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

>> OMAN l970 (Command operation) U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion. <<

What invasion? I was in Oman in 1972 serving alongside Iranian troops who were there at the invitation of the Sultan of Oman as were British Troops, Jordanian Troop and Pakistani Troops. Hows that for a coalition?

Oman is an independent State and has had a defence treaty with Britain since 1856 which is still in existence. Any invasion would have been resisted by British Troops. In 1970 the Sultan was overthrown by his Son in a bloodless cue aided by the SAS. The foreign troops were there to resist communist inspired insurgents from Yemen into the southern province of Dhofaf. We succeeded.

http://www.ehistory.com/middleeast/CountryView.cfm?ID=162

Donald

I do! If I can find it, here's a site worth seeing...
"Canada arrests GW Bush" from Information Clearing House - Humor we wish was news...
http://207.44.245.159/article7390.htm

To quote the guy who posted it on beliefnet "Bush looks great in an orange jumpsuit, doesn't he?"

"IRAN l987-88 (Naval, bombing) US intervenes on side of Iraq in war."


Another slight problem there... They weren't out there on behalf of Iraq, they were out there on behalf of money - i.e. keeping the oil flowing...

I think the comment about being on the side of Iraq might be taken pretty badly by the relatives of the 30 odd sailors killed by an Iraqi exocet fired at the USS Stark.

Whisky, I may have read post 39 from cl zoomer a little different than you, the 2nd paragraph, having more meaning at the sentence end?


Still in the list, I wonder about "VIRGIN ISLANDS." What all of them? Or just one island, in the British Virgin Islands area?


Why I still say 'No.' to giving praise to the America that voted for Kerry, it's they did'nt do anything, so why give them praise for not winning, is that not the American way?

Hi Two bit, you seem to have quite a bee in your bonnet about government in general, but Federal in particular. What do you think of state govts, are they better?

I think the federal government should be limited to what the Constitution says it should be limited to, primarily the things listed in Article I, Section 8.

The states have general legislative authority, and they should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't conflict with the federal constitution and their own laws. If a state wants socialized medicine, welfare, mandatory possession of arms by the heads of household, legalized drugs, prohibition, state-sponsored prostitution, state-sponsored stem cell research or whatever, that's their decision. They should make their decisions in their own way (as long as it's a republican (little 'r') form of government IAW Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution), and they should pay for it.

I thought the state were supposed to be 50 laboratories representative democracy. Everyone can see what works well, and each state should have it's own distinct personality. If there's a state that suits you better, it's not that hard to move.

As it stands now, the federal government has far too much power. It bribes the states with money taken from the citizens of that state to comply with its wishes. When the federal government decides that the limit for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol should be .08 (an idea I support), it tlels the states that they need to change their laws or they won't get highway funds. Or even worse, it the No Child Left Behind Act (Also an idea I support, in theory). Comply with this and we'll give you some extra money. Here's the catch: we won't give you all you need to comply with this law.

I believe in the law and I believe in a diversity of ideas. I think if government has constraints on it like the Constitution, then they should be obeyed.

Last night, I had a government official hand me a document that authorized an involuntary commitment of a person. I noticed that the signature on it was forged. I listened to her reasons for what she was doing. It sounded reasonable from her perspective, but she didn't have the authority to sign the document. I told her that I could not execute that document because it wasn't legal, even though she was trying to do the right thing.

As for the diversity of ideas, I think that governments should be able to go their own way, as long as the rights of citizens are respected. I don't think that one government suits everyone best. I would prefer to live in a society with minimal government intrusions and protections. Most of the people on the Guide are more comfortable with living in welfare states with socialized medicine. Some people want it in my country too, and I think we have far too much of that sort of thing.

[In my best Forrest Gump voice.] And that's all I have to say about that.

Hi two bit.
What you said there was very interesting. The one thing I disagreed with (in principle) is that the federal govt seems to be inalienly bad. I think that if you look at how a part of society is set up, then I would rather have the govt look after it (as representatives of ourselves the public) than the private sector. I don't think either solution is perfect, but I would have more trust in the govt than say, Exxon.
Whaddya think?

I don't think the federal government is evil or anything. I think they're incompitant and wasteful. We wind up losing a lot of money to corruption and backroom deals.

It's not government that I have a problem with. It's concentrated power. One size fits all answers don't work well for huge groups. I think the federal government should be very limited in what it does.

The state governments should be the ones that provide most of our government services. They can expereiment with all kinds of crazy things. If a state gopes a little too far, then it's not that big a thing to move to another one. If a state has a really good system, then people will want to move there. Then if things get to extreme, and rights start getting violated, the federal government could intervene.

