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

I thought he worked for Sea World.

No, wait, were you talking about Flipper the Dolphin, or Sergeant Flipper?




Should small, edible animals care who wins the big wars?

>>Eventually all madmen devise their own undoing. We will find out next year if ours has...<<
We can but hope, Flipper.

Blicky

I didn't put words in zoomers mouth. Read his post. He really said that. Quite silly really to then jump on me for the opposite.

dave

here's an interesting one from Salon.com by syndicated columnist Robert Scheer showing just one example of shortsighted, vindictive nature of U.S. foreign policy. After the sadistic corrupt king they put on the throne in Iran was overthrown, the U.S. was angry with the Iranians so they backed Iraq. For earlier historical examples see the histories of Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Panama.....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/2004/01/02/hussein/index.html

Jan. 2, 2004 | Sometimes democracy works. Though the wheels of accountability often grind slowly, they also can grind fine, if lubricated by the hard work of free-thinking citizens. The latest example: the release of official documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that detail how the U.S. government under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush nurtured and supported Saddam Hussein despite his repeated use of chemical weapons.

The work of the National Security Archive, a dogged organization fighting for government transparency, has cast light on the trove of documents that depict in damning detail how the United States, working with U.S. corporations including Bechtel, cynically and secretly allied itself with Saddam's dictatorship. The evidence undermines the unctuous moral superiority with which the current American president, media and public now judge Saddam, a monster the U.S. actively helped create.

The documents make it clear that were the trial of Saddam to be held by an impartial world court, it would prove an embarrassing two-edged sword for the White House, calling into question the motives of U.S. foreign policy. If there were a complete investigation into those who aided and abetted Saddam's crimes against humanity, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State George Shultz would probably end up as material witnesses.

It was Rumsfeld and Shultz who told Saddam and his emissaries that U.S. statements generally condemning the use of chemical weapons would not interfere with relations between secular Iraq and the Reagan administration, which took Iraq off the terrorist-nations list and embraced Saddam as a bulwark against fundamentalist Iran. Ironically, the U.S supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't.
It was 20 years ago when Shultz dropped in on a State Department meeting between his top aide and a high-ranking Saddam emissary. Back then the Iraqis, who were fighting a war with Iran, were our new best friends in the Mideast. Shultz wanted to make it crystal clear that U.S. criticism of the use of chemical weapons was just pablum for public consumption, meant as a restatement of a "long-standing policy, and not as a pro-Iranian/anti-Iraqi gesture," as State's Lawrence S. Eagleburger told Saddam's emissary. "Our desire and our actions to prevent an Iranian victory and to continue the progress of our bilateral relations remain undiminished," Eagleburger continued, according to the then highly classified transcript of the meeting.

The Shultz/Eagleburger meeting took place between two crucial visits by Rumsfeld, acting as a Reagan emissary, to Saddam to offer unconditional support for the Iraqi leader in his war with Iran. In the first meeting, in December 1983, Rumsfeld told Saddam that the United States would assist in building an oil pipeline from Iraq to Aqaba, Jordan. He made no mention of chemical weapons, even though U.S. intelligence only months earlier had confirmed that Iraq was using such illegal weapons almost daily against Iranians and Kurds.

That administration's eye was not on the carnage from chemical weapons but rather the profit to be obtained from the flow of oil. In a later meeting with an Iraqi representative, as recorded in the minutes, "Eagleburger explained that because of the participation of Bechtel in the Aqaba pipeline, the Secretary of State [Shultz] is keeping completely isolated from the issue. Iraq should understand that this does not imply a lack of high-level [U.S. government] interest." (Shultz had been chief executive of Bechtel before joining the Reagan administration and is currently a director of the company, which is signing contracts for work in Iraq as fast as U.S. taxes can be allocated.)

Minutes of that meeting and others in which the United States ignored Saddam's use of banned weapons while extending support to the dictator mock the moral high ground assumed by George W. Bush in defense of his invasion. If, as Bush II says, Saddam acted as a "Hitler" while "gassing his own people," during the 1980s, we were fully aware and implicitly approving, via economic and military aid, of his most nefarious deeds.

