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

susan, you really are your own worst enemy.
I'm in agreement with you that Bush is a rotten sack of sh!t, I agree that the U.S. has no business in Iraq and has done lots of nasty things throughout its history. The war against the Sioux, Apache, Commanche and dozens of other tribes was genocide. Many tribes were wiped out, if not by the pony soldier and his long knives then by corrupt Indian agents, rotten govt. beef and smallpox infested blankets.
The war in Iraq, as hateful as it is, is not genocide by any reasonable definition of the word.
Flipper is not a puppet, he a serving soldier who could be shot for disobeying lawful orders or jailed for treason for not reporting for duty. Some have been jailed and that is matter of their personal conscience, but to not make the same decision as those people does not make him a puppet, nor does it make him evil. Nor is Lentilla evil or in league with Bush for not starting her own petition or taking to the hill with a carbine to start an armed revolt. What she is is civilized.
As far as OJ is concerned, you weren't in that courtroom and neither was I, so we don't know all the evidence that was presented. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe he didn't do it? His attorney was able to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of at least six jurors. That is the way the court system works. As far as the jurors saying after the trial that they acquitted OJ because they were worried about rioting - I'm afraid you're gonna have to show us a source for that one since jurors are forbidden by law to discuss the deliberations after the trial. So put up or shut up ES.
And before you start loading the napalm, keep in mind that I really would like to be on your side. Most of us would, but you persist in taking the most extreme position available and then refusing to listen to anyone else's arguements. Let up on the vitriol for a change and admit that you might just have overstated your case a bit.
Bush is an unelected ideologue with authoritarian tendencies, he is not Hitler. The Iraq war is probably illegal, almost certainly unjustifiable under the terms given by the White House, but it is hardly the Holocaust. I realize that the civilians whose homes were bombed in Baghdad so Dubya could go after the man who tried to kill his daddy are just as dead as the victims of the Nazi gas chambers, but so are the people Saddam had killed for opposing his regime, so are the U.S. troops killed by friendly fire, so is the guy who gets hit by a city bus in Auckland when he crosses the street without looking. Dead is dead. But under no circumstances can the war in Iraq be considered an attempt to wipe out the entire population.

"To put the use of language straight. Stalin probably murdered, or had murdered, between five and ten *million* Russians (Don't nitpick the numbers, guys, it's not crucial). Was this attempted genocide? No."

I'm not going to nitpick the numbers and I really hate to take us further off topic, but this misinformation needs to be corrected. Stalin's actions in the Ukraine are generally recognized as genocide. Many cities have monuments in front of their city halls commemorating this genocide.

"Ukrainian communities in Canada commissioned memorials to be erected in Edmonton and Winnipeg. The memorial monument in Edmonton was designed by Montreal/Toronto artist Ludmyla Temertey. It was inspired by her mother, who was a famine survivor. The one in Winnipeg was the work of Roman Kowal, a local sculptor, who was born in Western Ukraine. As a young man he heard of the famine from one of the survivors. His secular depiction of a mother and child squeezed between two pillars of granite stands in a prestigious location in front of Winnipeg's City Hall."http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/darewych.htm

http://www.uccla.ca/issues/genocide/i_gncd_028.html

I agree that we have to be careful with the use of the term, but we especially have to be careful not to deny genocides for what they are.

Do a google search on "ukrainian genocide" and see what you come up with.
For example:
http://www.historywiz.com/reasons.htm
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/tracz/

ES I do not personally codone the facts and events, but I would act appropriately to halt any terrorist. I would not hesistate, if I was younger I would be out there.

Yes SH was a threat to the middle east. He was trying to develop any weapon he could lay his hands on. In the wider context he was a threat to economic development of Georgian, Russia, oil fields to the north.

The Kurdish situation had to be settled with Turkey again to clear the path for an oil line upto Georgia. Israel needs water. Iraq has it and the fertile lands with it. Crop harvest is reaped from the NE area. Anhaga has the link to this.

ES, yes, I seriously believe nasty stuff was moved about. It is pointless to opine to which locations. The blockade on Iraq was a joke. He was trading oil with anyone that had the dollars or gold. His people starved. Oil got across, food was turned back. Why do you think two senior UN heads resigned?

The Balkans and The Middle East is a place where western values are alien to everyday life. The only measure of a person is the weapon they carry or the goods they have to trade.

I do not want death, do not want to support war, but I honestly believe enough was known to act. You must look at the big picture.
To be honest this fracas is a minor scrap to the potential threat over on the E Pacific. That's where the focus is.

I do not relish murder ES. I accept it as the status quo.

oops, I missed Paperboy's post. I agree completely with it. My post about the Ukrainian Genocide was meant solely as a corrective to the suggestion that Stalin hadn't attempted genocide.

We should probably also remember (if we care about Simpson at all) that a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as "innocent".

I'd just like to point out some facts about the US legal system

1) Criminal trial
In most states, all the jurors must agree in order to convict. So if the defense convinces 1 juror that the defendant is not guilty, then the person is not going to be found guilty.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/07BA0993-2B75-48E6-8AD65D205B6A39CE

2) Civil trial
9 our of twelve jurors are required to find in favor of either parrty. The defense does not have to prove their innocence, again it just comes down to the number of jurors that beleive each side.

Obviously it's a lot easier to win a Civil trial, regardless of the facts. It's just the rules of the system.

