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

"Simple - like terrorism deal with the underlying problem and not it's symptoms."

Actually, not such a good comparison. With terrorism it's necessary to deal with the symptom as much as the problem.

Interesting piece, Zagreb.

I won't bother refuting your characterizations of the American "pioneer" spirit, with its summary dismissal of native rights and the ubiquitous American failures to honor treaties, but I would ask one question.

In the absence of a security council veto, what do you suppose the American reaction might be if the UN voted to disarm the United States?

Hi Zagreb:

Re: 'America and the UN'

Americans are pragmatic, agreed. They find it hard to tread delicately around a situation. They are the type of people who want to actively DO something about a problem. This is understandable given their history. Unfortunately, this is the exact opposite of what is required on their War on Terrorism. What is needed is humility, understanding of the situation and the reasons behind terrorism, and a measured response. Regarding the USA and the UN, we have a US government who is rather anti-intellectual and a tad simple. They want to 'smoke the terrorists out of them there holes', they want to DO something right now. They have no patience, no statesmanship, no sense of diplomacy. That is why they are largely incompatible with the UN, they are the opposite. More decisive maybe, but also prone to rash judgements that go against world opinion.

Remember, they went ahead and DID something in Afghanistan (something which I supported). What has been achieved there? The aim was not to topple the Taliban. They destroyed a number of camps, but have the objectives really been met?

Re: 'American Arrogance'

I think the US is too powerful for its own good. It is so far beyond any other nation that it can do whatever the hell it wants to do. This is the first US government that actually says so, and it is frightening to the rest of us. It's another symptom of it's diplomatic illiteracy.

How do we deal with these problems? Pray that the US public sees the light and votes them out.

Ste

>>In the absence of a security council veto, what do you suppose the American reaction might be if the UN voted to disarm the United States?<<

Probably the same as that of Saddam Hussain. Screw you!

Stuart

purplejenny: "I'd also call for Sadaam to be indicted as a war criminal, he should be tried by the International Criminal Court, like Slobodom Molosovich."


That would be nice indeed! And it probably has more of a chance of being executed then some others:

General Wiranto of Indonesia v East Timor infamy
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/25/1046064032958.html

or Kissinger of Laos bombing infamy, or Pinochet....all allies of the US.

Hi, Ste,

Just a suggestion for you and any others in the world at large who are disturbed by overweening American arrogance and the American government's rather transparent attempts to terrorize or coercive you.

Try boycotting American goods and services until Americans come to their senses. Sound like a plan?

I know it's highly unofficial and hence highly irregular but that's certainly something you could all do to hit the sweet things in their pocket books where it would undoubtedly hurt just a little bit. And you wouldn't have to give up everything at once. You could for example not eat at McDonald's one week, or forgo the latest American box office blockbuster glorifying their fine and noble military or pioneer spirit. Or you could refuse to buy their computer software or any of a myriad of goods and services.

I can virtually guarantee you'd get their undivided attention after awhile because it's likely they'd be catapulted back in time to 1933 again if such a boycott were successfully executed.

And maybe that would be a good time for them to reaccess their goals life and perhaps draw closer to the experience that a vast majority of the world's population must struggle with everyday. Nothing like being a little hungry to improve your sympathy for the starving.

Because you see, many Americans, far too many in my view, think, deep down inside, that the world not only owes them a living but a total lifestyle that I sincerely believe the world can't really afford.

Maybe the world should start telling them that. What do you think?

"or Kissinger of Laos bombing infamy, or Pinochet....all allies of the US."

or Ramsey Clarke's indictment of George Bush, Sr., Dick Cheney, et. al. for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

For years I've been doing what you suggest, Analiese. Nobody around me understands why I do it; but it makes me feel a little better inside.

'Try boycotting American goods and services until Americans come to their senses. Sound like a plan?'
Hmm, a man has needs you know? Also, I think my wife might get a little mad.

What you describe will be a little difficult seeing as I find myself slap bang in the middle of the seventh largest metropolitan area in the US. I think there's nothing wrong with Americans. They are genorous, warm, friendly people. They have been betrayed by their media and their government and their corporations.

'Because you see, many Americans, far too many in my view, think, deep down inside, that the world not only owes them a living but a total lifestyle.'
Have you actually been to the US, or met any Americans? They just want to live, provide for their family, like the rest of us. They are, by circumstance, able to do this more than anyone as they find themselves in the world's largest economy.

Don't blame an entire people for the mistakes of a few selfish and stupid people.

Ste <= Brit in California, married to a yank.

>>Try boycotting American goods and services until Americans come to their senses. Sound like a plan?<<

So lets start with the Internet, the facility that gives us all the ability to communicate in this manner. Then we can go onto American designed ariliners, most of which still belong to America, regardles what might be painted on the tail fin.

You are right about one thing though, a boycott probably would catapult America back to 1933, and the rest of the world with it.

Stuart

Hmmm.... I dunno if anybody already said that...

But boycotting American goods?

Why?

It´s not the American companies or the Americans themselves causing the trouble. It is their government.

And one more thing:

The USA have, more or less, been ruling the "western" world for the last 50 years. With all that cold war stuff and things. Slowly now their position is weakening. If they start bombing Saddam, their postion is going to weaken even more.

In fact the whole bush-government is making quite a lot of fun of itself. Unknowingly of course.

