me, but I failed to see the scenario crumbling into the shame tinged dust that you so eagerly advertised. We'll try it again shall we?

"Do you approve of action against organised crime?"

"No I don't. It is plainly illegal, has terrible repercussions on communities, teaches kids to grow up thining crime is cool, causes widespread heart-break and violence, and is generally a bad thing. This is why I'm inordinately pleased to contribute to the tax system so that an effective police force can tackle the problem."

Hang on, you're right. It fell flat on its arse that time. What was the point again? Oh yes; "Like most bad arguments, falls to bits when you try to apply it's logic to every situation."

Like most bad arguments...hhhmmm. Like the argument that Saddam Huusein should go because..."He's inhumane"...un ok nobodies going for that one..."He's got WMD."...OK, he hasn't. Um..."He tried to kill my daddy."...um.ok..."Because with a mustache like that he can only be taking the piss out of Freddie Murcury!" Or haven't they used that one yet?
Zagreb, an argument about what sized cam-shaft should be fitted to a 1967 John Deere tractor can't be applied elsewhere. That doesn't make it bad.
Wait. I know what's happened. You fell asleep at the breakfast table and managed to get the print from the front page of the Daily Mail arrayed across your eyelids. Zagreb! Stop reading that stuff out loud! They're not thoughts, they're bullsh...on another topic has anyone else noticed that if you take the first two letters from bull and the forst two ;etters from sh*t, you end up with Bush? Coincidence? Obviously. But quite a funny one.

amoeba,

Enough? Delivery system? Perhaps you should do some reading on Miltarized Biological Agents. The quanity needed to kill and sicken thousands is unbelievably small. Depending on the type the medium for introduction is varied. From food supplys, water, contact to air. While the result would not be as disasterous as a military delivery system ie: missle A handful of agents in a city could wreak havack, kill thousands and bring that to its knees.

Yes you are right there are others out their who are our enemies. They to must be dealt with. Hopefully through diplamatic channels.
{might i remind you The US has defered to world opinion and UN wishs in this matter to date}

If you come upon a 3 rabid dogs every day you leave your house and one of them growls at you do you ignore the growling dog hoping he will not bite you. Will ignoring the growling dog send a message to the other 2 dogs you are weak and open for attack? or do you take out the growling dog putting the other dogs on notice that you can and will act.

"Interesting you should say that. It's a well-known fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, this despite no *evidence* and the fact that Israel strongly denies their existance. All we have to go on is the hearsay of dissidents. I'd imagine the "evidence" or Iraqi WMD's is similarly "vague". Why believe absolutely in Israel's "secret weapons" but not Iraqs?"


Isreal's claim to nuclear weapons come from their threats to use them against Iraq if attacked.

"If you come upon a 3 rabid dogs every day you leave your house and one of them growls at you do you ignore the growling dog hoping he will not bite you. Will ignoring the growling dog send a message to the other 2 dogs you are weak and open for attack? or do you take out the growling dog putting the other dogs on notice that you can and will act."

Um which one bit you in the end? Or was it all three?

"Burnt at stake by angry pacifists"

and try to reconcile that with your copied and pasted definition of pacifism: "The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully."

Burnt at the stake by angry people who believe in settling disputes peacefully?

I guess if you think of the term as only applying to the national level, you can get away with it.

>>It's a well-known fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, this despite no *evidence* and the fact that Israel strongly denies their existance.>>
Zagreb, it's news to me that Israel denies having nukes! I've never heard that they do that! I have heard that they have nukes, I've heard that since 1995, and never a denial! So, was gibt?

>>has anyone else noticed that if you take the first two letters from bull and the forst two ;etters from sh*t, you end up with Bush? Coincidence? Obviously. But quite a funny one.<<



I laughed all through out your posting, Frogbit.

""Do you approve of action against organised crime?"

"No I don't. It is plainly illegal, has terrible repercussions on communities, teaches kids to grow up thining crime is cool, causes widespread heart-break and violence, and is generally a bad thing. This is why I'm inordinately pleased to contribute to the tax system so that an effective police force can tackle the problem.""

And I pay taxes to support a volunteer army so that they can do overseas what the police do here. What's the difference? There is none - exactly the point I was making. We all pay money to the State to it can provide services and forces to do things we cannot do ourselves.

