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

Sounds like we nearly agree on Vietnam, although I think defeating Communism in SE Asia was the stated goal of the US, while their unstated or not-so-loudly stated goals were to ensure Western influence and control in the region.

What exactly is a "true Left-winger?" I've read and appreciated some of Hitchens' articles about Kissinger, but he seems to have a h**d-on for putting down Muslims.

Here's another interesting link to a debate featuring Tariq Ali, Christopher Hitchens, Anatol Lieven, Onora O'Neill and Jacqueline Rose. (This might also be available as streaming audio.) http://www.lrb.co.uk/enduringfreedom/

"The US, like the European, elites were afraid of Communism and feared it "spreading". They didn't really have any other reasons to be in Vietnam."

halfway between zagreb and subcom is the truth, I think. They feared socalism and demonise it while protecting grubby capitalism and equating it with freedom (see last bush speech over Cuba for latest example).

I guess from no reply to my previous post that people do now accept the new definition of terrorism.

"What exactly is a "true Left-winger?" I've read and appreciated some of Hitchens' articles about Kissinger, but he seems to have a h**d-on for putting down Muslims."

Hitchens is of the "old-left" before the liberals and pacifists arrived. He doesn't hate muslims, he hates religious fundamentalism which he regards (rightly) as extreme-right reactionary fascism. This is what he is trying to say in his argument. Al-Quaida, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are all extreme-right and the Left should be actively fighting these enemies even if that means siding with the USA.

He makes some excellent points about the state of affairs in Iraq (including Kurdish Iraq) and why it is hypocritical to be against war in solidarity with the Iraqi people.

"I guess from no reply to my previous post that people do now accept the new definition of terrorism."

You can count on me to dissagree with anything! Can you post the definition again so we can get the ball rolling?

As for Vietnam, Cuba et al, if you've contemplated the ideas of Gore Vidal or Orwell, then you are familiar with the notion of perpetual war. As with any war, it's good to label your enemy: Nazi, Communist, Drug Lord, Terrorist. And of course once you apply the labels, then war must automatically follow. Unless a new label supercedes a previous one. And it seems to have followed continually for some time. Does any one remember a period of time (since 1942 say) when the US was not at war with any of the above labels?

here it is (the full post is number 3238)

"---------

Zagreb “Or will he attempt to rule Iraq as an unofficial colony (inviting terrorist actions against US troops there)”

Language hijacking again? What you describe is a military ocupation force. How exactly does attacking a military force ruling your country constitute terrorism?

----------"

Ofcourse you're right about the labells. It's sad that so many fall for it.

"it's good to label your enemy...."

Exactly, perhpas with "imperialist", or "slavish supporter of Bush", or howabout "wannabe yanquie"? Tsk, reactionaries, eh?

Regarding my point about terrorist actions against US troops in Iraq. I don't care what you call them - terrorist, guerilla, legitimate warfare by freedom-loving peoples. My point was US soliders would be killer because of blundering policy and Bush would have to explain that to the "folks" back home. OK?

"My point was US soliders would be killer...."

I meant "US soldiers would be killed", of course.

my point is the terminology that is snaking it's way into everyday language. Zagreb you are just the latest example, you probably did it without thinking.

-------

"I meant "US soldiers would be killed", of course." They are volunteers getting paid. Government PR will probably make the current US reigheme seem to be of fault to the US public, again.

"Language hijacking again? What you describe is a military ocupation force. How exactly does attacking a military force ruling your country constitute terrorism?"


I'm not going to argue the definition. For me, terrorism is an act or threat of violence against a *civilain* population. But that's just me.

I do see how it is easy for the media to label sertain acts as "terrorist" even if they are against an occupying force. For one, they are similar to acts against civilains and are often performed by those *already* labelled as terrorists. One such example I'm thinking of is the attacks on the US barracks in Saudi Arabia. It's much easier to label those as terrorist rather then attempt to explain that the local population sees fully armed US soldiers on their land as an occupying force.


Here's a link if you want to email Bush or Chaney:
http://labor.net.au/campaigns/nowar/protest/protest_form.html

I agree that civilian is the word that counts. If you volunteer to get paid to carry a gun (armed forces not police) then you're fair game. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword' and all that.

Not sure about "fair game", but it should not come as something unexpected. It does come with the territory: if you want to work in the adult entertainment industry, expect to see nudity, if you want to become a soldier, expect to be terrorised by violence.

maybe 'fair games' was a bit much. but you get the idea.

