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

So starbirts idea of a source must be conservative?<

No only impartial apparition.

>It was the Americans, not the Iraqis that pulled the statue down just watch the damn video clip that runs hourly on CNN.<

Yes it was those damned yankees again. Damn them all to hell. I heard that had some of there faulty intelligence left them under the impression that there was 'oilz inz demz dare statuses'

Their mad I tell you all mad!

For what it's worth, here's the way I see it:

If it were made clear that Saddam Hussein had to cut off his left testicle or else he would be forced from office by a huge military machine, and then he announced to the world that he'd cut off that bit, and if a whole lot of tailors and doctors had looked at the way his pants were hanging and said that it looked pretty much like there was an appropriate gap there, I probably wouldn't bother taking down the boy's pants. That doesn't mean I think Saddam Hussein is a very nice boy.

By the same token, if George Bush told me he was going to give me a hundred dollars, I'd absolutely believe that he was going to be true to his word. But no matter what he said about where he was going to get the cash or why he was going to do it, I'd hold onto my wallet with an iron grip and strap on my kevlar shorts. That doesn't mean I think George Bush is a very smart boy.

And, as a footnote, if Donald Rumsfeld opened his mouth to say anything on any subject, I would start laughing a bitter laugh before any sound came passed the old boy's teeth. If there's another deck of cards somewhere, his picture's on the Joker in that pack.

Anhaga It take it you are saying:

Saddam hussien = bad

George Bush = trustworthy

Donald Rumsfelt = fool

I have it right?

Yes, I have always thought so, Apparition. Good luck to them!

I know Pat Robertson's view on those things, birth...
BTW, why does Milan Rai's acquaintance with Chomsky invalidate what he says? You asked for a reference and I gave you one!

>>Their mad I tell you all mad!<<

That's the first sensible thing I've heard you say!

Actually Starbirth:

Saddam = bad and trustworthy if you hold on to your wallet and your kevlar shorts

Bush = bad and trustworthy if you hold on to your wallet and your kevlar shorts

Rumsfeld = delusional, lying scary-man

You almost had it right.

Yes it was the Americans who pulled down the statue, not the Iraqis. That doesn't mean the American bastards - I'm glad to see Saddam gone as I'm sure are most people. HOWEVER the made-for-tv moment, like Bush's striding around on the deck of an aircraft carrier was pure propaganda. By pulling down the statue for the all the assembled news crews the US command was trying to send a symbolic message that the war was over and they were the victors and had toppled an egotistical tyrant. The war ain't over. The US has now lost almost as many men to hostile fire since the President declared the war over than they did during the war and there will be many more killed. Add to that the hundreds of civilians killed since 'peace' was announced by US troops. Every day they stay in the country they make more enemies in Iraq, but they have a clear, legal obligation to rebuild the country. Should they be there in the first place - no. Did anyone predict the current situation - yes, shitloads of people both inside and outside the pentagon and US state department. But their opinions were dismissed along with all those intelligence reports that claimed Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and didn't have any WMD, because these reports and predictions didn't fit in with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz black and white world view in which they are right because they are the good guys, not the other way round.....

Saddam - nasty two bit dictator

Bush - evil stooge and frontman for corporate-political group bent on world domination

Rumsfeld- arrogant power-mad bully who delights in using force over reason

Don't judge any of the three on what they say - judge them on what they do. All three are nasty pieces of work. Saddam was nastier but on a much smaller scale than the global aspirations of the other two.

Yes it was the Americans who pulled down the statue, not the Iraqis. That doesn't mean the American bastards - I'm glad to see Saddam gone as I'm sure are most people. HOWEVER the made-for-tv moment, like Bush's striding around on the deck of an aircraft carrier was pure propaganda. By pulling down the statue for the all the assembled news crews the US command was trying to send a symbolic message that the war was over and they were the victors and had toppled an egotistical tyrant. The war ain't over. The US has now lost almost as many men to hostile fire since the President declared the war over than they did during the war and there will be many more killed. Add to that the hundreds of civilians killed since 'peace' was announced by US troops. Every day they stay in the country they make more enemies in Iraq, but they have a clear, legal obligation to rebuild the country. Should they be there in the first place - no. Did anyone predict the current situation - yes, shitloads of people both inside and outside the pentagon and US state department. But their opinions were dismissed along with all those intelligence reports that claimed Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and didn't have any WMD, because these reports and predictions didn't fit in with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz black and white world view in which they are right because they are the good guys, not the other way round.....

Saddam - nasty two bit dictator

Bush - evil stooge and frontman for corporate-political group bent on world domination

Rumsfeld- arrogant power-mad bully who delights in using force over reason

Don't judge any of the three on what they say - judge them on what they do. All three are nasty pieces of work. Saddam was nastier but on a much smaller scale than the global aspirations of the other two.

anhaga, re your CBC link to the story about the two US aircraft shot down - I know you don't know the answer to this, but why did we hear nowt about this in NZ? Sehr interresant!

I guess the reason you didn't hear about the two American aircraft is because somebody decided not to tell you. We heard about it because somebody at the CBC decided to tell us. But it was part of U. S. Central Command briefings, not the product of some rogue reporter skulking around the countryside. Has anybody told you about the mortar attack on an American Headquarters building?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/14/iraq_mortarattack030614

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1503297.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1160022.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/dueshold.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jesse_Helms.htm

these links should get you started on the role of the delightful and enlightened Sen. Jesse Helms in world politics. Anyone who has followed U.S. politics in the last 35 years ought to know who he is.

Did you get this one, Della?

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030614/w061442.html

>That's the first sensible thing I've heard you say<

That being the case then it is:

Starbirth: Searcher of the cosmic lottery of Human betterment: 1

Adele: The Divided. Weak at Interacting do to Massive partisanship 0

I am still waiting for your sensible statement

Meow

Well, *I* had heard nothing about it! While I am here, anyone know anything about two rockets landing on Beirut? All I heard was a garbled 'news item' on the news-lite back-beat riddled gossip peddled on our getting-up-in-the-morning breakfast radio station

>>Adele: The Divided. Weak at Interacting do to Massive partisanship 0>>

Good one birth... You were being funny, I was being funny!

No, I don't think we had! So, thanks for the heads-up!

sorry Adele; I haven't heard anything about Beirut since Air Canada, under pressure from the U. S., cancelled all flights to and from Beirut back at the beginning of the month.