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

Loopy

If they include/or start a biscuit tax along with the license fee, consider me in. Its not just catering. I just want a nice warm delicious biscuit to go with the gravy.

dave

Morphine yes, but they call it another name....forgotton
excuse the interruption please..

I don't believe in conspiracies like that - people aren't good enough at keeping secrets, and no-one could realistically plan that far ahead and have their plan work (and remember you lot apparantly believe that Bush shares his brain cell with his father).

The idea that the motivation for the War on Terror and the 2nd Gulf War was profit and winning electoral support, I'm sure to some extent it is. The idea that it was all planned in advance, not a chance. Even Bismarck would've scoffed at that one.

Diamorphine...that's the name.

He's an interesting guy, Montana. Yeah, I'll drop discussing that particular thing with you - but I still do wonder... BTW, any proof OBL was *in* Afghanistan when America's finest killed more than 3500 people by bombing it "back to a parking lot" on 8th October 2001? Or was it all much more connected with a Caspian oil pipeline the Taliban objected to, but Bushbaby wanted...

Way too much information, Montana, *if* I am correct about what you implied... (or am I inferring wrongly? If so, sorry...)

No, but heroin does, and I'm sure that's what ES meant...
I find his hypothesis interesting too...

That is hilarious, anhaga!

ES, as an American, can I ask very nicely that you at least limit your barbed comments on Americans to those who actually voted for Shrub? I didn't, wouldn't, and am infuriated with those who did.

But yes, you're right. The whole construct of terrorism is Shrub's. I would suggest Michel Foucault's excellent "Discipline and Punish" to you. It says a lot about the construction of terror and belief.

Della, ewwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I sit in his lectures three times a week. That's all.


*goes to take a shower*

Ewww, yuck, icky....man!

Obviously, what I inferred is *not* what you implied. I am sorry to gross you out (you must admit he's not bad looking - you *are* a woman, aren't you? (Suddenly, I am hoping I remember that right ))

Does this look like a hopeful sign?

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040201/w020150.html

posting as a "contriversal bookmark"
admit he's not bad looking - you *are* a woman
could it not be percieved "he/anyone other than you" might be attracted to "same sexual persona" without the "discourse" that has been allready documented/misinterpeted on rights and wrongs as to "morality" of such a relationship "crush" whatever.

anhaga, I was relatively encouraged, but then again, if Shrub controls it, which he will if he appoints the special investigator, I doubt it will be impartial.

ltp, that's just sick.

Della, it's not so much that he's a dog, he isn't, but he's one of those hippy dogs (as in conserve water, don't take showers) and the fact that he's faculty, and that I'm teaching for him.

Well, that and his ego is the size of the thing that ate London.

Nice turn of phrase MR. Sounds like a candidate for "rightsizing".

In regard to the *investigation* it's just another case of the victor writing history. Some underling will take the fall for the *intelligence error* and Dubya will be free and clear once again, regardless of his ultimate guilt.

Time for the blaming of the innocent, followed by the persecution of the blameless!

It will be rather like the Hutton inquiry, really. Some poor soul will be hung out to dry, whilst those who created the furor will be safely tucked away.

Here's a paragraph from the commission's report on pp 29-30

"4.5 Although the use of coercive measures short of military force is generally preferable to the use of force, these non-military measures can be blunt and often indiscriminate weapons and must be used with extreme care to avoid doing more harm than good – especially to civilian populations. Blanket economic sanctions in particular have been increasingly discredited in recent years as many have noted that the hardships exacted upon the civilian population by such sanctions tend to be greatly disproportionate to the likely impact of the sanctions on the behaviour of the principal players. Such sanctions also tend quickly to develop holes and deteriorate further over time, not least when they are poorly monitored, as has been almost universally the case. Sanctions that target leadership groups
and security organizations responsible for gross human rights violations have emerged as an increasingly important alternative to general sanctions in recent years, and efforts to make such sanctions more effective have drawn increasing attention. A standard exemption for food and medical supplies is now generally recognized by the Security Council and under international law, though the issue of the provision of medical supplies to combatants may sometimes still generate debate."

The commision seems to be saying that blanket sanctions do more harm than good, and then goes on to list how to specifically sanction leaders & their cadres. I think the most important of these is military supplies.

OK, so now for the dangerous part - relating this to Iraq. Saddam after 12 years had plenty of military force to keep his people repressed. Where was he getting the bullets? If the syrian et al. borders were so porous, was it a deliberate action on the part of those countries to break the sanctions, or was it beyond their power? If it was beyond their power, shouldn't they have asked for help?

If the sec council was faced with Syrian et al. non-compliance with the sanctions, shouldn't it have taken action to make sure the sanctions were working?

dave

Sanctions are never completely effective, as many people here have pointed out. It's a pity they are the preferred method of steering an errant leader or nation toward what the international community decides is the proper course of action. Especially when that community is sometimes poorly represented by the UN. But sanctions and international peace keeping forces are still arguably better than outright invasion, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps Churchill actually got one right when he said *Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.*

Sanctions are never completely effective=to me that all they are is window dressing ,as "arms" for example never travel as "arms" so would not be effected by sanctions.

As for war war jaw jaw ,Iraq is more of a "bullying situation" rather like USSR declareing war on Afganistan is like G.B declareing war on the Isle of Man/Dogs OR Canada on one of the Baffin isles.

Overkill in other words, would this have happenned if for example Iraq was the size of China ,dont think so.