I'm surprised I could read so many posts about the OJ simpson trial and not read
"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"

IMHO, the real reason OJ was acquitted was also due to the MAIN structural flaw in American jurisprudence. The prosecution in a criminal trial is carried out by the District Attorney, a publicly elected official. His office is paid for by public money. The defense of course is paid for by the defendant, OJ simpson. Of course OJ simpson can afford to bring A TON more money to bear in this one case than the DA's office. After all, it's do or die for him. His money isn't going to do him any good if he loses...

This also explains why he lost the civil trial. In this case, the person or group filing the complaint hires private attorneys, and are seeking monetary damages. Even if person filing the suit doesn't have money to hire lawyers, they can effectively pay a really high price by offering the lawyers a (large) share of the winnings. So in the civil suit a much greater amount of money/resources can be brought to bear against the defendant.

dave

btw. Empty. By your defintion, every murder is genocide.

Every human has a unique DNA sequence. We are all unique creatures. By murdering anyone, you effectively destroy the one and only of that type that has ever existed, or will ever exist. Bang,murder = genocide. How stupid and insulting to equate murder with genocide. If anyone was offended about me claiming that the US won WWII, I would think that they would be more angry about someone diluting & trivializing genocide.

dave

Yes Trunt I had a Ukrainian friend. He fled to England in 1946 and died here about 1990. He told me what happened.

Just for fun:

"All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." UN Charter, Article 2

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." Article 33

"The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court." Article 36

"Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate."Article 37



"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." Article 51

Etcetera.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

For "UN" substitute "NATO" and then for NATO substitute "USA"
de facto real politik

Trunt, you almost made me cry with that last post. Finally someone using a real live fact as opposed to a media source for their argument. Its beautiful man.

ES, I hope that the point I made a week or two ago is finally sinking in. All you are doing is alienating yourself. Even those that traditionally disagree with me refuse to back you any longer.

As I said I am pretty much in the middle here. I was opposed to the invasion from the word go until the first shot. We are here now and we must leave this nation as a viable political and economic entity or everyone that has died has done so in vain.

I think that we have decided that genocide is out. But, murder is also the wrong word. I never wake up in the morning stretch and say "I think I'm going to kill omeone today." Neither does anyone else. I have said it before the site that ES loves so much lists people that are killed trying to attack someone and also people that are killed from attacks from terrorists.

Personally I think that every single dead terrorist is a good thing. Who wants a rabid dog in their neighborhood anyway?

If you are going to blame the US for the dead, also blame us for the people that are still alive because Saddam is gone.

One word on O.J.
Jury trial- Guilty beyond a shadow of doubt
Civil Trial- preponderance of evidence.

I'm glad cooler heads have prevaled (or so it seems). The rabid extremism and name calling was getting a bit tired.

A point though, Flipper. Equating Saddam's regime with terrorism is getting just as tired. And excusing the invasion because of his inhumanity is once again not only deflecting criticism of the original reason for invasion but ignoring all the other brutal regimes that exist without intervention.

Would you not agree Zoom that the prime motivator of man is greed not love? In other words "people" are not a scarce resource. Adam Smith made but one reference to unkind people of an inhumane disposition. It's unnatural to be "kind".

Capitalism and world salvation do not sit well together.

Loopy/Oetzi how long are you gonna be pre-modded for it is annoying when those pre mod messages come up!

another question, just for fun:

Why does the American military insist on naming its helicopters after defeated enemies of America (Black Hawk, Apache) and its missiles after weapons employed by those enemies against America (Tomahawk)?

Is there on some weapon designer's drawing board a plan for a "Saddam helicopter" which will fire "Donkey Cart" missiles?

I beg your pardon FB. "About two weeks" was the time given when I asked. Its an idiotic situation: replicated all over the world.

The so-called Helsinki Commission, grouping states around the Baltic Sea, already gives tips to fishermen including:

-- cut the nets if you suspect mustard gas, which smells like cress, horseradish or mustard.

-- don`t rub your eyes if they sting and you suspect mustard gas because you can go blind if you unwittingly already have it on your fingers. Instead, wash eyes with water from a hose for 15 minutes.

-- fishing boats should have one "gas box" per three crew members that should include decontamination liquids and sprays and syringes with injections to counter nerve agents.

In other areas, a Belgian study of the Paardenmarkt site where 35,000 tonnes of chemical and conventional munitions from World War One are dumped in shallow waters concluded that it could take up to 1,000 years for all to corrode.

And since the 1920s, more than one million tonnes of mostly conventional arms have been dumped in the Beaufort`s Dyke, a 200-300 metre (656-984 feet) deep trench between Scotland and Northern Ireland. A 1996 study showed no contamination of fish.


taken from http://www.btopenworld.com/news/world/0,,csn=647|csr=4522045,00.html

any arguments over right ang wrong will end but since we still have to "clear up" mess from a then ,since they must have budgeted for cost of disposal in iraq why not spend the money there?
thought i know,had "the super powers" not developed "W.O.M.D"
AND SPENT MONEY ON more humanitarian causes


the world would be a safer place.

A 1996 study showed no contamination of fish.


given the depth and time span dead and rotted fish would show no sign of contamination !

and if it did would we be told






i dont think so.

Yes Trunt.

It's a hearts and minds thing. The quacks say it works...psychologists. When SH was captured the
codes used were taken from a Hollywood action movie.

Not daft these military planners you know. Most of the
military cohort would have seen that film.

On a personal level I believe names are important. I love
the naval names the US gives it's big carriers. Wonderful
morale builders. The whole image of the white dress uniform,
the shades and the discreet rank bars is a knockout to see
in the bright sunlight.

Once you've seen this sight, brother, you do not mess!

Tracky, I knew the Scots fishermen well. Brother you do not want to know what they find....believe me!