There seems to have been quite few new recruiting advertisments on ?British TV.
They are exiciting and dramatic, designed to appeal to the school leaver. They also instill the idea that you can become trained as an engineer, in IT etc etc. 'Get a career' is the message.
Absolutely none of them say 'Join the forces to kill people and be killed.'
In reality the pay is bad and the equipment will probably jam on you in a dangerous situation.
In times of war past recruitment becomes compulsory, so I'm not certain that this volunteer to die stuff works 100%

As someone who did the "National Service bit" in my case in Malaya I know only too well what it was like to be a conscript. In you go, no arguement and by the way here's a few bob to keep you in beer. Trouble is alot of guys died er fighting for their country Hmmm. As you say all that is in the small print. Like the last Gulf effort no one to this day is listening to the victims of Gulf War Syndrome and yet there they go off again banging on their drums. Pan to pics of crying wives and children as big ship sails into the sunset. The media being well schooled to show the folks back home and to wind em up just a bit more. It,s when you see the dead results of young Iraqis borne in a coffin draped in an Iraqi flag but perched on a roof rack of a taxi THEN it comes home to you! Most of them were conscripts too, they lived and breathed and had the same hopes and desires as we do.

TSD:hmm can any change happen or progress be made with purely peacefull means? Has that actualy happend in history?

APP:That sounds like setting up a war of nothing argument. Remember that American corperates were still trading with South Africa, there by helping to prolong the reigheme.

TSD:ApparÏtÏon: A simpler answer without bringing in your views on the evils done by the US would of worked, but the choice as always is yours.

APP:tacsatduck - my reply was reevant to what you asked as an external force that influenced the situation. I see by your tone with me that you have no interest in debate, but rather self-censored 'america friendly' drivel (such as ABC news (TV3 here)).

hmmm now I am a little confused...I didn't make any comments about relevance...I don't know what I did to say that I wasn't interested in debate either...ah well

I was watching one of those self-censored 'American friendly' drivel news shows this weekend and they did a ten min peace showing clips from other countries news programs talking about Bush...they were trying to show that the rest of the world doesn't take with Bush's ideas all that well and I just got to say there is a little problem here...if you want to talk bad about someone or his ideas go for it, but if that is your aim don't use words that he would take as complementary...that kinda defeats the purpose...call him a cowboy...ummm for a majority of people (these are people I deal with in the US for this next little bit results may vary from place to place) to call a guy a cowboy isn't really a bad thing, cowboys have taken on a mythic hero status in many parts of the US, that would be like calling him a knight of the round table or something...I heard news anchors getting on him for using simple everyday language, for being up front and saying what he thinks, ummm again if I was going to tell you about my friend James and I was going to tell you what a great guy he is I would use many of the same terms as I heard from the clips...ya James you always know where you stand with him he's up front with you tells you what he thinks about a situation no matter what, he is an honest guy he doesn't try to fool people with fancy words...if he doesn't like you then he'll let you know.....lets see what else oh pick on him because he doesn’t say a name correctly or gets someone’s name wrong when telling a story hmmm heck that makes him more of a real understandable person to most people...I don't know if this makes sense to anyone on this site but me -just letting you know

Why is it that I have seen all this talk on this site about how great Clinton was as a president...I don't remember what thread it was but someone called him a great diplomat...so I am guessing if the US elected another smooth talker ladies man then the world would be a much better place even if that person helped corrupt business to flourish during his presidency...got the US involved in more medium sized military conflicts then his so called "war mongering" predecessor...Let him sign many treaties without actualy seeing if his country can live up to the treaties...becasue it would of been much better to lie to the world and say ya we'll cut our admisions so you can reach your goal no problem and then when the time came...oh sorry we couldn't make it but because you were relying on us more then anyother country you automaticly failed sorry to burst your dreams by being un relistic with you in the first place...well ya I signed the treity but it won't be me that has to come up with the way to keep our end of the bargin...I'll make sure I check with you guys before the next election so I know who the 'right' choice will be


()

"...I'll make sure I check with you guys before the next election so I know who the 'right' choice will be"


Maybe they'll introduce "none of the above" as an option on ballots?

I think my favorite idea was they should give you the option if you don't like any canidate to be able to subtract one vote from the guy you like the least...the person who would end up winning would prob be the one closest to zero...yay I have -100 votes I am going to win


()

"...so I am guessing if the US elected another smooth talker ladies man then the world would be a much better place even if that person helped corrupt business to flourish during his presidency..."


You're not the first to point to the fact that the majority of the corrupt business (Enron, Global Crossing etc.) actually hapenned under Clinton.

But remember, the laws are passed by Congress and Senate, and both were Republican during his spell. The main piece of legistlation which made it easier for companies to lie about their profits is called: Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The legistlation passed despite Clinton's veto. They simply obtained a 2/3 majority in the senate and overruled his veto (with a $17M donation from corporate ineterst to help the cause).

Which highlights a means that any measures of a president may be overruled by the people's representatives.....provided they have cojones.

Did anyone read the link I posted?