You have a lot of smart-arse stuff in your reply but little argument.

Nice to see you offer an olive-branch and then re-start the slagging match after I accept it. Says a lot about you. Sorry, but this will be the last time I bother replying to you until you grow up.

"Zagreb, it's news to me that Israel denies having nukes! I've never heard that they do that! I have heard that they have nukes, I've heard that since 1995, and never a denial! So, was gibt?"

There's an Israeli currently in prison in his home country for trying to tell the world that Israel has nuclear weapons. It's a well-known fact in international political circles (Jack Straw, the British (or should that be American, these days?) Foreign Minister even said Israel had them on an interview on British television. Israel continues to deny all knowledge of these nukes. This is probably largely because to admit it would mean explaining where they came from - almost certainly the US (which officially is against nuclear proliferation).

"Isreal's claim to nuclear weapons come from their threats to use them against Iraq if attacked."

They were known about before that. Certainly I remember reading about them more than two years ago.

They haven't directly threatened to use these unofficial nukes against Iraq if attacked, as far as I know, just said they will show "no restraint" which can be taken to mean a threat to use nukes.

(Busy today)

"They haven't directly threatened to use these unofficial nukes against Iraq if attacked, as far as I know, just said they will show "no restraint" which can be taken to mean a threat to use nukes."

Which is more evidence than anyone has against Iraq

Ah, thank you, I see, it's all clear... It's dashed hard to know *what* to believe these days, innit?
As I've said before, I have become so sceptical, that I wouldn't believe ABC if they went on TV3 news tonight to assert that Bill Clinton was the 42nd President, that Mercury is the first planet out from the sun, and that Cleveland is in Ohio!

"What about the war crimes the West commited in the Gulf War?
(Use of weapons that cause unnescecary suffering, i.e. depleted uranium; wanton destruction, wilful killing of civilians, making civilians the inevitable consequence of an attack, etc.) Also, the West was complicit in many of Saddam's crimes (who sold him the chemical weapons he used against the Iranians and Kurds in the full knowledge of what he would use them for?)"

A lot of those are the inevitable consequences of any war. That doesn't make them right, but making them against international law would make waging war impossible and thus make it impossible to take action against any aggressive state legally.

The point about depleted uranium is probably a good one. I haven't read up fully on the facts about it yet, so I'll leave any comment on that for now.

I can't accept all this "the West once helped him so can't intervene now". Stalin was complicit in the Nazi takeover of Western Poland. WWII might have ended differently if the USSR had rolled back in the face of German aggression due to having been it's one-time ally. Sorry, but I can't see any logic in this argument, moral or otherwise. All it proves is people sometimes back someone who later becomes their enemy and that the West is not morally whiter-than-white (and if we insisted you could only go to war if you were morally white, nothing would get done).

"And I pay taxes to support a volunteer army so that they can do overseas what the police do here. What's the difference? There is none - exactly the point I was making. We all pay money to the State to it can provide services and forces to do things we cannot do ourselves."

Police enforce law. Soldiers kill. Police act upon law. Soldiers act upon the whim of politicians.

The exception is soldiers placed under UN command, in which they become police acting under international law.

"Which is more evidence than anyone has against Iraq"

Not true - Iraq has used WMD before, it has had WMD sold to it before, Saddam has undertaken various "activities" that suggest he was attempting to obtain WMDs, there are areas the Weapons Inspectors were refused entry to in 1998 (wonder why?), Hans Blix team discovered Chemical Weapon warheads (empty, yes, but why have these warheads if not to put chemicals in?). Is any of this conclusive? No. Is it evidence? Yes. I agree this point is debatable, but let's stop pretending there's no evidence whatsoever.

"Police enforce law. Soldiers kill. Police act upon law. Soldiers act upon the whim of politicians."

Soldiers kill when they have to, as do Police. The Police obey the laws of their own government, not international law, as the army also does most of the time.

"The exception is soldiers placed under UN command, in which they become police acting under international law."

And what a good job they did in Somalia, Bosnia et al. Why police if you won't take action?

Sorry, that last point was more of personal-rant rather than relevant to what you were trying to say but hey, since all the anti-war people can be as off-topic as they like in their replies, why can't I?

Is anyone in this disscussion over the age of 25?

NM