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

"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."

No it means be careful and make *only* military valid targets. Too simple?

"but let's stop pretending there's no evidence whatsoever."

Did I say that there was none? No. Zagreb, you said you were going to stop insinuating.

Also you seem to be ignoring that these weapons have a shelf life. How about stations that can sniff chemicals that are in place. What about ground penetrating radar that inspectors have use of?

*I've still never seen you provide a link. Then again you have admitted to being a lia on this thread*


Your libelist personal attack only serves to enforce your unfortunate lack of resourcfulness. It seems to be a common pattern of yours when someone does not conform to your thoughts. It is sad staement of your intellect when your only option in the face of differing views is to launch unfounded personel attacks.


Even though you could not ask in a civalized way here is link. All statements include source and are verifiable.

www.defendamerica.mil/articles/oct2002/a101802a.html

*Also you seem to be ignoring that these weapons have a shelf life. How about stations that can sniff chemicals that are in place. What about ground penetrating radar that inspectors have use of?*

While hiding a nuclear program is not an easy thing to do that does not apply to a biologic program. A mobil laboratory can fit in a trailer behind a semi truck. Already produced bio agents can be stored in a common fridge in a house or a refridgerated trailer.
While once loaded in a shell the shelf life is not long it can be greatly increased when kept cold.

"The person you are referring to puts the price on his standard of living in civilain lives." inaccurate.

The person referred to (ie me) presented that argument, couched in the form of "it could be argued". At no point have I claimed that viewpoint as my own, and the Amoeba accepted this in post 3730 when he/she/it berated me for not taking ownership of the argument.

When I then said that Amoeba was free to ignore me and I wouldn't care, he/she/it twisted that to infer that I did not care about the issues, and then expressed the hope that I would die. I then called him/her/it a sanctimonious prat and moved on.

It seems that if I *do* believe the argument I put forward, then I'm unworthy of respect and deserve to die. Whereas,if I *don't* believe the argument then I'm pathetic and deserve to die. Either way, Amoeba would like to see me dead for presenting a position contrary to the one he/she/it believes in. Democracy in action.

However, it is my happy privilege to inform the Amoeba that there is no cause for concern, for I will certainly die eventually. I hope that this assurance is sufficient to enable the Amoeba to calm the hell down.

(Incidentally, those berating me for the use fo the word "pacifism" should re-read my 2 posts in this regard and note the clear attempts at humour, specifically the "irony" comments and the suggestion to refer to the definitions of "frivolous" and "flippant". if the humour didn't work.)

Geoff

*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?)*

Bingo Combattant, Many nations have supplied Iraq over the years. In the 80s the US supplied iraq with weapons to fight Iran. Another thing they did was to honor a request made by iraq for samples of a number of bio-agents that were to be used for research for anti toxins. At worst unconscionable at best stupid. The US however were not the only ones. The russians,chineese,french and a handfull of others have also. Some of these countrys continued to supply saddam after the war. This is one reason why some goverments want him gone as they know what horrific wmd he has and the damage he could do with them or others could if they got a hold of them. While other countrys do not want the proof that they have been supplying Iraq with weapons since the war. This is not to say that economic loss/gain do not also come into play.

*(Incidentally, those berating me for the use fo the word "pacifism" should re-read my 2 posts in this regard and note the clear attempts at humour, specifically the "irony" comments and the suggestion to refer to the definitions of "frivolous" and "flippant". if the humour didn't work.)*

It is not your fault Geoff apparently the 'amoeba' has yet to develope the humor cell.

"Your libelist personal attack only serves to enforce your unfortunate lack of resourcfulness. It seems to be a common pattern of yours when someone does not conform to your thoughts. It is sad staement of your intellect when your only option in the face of differing views is to launch unfounded personel attacks."

You lied on this thread and you admitted it. Something is only liable if it is untrue. - "launch unfounded personel attacks." This is a tactic of yours that I was not using.

Well said Appirition.Once a 'person' loses their sense of humor(especially at themselves) there`s no point in even trying to have an intelligent conversation w/them.Was it Socrates who started the idea of intellectual dialogue? Neugen

Aren't those Dogster accords difficult when faced with some people?

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

After put down the first one the other two sensed I meant business and became much more manageable.

I've gotten a lot of laughs catching up on this thread - Geoff's ways of dying horribly and Frogbit's question about which dog bit Starbirth in the end got me giggling pretty hard... Tacsatduck's link to the Bush/monkey site was pretty good too.

Now, I'm going to shake a finger and say BEHAVE! There is a thread for insulting each other... it's called 'What's wrong with h2g2 researchers,' so if you're in the mood for name-calling, go over there.

And yes, I'm over 25. I'm over 30. I'm not over 35, so at least that's something, right?

Okay... let's see...

Some things I've just learned:

• Saudi Arabia (not Iraq, as I previously stated) is the one with all the wealthy businessmen funding Al-Queda.

• Iraq is a country that came into existence with the assistance of Britain, and quite recently too - not long before the Iran-Iraq war.

• The Kurds have been one of the most divisive problems the Middle East has faced. There were three factions in Iraq after it was created - the Kurds were the minority, and the other two factions treated them like crap.

• France has exclusive drilling rights to the majnoor, a massive oil field in Iraq (I think it's Iraq!) Which explains why they weren't too enthusiastic about an early war against Iraq.

• The Bush adminstration is seeing a chance to throw the balance of power in the U.S.'s direction - if they can install a puppet government in Iraq, then they'll have access to quite a bit of oil. Not as much as Saudi, but plenty for now. If Saudi Arabia and Iraq denies sale of oil to the U.S., we're screwed - or at least have to depend upon our own oil resources in Alaska and Texas.

