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

And it depends upon what you're trying to grow.... Blood meal is used to make the ground the right chemistry to grow roses. I expect plain ol' blood would work just as well.

I hear bovine blood meal is good for cattle, too.

What ever happened to old fashioned farming? I know enough not to put animal products in the compost, why would I feed it to herbivores?

Anyway, back on the subject- so, is it a dessert topping or a floor polish?

No, wait...

OK, so far it was Bush but Saddam was no saint, it was oil but the country needed help, and the contracts to rebuild include a pipeline to Israel. Is that it?

Do nice to see someone else trying to sum up this thread.

But you left out: so-and-so doesn't tell the truth, everybody's fat and stupid, don't hack my email, you're not really who you say you are, and the UN inspectors weren't thrown out, they were pulled!

I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact quote and I can't for the life of me remember who said it, but:

*If the devil was invented so we could all vie for sainthood, was god invented so we could commit evil?*

Devils and saints all, let history sort it out, I'm outta here!

(One last (?) time...)

That's actually an interesting philosophical question. It's my belief that God was invented when a human being decided that another human being's actions were distasteful, and so had to find a way to tell them to quit doing it without actually admitting that they were the one with the problem.

A friend of mine thinks that God was invented about a second after fear was discovered. Not a bad idea, that.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Civillian deaths as a direct result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq now exceed ten thousand.

But we can all tell the families of those ten thousand people that everything's alright because Dubya (probably) won't be president a year from now.

Still far less than those dyeing as a result of "hypothermia,starvation and deprivation and other" first world countrys GB/USA/CANADA/AUSTRALIA EUROPE due to inadiqate care!!!!!!!!!!!
i wont give figures but there out there ,most of you will know of someone who was found lyeing dead somewhere or another after what seems any think up to sixmonths later.

Then there's the reapportionment of Blame (gov-doc-social-servises)
We Must Do More At Home Before meddleing in other affairs.

For leaders like Bush and Blair, working to prevent deaths at home (although easier) is boring and unglamorous. They'd rather expend their energy ending lives on the other side of the world.

Why? Because they can!

actually, it probably doesn't exceed 10,000. 1st, that's just the upper limit. 2nd, we know that some of those aren't actually civilians.

"ten thousand, tops"

"1st, that's just the upper limit"

As that site explains, even the upper limit is conservative.

"2nd, we know that some of those aren't actually civilians."

How do you know that, Dave? I thought you'd given up being a sycophant to sargentFlipper when he lost all his credibility. Or is it that strange and bizarre world inside your head again?

Lost all his credibility, maybe he never had any for you, but for others he still has some. Just because you feel that way doesnt make it real for everyone.

Even you and I have some left ES. Even after all the petulant and pedantic bickering.

one love

You didn't notice some of the things sargentFlipper said then, Blicky? Here's just a small sample:

"there is nothing on earth I would like more at this moment in time to have your pathetic faggot ass here in front of me. I assure you you would be needing dentures afterwards." (Post 4365)

"If you cannot formulate a convincing counterpoint at least you could shut your opponent up by breaking his jaw." (Post 4384)

"He is still a piece of sh!t" (Post 4384)

"praying that your knowledge of your own inadequacy did not lead you into wetting your bed once again" (Post 4384)

And that's all in one day.

In response Dave offered to buy him a beer if he's ever stateside.

How do YOU rate Flipper's credibility after outbursts like that?

credibility ,not doing any ones credibility any good post 4735 and you cannot drop ,one persons point of view? therebye diverting attention from the "facts".

Any one can trawl through threads and "cut n paste" retalatory comments from posts you have made of such ilk

But its not the sort of thing that will help any argument/discourse
or debate that may be going on.

i have followed this and other threads for months at a time without posting and patterns do emerge ,it their fore follows lgicaly so are others,


bear that in mind.

I'm confused. You hijack the guy's email addy and then when he gets angry, you say he's lost credibility? I would say that street goes both ways. If childish outbursts were a sign of decreased credibility, none of us (well, perhaps with the exception of anhaga!) would have any left.

And no, I'm not defending him. I'm just pointing out that everyone on this thread has been been childish at one point or another. I'm also saying that namecalling and outbursts get no one anywhere.

Oh, and I thought this might be of interest. I got it this morning from a friend.

Below is a message that you can send to MoveOn.org to encourage them to initiate a campaign calling for the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration. MoveOn.org is currently one of the most effective means of grass-roots, internet-based advocacy and activism. The message to MoveOn details the reasons why an independent commission is necessary. If you share the concerns expressed in the message below, go to http://www.moveon.org/feedback/ and send the message. Feel free to modify or add to the message, or cut and paste it as is.
Dear MoveOn organizers,

I write to you to ask that MoveOn.org please consider initiating a campaign to mobilize support for an independent commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the Bush administration. The creation of such a commission is of critical importance in a year when voters will be choosing between President Bush and a Democratic challenger. Such a commission would be of equal if not greater importance should Bush win November's election, and it would be of great important even if Bush should lose November's election. An independent investigation of the Bush administration is absolutely necessary.

