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

Ah yes, but zoomer that goes back to the most important part of the question posed by the commision. When have sanctions failed?

*failed* is I suppose the operative word. If in fact people died due to lack of food or medicine, did the sanctions fail? Or was it due to Hussein not using the resources he was given to save civilian life? Did he suffer due to sanctions? Yes. Did innocent civilians suffer? Apparently yes as well. All very muddy water, but war is somewhat clearer. We know statistics as to life lost, gains in freedom, or loss of utilites and services. A clearer balance sheet if you will. The point is, would sanctions have worked eventually with less loss of life and destruction of property? I don't know, but I suspect yes. At the same time, there was a need to stop a repressive regime as soon as possible I suppose, even if it happened to be initiated by the same country that was invading. IMHO with the limited knowledge I had at the time and again now, I believe continuing sanctions would have been on the whole a better balanced and more humane solution.

here's a good link about violence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F120604?thread=365155 post 15 says it all, really. It's a good description of when you can cross the line between non-violence and violence. what do you think trunt? is it legal to flatten people where you're from? dave

Oh, I don't know, Dave. We all will react to a flamer like *Member* and especially when they get personal. I hadn't run into him/her yet on this site but their language seems oddly familiar....

One burst of anger in print doesn't really prove anything, does it? I'm just surprised that you brought that thread up here when it seems irrelevant to the current conversation.

No, it doesn't prove anything. If we're talking about switching between sanctions & invasion, that's similar to switching between non-violence & violence.

If the sanctions weren't working why have them? If the UN authorized them, why not make sure they work? Otherwise, why starve all those innocent people?

dave

Well for one thing it wasn't a *switch* from sanctions to invasion, it was a relatively small number of member states of the UN disagreeing, ignoring the conclussions of the parent organisation, and invading. As to the effectiveness of sanctions, I am not well enough informed to say that it would or would not have been ultimately effective. I can only say again it seems logical that it might have resulted in less damage and loss of life, albeit over an extended period of time.

it took too many years for sanctions to be felt in south africa ,and even then no effect was felt in "corridors of power", changes to policys in "alternative styles of gov" all need to come from inside the "country/state" for it to be sustainable.One only needs to look at the "eastern countrys" to see benifits "outside" inteferences/sanctions in Korea did not resolve any thing ,the country now has one of the biggest demilatarized zones ,the divide between the country inhabitents far more than any "iraqian internal" squable.Yet of late has not made the news media attention! and as far as i understand still has sacntions levied.

That raises an interesting point...if we figured how much life was lost during the sanctions, and extrapolate that for a reasonable time period, we could compare that to the war. Granted the war isn't over, but perhaps when it is, we could make a reasoned comparison of the two methods.

dave

Sad but true, Dave. I think I would feel a bit ghoulish doing it, or at least feel like an insurance actualiser.

But at least it might prove useful in the future. My only concern would be that, like with insurance companies different lives would be determined to be worth *more*, which I find repugnant.

As with most things, only history will supply a specific answer, and always too late.

Are you referring to the cost of life insurance by life insurance companies or something else?

It is ghoulish - but if it is done by plenty of independent sources, at least you can make sure it's done correctly.

> he's one of those hippy dogs (as in conserve water, don't take showers)

Oh, so you're saying he likes to impress others with his natural body musk. Lovely.

> 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!

I wonder about that. Bush Jr. is throwing the CIA to the wolves by blaming it on bad intelligence, while the CIA is saying that Dick Cheney badgered them to give the White House harsher reports. When you think about the connections the CIA has, versus the connections that Bush has, it's really a question as to who's going to come out on top. They might pick Cheney to be the sacrificial lamb, (almost typed lamp!) but he's got his own connections, and will probably fight it.

Nah, Karl Rove will be the fall guy.

Sorry, Dave. I'm not sure about the title *Actualiser* but it is something like that. Basically it is using tables that take into account age, sex, habits, etc. that can be quite accurate in predicting someone's time of death. They also decide who and what kind and age of person is worth more (children are worth less insurance pay-out then adults to use the basic version). All quite distasteful but I suppose it's what happens when business and humanity merges.

Actuary "A career without boundaries" http://www.beanactuary.org/

Thanks Anhaga for reaching into the deep, mushy, gray goo of my forebrain with a tweezer and extracting the actual word.

funny how google gets in there too, isn't it.

No! Not actually!

Google for *actualiser*

*Did you mean: actualized?  


Category:   
World > Français > Santé > Soins infirmiers  

The SIL French/English Linguistic Glossary
... action 2. actualisateur 2. actualisation. actualiser. actuel 1. actuel 2. addition. ... down.
Tip: use * as a wildcard. French actualiser. Eng actualize, realize. vt. ...
www.sil.org/linguistics/glossary_fe/ glossary.asp?entryid=201 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages*

actuary, perhaps?

Exactly.

Dave
<... we could make a reasoned comparison of the two methods.>

We could make a reasoned comparison of the two metods *in this particular case*, but we'd need more than one case to make a more general comparison, unfortunately.

Noggin