• The government has finally admitted to the existence of the Gulf War Syndrome - first pointed out by veterans of the Gulf War, who complained of exhaustion and

• Something I haven't learned enough about is the dynamic of finding oil in Kurdish land. The article I read didn't say what Iraq did to acquire the oil after it was discovered. Did the Kurds sell the oil themselves, or was it taken away from them?

This is all really interesting to me, but so far all I've gotten are bits and pieces. I'd like to see somebody put it all together - the oil consortium and how it's managed, what holdings Bush Sr. has in the Middle East, the history of the Middle East starting when oil was first discovered, and how many countries actually provide oil to OPEC.

Oops, sorry - clicked 'Post Message' too soon. Ignore the bit about the Gulf War. It seems like I heard something about them confirming an actual disease that was linked to the Gulf War, but there's nothing on the net about it.

Makes you wonder what al quaeda is up to while we're all looking at Iraq,
After all there've already proved themselves capbale of mounting an assault.

http://www.ask.co.uk/metasearch.asp?aj_product=IndexSearch&MetaEngine=Teoma&EngineOrdinal=2&ItemOrdinal=1&m=9&AdServerCode=&MetaURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efbi%2Egov%2Fmostwant%2Ftopten%2Ffugitives%2Fladen%2Ehtm__score_1.00__&MetaTopic=FBI+Bio+and+Info++%2D+Usama+Bin+Laden&ask=Where%2Bis%2BOsama%2BBin%2BLaden&LogId=CCF69076E651DF4E8FD40C2ED863CE55&origin=0&qsource=1&qcategory=NEWS&aj_is=no&rf=&x=false&uk=false

Hope the link works. I asked Jeeves, and neither he nor the FBI seem to know what Bin Laden's doing.

I bet u he's not taking Tea with Saddam though. The Iraq war could be a terribly fatal distraction from a more imminant threat

Here's what the BBC call a 'rare interview ' with Saddam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2727089.stm

and this link 'appears' to be the invasion plan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2721557.stm

Zagreb:

"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."

As someone pointed out, my tartan martinet, the police try to stop organised crime. The proposed attack on Iraq is, in my view, organised crime. Anyone that joins in (to echo Bush and his inspired 'war criminals' speach) is complicit in organised crime. There is no force to govern the army or the government (outside polling week), so it is up to me to object publically.

"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?"

Somewhat different objectives to this barbaric oil grab, wouldn't you say?



And then;

"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."

"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"

Blah blah blah, as have Israel, North Korae and every other tin-pot country that would stick its chin out on the world stage.

"there are areas the Weapons Inspectors were refused entry to in 1998 (wonder why?), "

Oooh, let's see - perhaps they were tremendously f*cked off at being pushed around by the West and decided not to play ball. If the West had seriously considered it was being kept out because of any serious weapons programme don't you think they'd have made some aggresive inquiries?

"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."

Wow. A massive search of a supposedly heavily armed country and all he can turn up is a couple of dusty crates of old and empty warheads in the back of a knackered out shed. Evil Genius? Or an oversight in stock-taking? Perhaps they were in a hurry for some reason. Is this conclusive? No. Is this evidence? Of an intent to overthrow world powers in a bid to become Master of the Universe? Not really.

STARBIRTH:

Wow, you really have a lot of gaul showing your face around here after the 'Moslems don't have to honour agreements made with infidels' lie.

"Your libelist personal attack only serves to enforce your unfortunate lack of resourcfulness. It seems to be a common pattern of yours when someone does not conform to your thoughts. It is sad staement of your intellect when your only option in the face of differing views is to launch unfounded personel attacks."

It wasn't libel, it was a plain fact. You've lied, you've admitted lying and now you are making the initial transgression 10 times worse by attempting to defame someone who had you up on it. Here's a tip for appearing on public forums - keep in mind that what you write stays on the server. Anyone can read back and check who is spouting poppycock.

" In the 80s the US supplied iraq with weapons to fight Iran. Another thing they did was to honor a request made by iraq for samples of a number of bio-agents that were to be used for research for anti toxins."

They also supplied them with the biological weapons in the first place, which is why they didn't think the request was unusual. And finally, onto the rabid dog matter;

"After put down the first one the other two sensed I meant business and became much more manageable."

I'm sorry, I rather think different. I think you are hallucinating from a massive overdose of rabies serum, injected into you by the paramedic team that found your twitching, sorry arse being laughed at by the dogs that were still taking turns in biting you.

()

"The person referred to (ie me) presented that argument, couched in the form of "it could be argued". At no point have I claimed that viewpoint as my own, and the Amoeba accepted this in post 3730 when he/she/it berated me for not taking ownership of the argument."

Slick Geoff, slick. It could also be argued that you are spineless.



"It seems that if I *do* believe the argument I put forward, then I'm unworthy of respect and deserve to die. Whereas,if I *don't* believe the argument then I'm pathetic and deserve to die. Either way, Amoeba would like to see me dead for presenting a position contrary to the one he/she/it believes in. Democracy in action."


The whole issue of your death was as a result of you putting forward gruesome options for your own death and me suggesting that instead of these gruesome options, I'd prefer you to die of shame. Firstly because you put forward what I consider a sick argument and second because you showed no resolve in supporting this argument in any way.

And yes it is contary to what I believe in. I don't believe in even suggesting that we should put a price on your standard of living in the civilian lives of other countries. It's a revolting notion and one you should be ashamed of proposing it.

This is not democracy in action, it is common decency. You should know the difference.