The Exxon Valdez occured because a recovering alcoholic relapsed. After that, Exxon decided that it would no longer use people who have ever had a drug or alcohol problem hold a senesitive safety position. I think their reasoning made sense. We had a problem. We lost a ton of money. Let's address it. That was fine an d good until they were sued by recovering adicts under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They were forced to consider recovering adicts for the same positions.

Government solutions don't always thrill me.

marking

Hmmm. I could either comment on much or limit myself to a one word answer to the title question...

'No!'

I've just finished watching a documentary on BBC4 about Robert Kennedy. Particularly interesting, relevant and poignant was how he changed between 1960 and when he died in 1968. He seemed to start off full of moral certainty, that the commies were evil, Vietnam was justified and organised crime was the second greatest threat to America. By the time he was killed, he was running for President on a platform of abolishing poverty, racial integration and a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam war (which, incidentally, he had helped to initiate).
His moral certainty was still there, it just wasn't the petty 'bedroom morality' that you get these days. It had moved on to social justice. How could communism or the Mafia be a greater threat to the US than the sheer injustice which was tearing the country apart, where tens of millions of people lived in poverty, with little or no access to healthcare, shockingly abused due to their race or religion. He was enraged when he saw the way African-Americans were treated in the south.
On the night Martin Luther King was murdered he was in Indianapolis. He addressed a crowd, a large proportion of which was non-white, and said, without any grandstanding, that his brother was killed by a white man too, that the moral thing to do was not to riot, that pain taught wisdom. Indianapolis was the largest city in America not to have full-scale riots.
I wish these f**kwit Bush voters had heard something similar during the election campaign. Kerry just didn't inspire admiration, didn't inspire anything in fact.
I'm feeling very depressed having watched that. A bold, moral, compassionate man was shot on the night he probably secured the Democrat nomination for President, and he would have kicked that crooked bar steward Nixon's ass all over again.
So, in response to post #1, I'd like to mourn the chance of seeing anyone like that running for president again soon. He was someone who intended to use all his power to help people who needed help. How unlike the Shrub.



PS 2 things about Nixon;

1) Patti Nixon apparently said once, about politicians being strange bedfellow, 'Richard was a strange bedfellow long before he entered politics, Dear.'

2) Hunter S Thompson wrote 'He was so crooked he put his pants on with a corkscrew.'

Bush didn't win the election, Kerry lost it.

And as to Nixon, he's yet another president the country secretly wished was a king (*By The Grace of God*), therefore is excused of all crimes. I personally believe that *I'm not a crook!* is as laughable yet sad as *Trickle down economics*.

As to the comments I posted, they were cut and pasted from a site that sought only to chronicle the involvement of the US in foreign and domestic disputes by executive or Congressional decision.

And now, praise for more of the true United States. From deep in the heart of Texas: "The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing." http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10366618.htm?1c

and, "Blocking Mr. Torture" http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1739/

There are a great many who know the truth and are willing to speak it. The world hopes that they will be heard and that they will prevail.

I think it is admirable that the United States has given a recovering addict a second chance to run the country.

Indeed!

Just thought I'd take a moment to praise the 52% of Americans who think it was a mistake to invade Iraq: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/iraq.poll/index.html

That is good news, anhaga...

so...you think that a poll of 1,007 adults is indicative of what the entire nation thinks eh??

Strong evidence indeed that 52% of the entire country thinks it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

Where'd they take the poll?? ...Broward County??

alec.

It's been a while. I'm not going to pursue the oposition to the war thing as time seems to have sorted out whether that poll was acurate or not. Instead, I'll offer more praise.

'Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), a medical doctor, on May 17 introduced legislation with 21 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives that calls for medical and scientific studies on the health and environmental impacts from the U.S. Military’s use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions in combat zones, including Iraq. The McDermott bill also calls for cleanup and mitigation of sites in the U.S. contaminated by DU.'

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/22news04.htm

for Representative McDermott and the 21.

'I would never argue that those who fight and to die for our country aren't heroes. I think very often they are. I know I'm not capable of making that level of sacrifice, and I also know I have personally benefited from the work of those who are. I am one of the legion in our country who take time on Memorial Day to consider the sacrifices that have been made by people who have fought and died to keep us safe and free.
But on Memorial Day I also honor those who work to end war - or to avert it. Our diverse country is big enough for many kinds of heroes, including people who work for peace. '

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2766481

for Barb Guy and the conscientious objectors.

<< for Representative McDermott and the 21.>>

Exactly!