Millions of people in America, and millions of people in Iraq, wished for Saddam Hussein's tyrannical reign to come to an end. Many in the Bush administration shared this wish, apparently from the very time they took office.

However, knowing that the Bush administration viewed as a goal the removal of Hussein from power, there are a number of executive-branch duties that must be considered when reviewing the administration's campaign to initiate a military invasion of Iraq.

It would constitute a gross violation of executive duties if, rather than resulting from an objective assessment of intelligence information, the administration's desire to remove Huessein from power had an inappropriate influence on the administration's assessment of available intelligence information regarding Iraq's weapons programs.

It would constitute a gross violation of executive duties if, rather than accurately reflecting the state of available intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons programs, the administration's public portrayal of its intelligence information characterized the state of that intelligence inaccurately as a result of the administration's desire to remove Hussein from power.

It would constitute a gross violation of executive duties if, in addition to their publicly stated reasons for pursuing the removal of Hussein from power, the administration harbored any unstated or ulterior motives for pursuing the removal of Hussein from power.

Finally, it would also constitute a gross violation of executive duties if, rather than resorting to military invasion only when military invasion became necessary to secure U.S. and international security, the administration's desire to remove Hussein from power led the administration to inaccurately assess, halfheartedly contemplate, or disingenuously dismiss the effectiveness and continued viability of sanctions and inspections as means of keeping Iraq's weapons programs in check.

I and many other Americans, indeed, millions of Americans believe that the President and others in the administration may have violated one or more executive-branch duties. I believe that a strong enough case can be made for each of the following claims to warrant the creation of an independent commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the Bush administration.

1) The administration HARBORED UNSTATED, ULTERIOR MOTIVES for pursuing the removal of Hussein from power: one of the reasons the Bush administration sought regime change was because they sought to secure U.S. oil interests in the Middle East.

2) The administration MISHANDLED INTELLIGENCE: the administration's goal of regime change led the administration to selectively interpret intelligence in order to make a case for war, ignoring the cautionary remarks, qualifications, and mixed messages that the administration received from the CIA and the international intelligence community.

3) The administration PUBLICLY MISREPRESENTED the state of available intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons programs: because the administration sought public support for regime change, the administration publicly exaggerated the existing and potential threat posed by Hussein's weapons programs, eliminating the cautionary remarks, qualifications, and mixed messages that the administration received from the CIA and the international intelligence community.

4) The administration deployed military invasion UNNECESSARILY: because the administration sought regime change above all else and adopted regime change as its ultimate goal, the administration belittled the significance of reports from UN weapons inspectors and dismissed out of hand the French and German proposals for increased and intensified weapons inspections.

That makes FOUR possible violations of executive-branch duties! And there may be many more.

MoveOn organizers, millions of Americans believe, with good reason, that the President and others in the administration may have violated one or more executive-branch duties. All Americans, and all Iraqis and the rest of the international community, deserve to know the truth. Please initiate a campaign to help America's citizens mobilize and organize their support for the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration.

Thanks for your time, and, more importantly, thanks for your action -- it is appreciated by millions.

Sincerely,

Sorry for the length, but I thought ya'll might be interested.

"perhaps with the exception of anhaga!"

(childish )

Oh crap! you got me all flustered and I pressed post before I was finished.

I remember hearing about Moveon.org at some length on CBC a few months ago. I guess it got started by a guy who got fed up with all the attention being paid to Bill Clinton's indescretions while other more important issues were being ignored. Hence the "move on" of the name. It's said to have grown into a force to be reckoned with in American politics (giving the lie to the idea that all Americans are apathetic fatties.)

Good job putting the link up, Montana.

(and thanks for the nice.)

If the upper limit is conservative, why bother providing the lower one? Is that the extra special extra super duper conservative one?

Dave:

If you look at the Iraq bodycount web page and the explanation of how they arrived at the numbers, you will understand (but I'll summarise anyway)

They look at news stories, hospital reports, etc. if the story says "ten to fifteen killed" they add ten to the low estimate and fifteen to the high estimate. They argue that even the high numbers are conservative because it is assumed that in what is essentially an area without order (Iraq), there are going to be incidents that go unreported. The idea of Iraq body count (like its asscociated site for Afghanistan) is to provide some rough idea of what the death toll has been, because, as we know, the American military "does not do body-counts".

If you doubt the numbers presented at Iraq Body Count, that's fine. The people that assemble the numbers at Iraq Body Count doubt their numbers. They don't claim that their numbers are precise. But what are you really saying? Are you suggesting that their numbers are way, way off? Do you think that there have been more like, say, 200 Iraqi civilians killed? If so, what is your evidence. Iraq Body Count is quite happy to provide its evidence.

Hasn't this all been hashed out already?