Saddam's crimes were committed on our watch, when he was a U.S. ally, and we knowingly looked the other way

Wow, thanks, rev. paperboy. That's great information, and it needs to be more widely known.

a picture worth a thousand word......
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg

Just to back your post up paperboy-
Links to and the trial for the former dictator.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1231/dailyUpdate.html?s=mets

There is an excellant article in the Yellow Times (Canadian) also.

Great link Abbi, thanks.
I couldn't help but follow this one from the bottom of it.

'FBI warns police to be on the look out for people carrying almanacs'
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/29/national1426EST0580.DTL&type=printable

Nothing like a heavy dose of paranoia to start the year off right.

I can see it now. I'm on a trip to San Fransisco or New York. Being a journalist, I have an almanac in my briefcase, along with my dictionary and laptop computer with bookmarks to this thread and the Al-Jazeera site. I stop to admire the architecture of the Golden Gate Bridge or Empire State Building and the cops pinch me as a suspected terrorist. I can see the press release now....

"Police apprehended a suspected terrorist today. The bearded foreign national was performing surveillence of a prominent possible target and was found to have terrorist research materials, anti-U.S. propaganda and a military-type knife (swiss army) in his possesion. He has been sent to Camp X-Ray for further interrogation."

Here's another beauty about how the USA is winning hearts and minds in Iraq
'U.S. Army arrests middle school demonstrators in violent school raid'
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1707&mode=thread&order=0

And here's how their winning the hearts and minds of visitors:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/05/fingerprint.program/index.html



"Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I’ll piss on ’em
That’s what the statue of bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let’s club ’em to death
And get it over with and just dump ’em on the boulevard"

Lou Reed, "Dirty Blvd." 1989

"They say the president’s dead but no one can find his head
It’s been missing now for weeks
But no one noticed it he had seemed so fit
And I’m sick of it"

Lou Reed, "Sick of You" (1989)

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/album/6520.html

If this is a thread about what's wrong with Americans, do you want to list each American and talk about what's wrong with him/her?

I can talk about my problems. Bad feet, blurry vision, weird aches and pains, no tolerance for soybeans and turnips. That's about it, really. Oh, and no apparent attractiveness to the opposite sex.

That's too bad about the turnips, Wesley.

Are you talking raw or cooked turnips. To me cooked fresh from ground washed, peeled, grated and mixed into salad Here's some advice for the opposite sex problem http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=124799&skip=3160&show=20

OK so here we go again. Another go round of the evil Americans.

The fact that the CIA were the ones that placed Saddam into power in the first place is widely known and not denied. The fact that the US supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war is also widely known and not disputed. Now, let us see. We were allied with Iraq during their war with Iran because we felt Iran to be the bigger threat at the time. Obviously, given the situation we would know what tactics the Iraqi government was using. So is it really a shocking revelation for someone to tell you that the US knew about Iraq's use of chemical weapons and continued to support them anyway. No, they are only telling you what was already common knowledge, just wording it to sound shocking.

As far as this little report in the Yellow Times goes, I am going to call bullsh!t on it. I was not in the town but I am a mere 70KM west of it. I have heard of no such things. I would really like to know what this reporters sources are. Al Jazeera? Believe me the situation here is not one where someone is going to raid a school simply because some kids threw rocks. I have had plenty of rocks thrown at me. I have never kicked in any doors afterwards. This is a country with plenty of legitimate targets for raids. I have hauled plenty of "bad guys" out of bed at four in the morning. Of course I am sure I will hear all about his right to keep RPGs and bomb materials in his house. The US army has better things to worry about than kids throwing rocks.

