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

?,

San Diego is a military town, it is also has a huge number of rich people and (unsuprisingly) Latinos, all of whom vote for the conservative candidate. In the recent anti-war demonstration (which I attended) over 7,000 people turned out. Considering the conservative make-up of the city it's a remarkably large number.

I own a Honda Civic and a VW Golf, both get good gas mileage and it was a factor when purchasing them. Why?

Yes, I am aware of that statistic (whcih shows just how undeveloped it is, and the effect of sanctions have on life expectance), what's the point?

Ste

Just to put that figure of 50% into perspective, the same figure for the UK is 18.89% from a population of 58,789,194. 2001 Census.

I doubt if sanctions are the main cause as it is supposed to be children that are suffering most from sanctions. Underdevelopment probably. I imagine the life expectancy is considerable less that in the West. But who fault is that?

It would be interesting to compare the same figure to other Middle East countries.

Stuart

Just to put that figure of 50% into perspective, the same figure for the UK is 18.89% from a population of 58,789,194. 2001 Census.

I doubt if sanctions are the main cause as it is supposed to be children that are suffering most from sanctions. Underdevelopment probably. I imagine the life expectancy is considerable less that in the West. But who fault is that?

It would be interesting to compare the same figure to other Middle East countries.

Stuart

My point? Honsestly, I think you've got my point ... judging from your answers two the two simple questions!

As I understand it, actually, the urban core of San Diego did _not vote Bush.

If you examine the predominantly Latino area in the southern part of the urban area (San Ysidro), you'll see that their Cong rep is a fairly radical former Uni professor. If you look to the older, better-off, central areas (Mission Hills, La Jolla, the beach communities) you'll see that all the reps - local, state and federal - are not Republicans.

Finally, I'm not sure old Irwin Jacobs and family voted that way either.

I really do not know much about you other then you are Native American, Attend college, and you write well. I am saddened that your interation with all 'americans' {I take from your writing that you consider yourself a member of a sovereign nation that is located in the United States of America. If I am mistaken my apologies} has been so unpleasant.

"You wanna a piece of me, punk, do you? Well - do you?"
Please,'?' - don't be patronising! The anger level has risen exponentially because there's a lot more at stake! I'd rather have angry faces than actually curse, swear, abuse or insult people. Your problem is taking my smiley use too seriously. Please, I beg you, ? - quit *trying* to bait *me*!

Starbirth, Hans Blix wants a type of weapons destroyed because it has a range of 150km, which is 'forbidden'. I could be mistaken (but I am not)in thinking that the USA is considerably further from Iraq than 150 km!

Analiese, Again I am sorry your opinion of americans is so downcast. However Americans are not really any different then people from any nation from around the world.

After all thats where they have all come from.

Della, What IS your problem? Because, lady, you HAVE a problem. Yeah, I DO have my problems too. But, Della, step back for just a moment, take a few deep breaths, count to ten then look yourself in the mirror.

You can't FIGHT for peace, you can STRUGGLE for it, you can PROTEST for it, you can do a CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE campaign for it, you can do NONVIOLENT action in support of it, ... ANGER will only lead to a loss of control, to HATE, to SUFFERING, to BLINDNESS, DEAFNESS - a loss of sense - such sensory loss no DRUG will ever touch.

>>Hey, get with it Peace and Anger aren't compatible. You can't have peaceful anger or just hate.<<
No, but you *can* have righteous anger! ?, stop sniping at us because we're in New Zealand, and don't say that's not what you are doing, because it obviously is!

>>Hey, get with it Peace and Anger aren't compatible. You can't have peaceful anger or just hate.<<
No, but you *can* have righteous anger! ?, stop sniping at us because we're in New Zealand, and don't say that's not what you are doing, because it obviously is!

Dela you get an 'A' for geography. Iraq is not allowed to posses missles {projectiles} with a range of over 93 km as per UN. Sorry I do not follow what you are getting at here.

Rightous Anger vs. Self-Rightous Anger;
Rational Anger vs. Irrational Anger?
Fighting for Peace?
Just Dislike (Hate)?

Are you really for real, Della!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2798297.stm

I'm not enjoying this anymore.

Just a small point: wasn't the First World War supposed to be the "war to end all wars"? If so, somebody besides Della once believed that it might be necessary to fight for peace. Now, I'm pretty sure that Della isn't thinking of it in quite the same way, but fight has a lot of different connotations in our language, just as war does, and just as Jihad does in Arabic. I'm really surprised if there's anybody out there who would really take issue with Della's use of the term for what she means to express. Taking issue with it seems to be pointless polemicism.

It seems to me that a lot of the time you're all in agreement on a bunch of different things except you don't realize that each is talking about a different one of those things at each moment.

Whatever. Go ahead if you're really enjoying this.

Hmm, what's wrong with this picture?

Nope anhaga. It's quite mad and very very sad.

Oh bugger! my last post was in response to Apparition's link.

Anhaga, well said.

"...Hans Blix wants a type of weapons destroyed because it has a range of 150km, which is 'forbidden' ... the USA is considerably further from Iraq than 150 km!"

These 2 statements are accurate, but unrelated.


Re:- "aggressive inspections". I understand this to mean increased inspections backed up with troops. (I'm not constructing a straw-man argument; if my understanding of the term is wrong then ignore me)

I would suggest that an inspectorate capable of searching Iraq without the cooperation of the Iraqi leadership would need to number in the thousands, and troops to defend/enforce inspections would need to be in the tens of thousands. Would Iraq allow such numbers in? I doubt it. Hans Blix has said that it is not the number of inspectors that is at issue, but the attitude of the Iraqi regime. Without cooperation, would searching an entire country be a realistic exercise?

Re:- arresting Saddam as a War Criminal. How?

"Nope anhaga. It's quite mad and very very sad."

Uh, I'm confused. Wheren't you, question mark, the one who was taking issue with Della's use of the term "fighting" (for peace)? If so, I don't think you got the point of my post. If not, I'm an idiot and I'm sorry.

But my point was that to talk of fighting for peace is a perfectly acceptable bit of rhetoric, one that world leaders use all the time.

But I'm just feeling confused now.