"Tanks, assault vehicles, hummers and helicopters from the Army's First Armored Division descended on the Adnan Kheiralla Boy's School in the western Baghdad suburb of Amiriya and surrounded the block. Then, armed with machine guns, tear gas, and what one teacher present called, "electric sticks," soldiers and interpreters carrying pictures of the wanted students entered the school and locked the doors."
Well no kidding, the first ARMORED division went out with tanks???? Tear gas is not used around here. We requested it and were denied because it would be considered a "chemical weapon." Oh and the "'electric sticks'" I guess Q-branch had come by because I know that cattle prods do not carry a national stock number and are not in use by any unit in the army. Sorry boys and girls that line alone tells me that there is a lot that is being made up.

I am not calling the entire article a lie. I am just saying that it is wrong. It is possible that the school was raided, although the targets of the raid would not be rock-throwers. "The soldiers opened fire over students heads "to scare them." Students were tear gassed and beaten. One boy's arm was broken." Negative ghostrider. No soldier is going to indiscriminately open fire inside a building unless he is planning on killing someone. Bullets ricochet and the potential for fratricide
is too great. Like I said before, I have not met anyone yet who has been issued CS ("tear") gas or OC ("pepper") spray in this country. Bosnia and Haiti yes but nor here.

"As the tanks headed out, boys threw stones at them. Soldiers responded with random overhead gunfire, sending students, residents and the journalists scrambling for cover...boys, estimated ages 14 to 18."
Here is a little bit of something for those of you condemning the actions of people doing things that you will never in your lives understand. In my nine months in Iraq I have had hundreds of rocks thrown at me. For the most part they are ignored. Usually they are too far away to make the pitch anyway. Sometimes they are closer. When they are closer then you are left with a judgment call. Tell me, can you tell the difference between a rock and a hand grenade hurtling at you before it hits your truck? So yes, at times I have fired warning shots above the heads of rock throwers. I was on a joint patrol with a civil affairs unit when some rock throwing began. One of the CA team raised her rifle and drilled one of em square in the chest.
14-18 year old boys are not "children" in the western sense of the world. Here they are considered soldiers. I have been fragged by five-year-old children. Do you know why? Because these people know that we won't shoot at the kids, so they use them. Five is too young 17, you bet your ass I am going to shoot someone who puts my guys, who are two years older than him at best, in harms way.

Feel free to debate back and forth the political motivations of the current situation. At times, you will even say a thing or two that I agree with. However, do not I say again DO NOT try to paint the United States soldier as a "baby killer." As I and the 249,999 other soldiers in this country do our job every day it is as a professional. Believe me when I tell you that I have enough 7.62mm Russian, RPGs, IEDs, mortars, and hand grenades coming at me on a regular basis, as I type I have AK-47 fire in the background, I don't need to worry about raiding a school over rock throwing. Death is non-political; the shrapnel doesn't care if I think I should be here.

Sorry if I ranted. But the insinuations between the article and your post are simply too much. I will not accept slander and libellous statements.

I will however agree with you on the almanac stuff. Waay over the top. I think the feds are going much further towards creating a police state in America than they are of doing it in Iraq. That my friend will be my political battle when I return home. In the meantime, if you are afraid of being unfairly arrested in the United States you are cordially invited to stay home.

Thanks Flipper. That was a concise analysis of that article. Have you read the book blackhawk down? Is that accurate? Do you know any other books that give an accurate description?

dave

Dave, I never read Blackhawk Down. Was not in Somalia either. I knew a few people that were though. One of my old Battalion Commanders was one of the officers featured in the book and the movie. From what they have said, the book was pretty much accurate.

However, I just read that cnn link about the fingerprinting. And I will elaborate on my previous rant a little. It was not patriotic bluster. Merely a defence of brothers in arms. The real answer to the above question is the fact that we would ever allow something like this to happen.

At least here in Iraq I can say that we are helping the Iraqi people, building things training their police and army so that we can pull out. Back home we are turning things upside down. I fear that as we liberate the world we will enslave our own.

They say that those with a propensity for quotation lack a capacity for thought, however I must turn to Jefferson. "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Never in my life did those words ring more true than after 9-11. I thought that the whole thing would be a fad, a passing paranoia similar to that after pearl harbour. As the years tick on and the surveillance and security and invasion of privacy become greater, I wonder if this is merely the opening stages of totalitarianism.


If it is my friends, and you think our foreign policy is bad now, wait till you see what happens next.

there's definetely cause for concern sergeant. BUt let's first give a try to get Bush out of office the American way - let's make him a one termer like his father!!!

Basically, Bush is a reactionary. He's beyond conservative, he's clearly trying to turn back the clock in the US, but at the same time clamp down on all the things that has kept the US great. Screw him!

I think there's enough anger, enough backlash in the US that he could lose. Let's just work hard and make sure it happens.

dave

However you want to word it you shouldnt be there, you shouldnt be shooting at people of any age.

However you look at it US foreign policy it is a mess.

Litter bugs never think that if they didnt drop the litter street cleaners could be doing something more productive. Maybe the taxes wasted cleaning up after my messy ass could be used to buy books to educate children. Maybe I should think more about how I lives stop eating packaged food that leaves waste and eat say apples that are bio-degradeable.


When a litter bug drops litter and proudly declares, "Well it keeps street cleaners in a job". they are diplaying the same level of intelligence and foresight as the Bushs.

How after financing a needless (as all wars ultimately are) war against Iran that cost many Iraqi lives, turning a blind eye when Kurds and other Iraqis were killed by Sadam. Then waging war against Iraq when the leader your country put in place used the weapons your country gave him invaded Kuwait. Following that war your airforce bombed Iraq for ten years while your navy blockaded it and caused hunger and suffering.

This is why your army is not welcome in Iraq. I know you try to tell us it is welcome but the mounting body count of US soldiers says different. Who should we believe. Well dead men tell no lies.

Your claim that Iran was a threat holds about as much water as the claim that Iraq, Chile, Grenada and any little country in Central America that you whomped were threats. How do you quantify or justify so many pre-emptive strikes and military interferences with other soverign nations.

Here is a little bit of something for those of you condemning the actions of people doing things that you will never in your lives understand.

Your making a big assumption about what people can understand Flipper. Maybe its because I do understand somethings about war that I am not there ever consider that. Ever think that as a young man of I didnt think about good pay, roof over my head (or tent over my head), learn a trade, see the world, fight for my country AND DEFEND FREEDOM. Then I read about the Peterloo Masacre and knew the army was no place for me.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRpeterloo.htm

See I'd rather be a street cleaner than go round being shot at and shooting people to clean up politicians messes.

I hope things go well out there for you and everyone unfortunate enough to be involved.

Armies do not make policy. They carry out policy. If you dislike the policy, change the political system.

I can see the situation in Iraq becoming another Northern Ireland. This worries me greatly. As you may have noticed, it's not just soldiers that are being targetted now - soft targets are being picked to cause terror, which will eventually rebound on the US Troops (a tried and tested method, the civilians will be told "It will all stop once the Americans have gone" and eventually they will believe it) and cause more problems.

US Foreign policy is no more of a mess than the foreign policy of any other developed nation with interests to protect. Why point the finger at one single country when so many are at fault?

It's almost funny. If you want to make the world a better place then you need to dismantle the aparatus that makes it unequal. But that would mean giving up the cosy lifestyles that many westerners see as a birthright and, when push comes to shove, not a man jack of us is really willing to do it.

The yellow times story about the school house was in all the main stream media. The yellow times just did their own opinion.
I suspect the story was included due to some incidences within the US schools that are questionable (in my view) and escalating in danger.

I originally found the story along with the below links in *education pages*.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/07/school.raid/index.html
*a school raid

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/education/04TOLE.html
*Kids go to court rather than couselors or mental health or detention.

While the US is paying for war these things are not being paid for and money removed.
*http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/l...icle/0,1299,DRMN_15_2549277,00.html

While I was not for going to war in this way or at this time I did support getting rid of Saddam and I certainly support my relatives and friends fighting and defending.

The one link I left from csmonitor talks about how the US knew of daily chemical releases in the 80's. However when our troops became ill they did deny there was any exposure. That is sad and wrong! So is lack of proper medical care for the troops returning home now.

Do take care of yourself sargeflipper.