Just let them go ahead. The Americans are going to do something about it, hopefully before everybody laughs openly about their country...

Chili

>>It´s not the American companies or the Americans themselves causing the trouble. It is their government. <<

“We get the Government we deserve”

Attributed to H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) - American Journalist

It was all that Cold War stuff and thing that kept the Soviets at bay and eventually led to their demise. I for one am grateful for that.

I am suprised that the Cold War hasn't been mentioned before in this thread. It was the soviet Union that supplied Iraq with most of its armaments, followed closely by the French. The Soviets also supplied and supported Syria and Egypt not to mention most of Eastern Europe who are now tripping over themselves to join NATO. It's the collapse of the Soviet Union that has brought things to a head. Previously it would have been much to dangerous seeing as both sides had nuclear weapons.

So "ruling the western World for 50 years" is a bit disingenuous without considering what the altrnatives could have been.

Stuart

Hi Ste,

I agree that the current US administration is too rash. The thing is, I think if the UN could prove that it is willing to make difficult decisions and get things done, the US would be much more willing to take notice of it. As it is, I can imagine Bush et al rolling eyes whenever the UN is mentioned and saying "oh no, not the UN debating society again". It's a prejudice of their's, yes, but it's strongly rooted in fact.

Re: Afghanistan - the US hasn't achieved it's own objectives over there (namely, capture Osama bin Laden) but it *has* removed the Taliban regime and the framework for a federal, possibly democratic, Afghanistan is being laid (remarkably quickly too). That's a positive move in a country that has known nothing but war, death and tyranny for 25-odd years before the West moved in.

I agree the US is extremely powerful, but it is not all-powerful and even Bush knows this. The US's main strength is it's military, but public opinion is such that it is loathe to get involved in wars that might engender large US casualties. As such, the chances of it getting involved in something like WWII or Vietnam again are virtually nil. It tends to get into military operations it can win with minimal casualties - such as Afghanistan and Iraqi two low-tech militarily fairly weak third-world countries.

Also, the US relies strongly on it's international relations to maintain it's own strength and prestige. There's been a lot of bluster recently, but the US would hate to isolate it's European allies. Even France will be quickly welcomed back into the fray if Chirac changes his tune (and the US-French relationship has been pretty sour since Charles de Gaul anyway). Whenever I see the US and Europe squabbling (and it is squabbling, they share far more in common than in difference) I always remember a truism neither side is comfortable with - America needs Europe and Europe needs America.

Oh, well, it's better then that Iraqi people get bombed for the sins of their government, no? Or maybe the Americans would prefer more airliners be flown into more of their monumental skyscrapers?

Did anyone seriously believe you can challenge the most powerful government on the planet and not have to sacrifice something? Isn't a boycott at least more humane than bombs or other terrorists actions?

It's a long time until 2004, people. The Constitution is being dismantled even as I write this. The threat to Americans is from their own government and that same government threatens the world as well. So what do you suppose everyone is waiting for?

I can see that Americans are always warm and friendly until they actually have to pay something for the ride. Then it's a different story isn't it? Then it's, "But why do I have to pay?"

I'm sorry to have wasted your time.

The concept of not buying American goods was raised in the past. At that time, it centered around US oil companies. I still think it's a good idea.

If we truelly believe that the US administration is controlled by corporate interests, then the only way to get the message through to the administration is through the corporate interests. No?

*Starbirth - In a thread like this, there are bound to be times when opinions differ and none more so when posting from different countries with wildly different approaches to their position on this shared planet. When I read postings that offer a negative opinion of the US, I do not read them as an attack on Americans, rather that they are against the policies of the US Government, which can be a little heavy handed at times . *

I could not agree with you more. There is a big difference disagreeing with anothers goverments policies and making stereo typic remarks in the guise of political debate.

"Iraq may try to move banned weapons to another country to hide them from U.N. inspectors, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday, adding that Iraqi conventional military capabilities are less than half what they were during the 1991 Gulf War."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20030225/ts_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc

Ste, you said: "Don't blame an entire people for the mistakes of a few selfish and stupid people."

Since you live in the only urban area in the entire USA where the majority actually voted for Bush, there is a lot that is probably muffled by the time it get there - this is not to suggest that you did or that you are even able to vote there - may I ask you two questions, please?

Do you or any in your family drive a SUV?

Do you know that over 50 % of the population of Iraq is children under the age of 15?

“Isn't this what so many NZers of Euro extraction say, "the
population of NZ is 16 million (sheep), 4 million of whom think they
are human?"”

So you’re another obsessed with race, or what you assume someone’s
race to be. I guess that’s all I need to know.

- I notice everyone else’s country gets defended in this site but
mine. [I typed this before reading your post, Mrs the Wife, thankyou]

------------------

Starbirth – “My mistake on last post. What i am pointing out is that
you have constantly made Negative statements about Americans through
out this thread. However the momment someone brings up your nation
you become indignant. Perhaps you should ask yourself the above
Question next time you post something about the United States.”

I see you still can’t/won’t distinguish between you/your country/your
government. Then again, you have a personal problem with me. So you're bound to see a statement any way that you want.

-----------------

Zagreb, you said that Afghanistan had known nothing but war for 25 years [before] the west moved in. I wonder if they had know so much death in such a small time as when the west moved in. The last reports of fighting I read about were late last year. They still know killing. Your insistance that other plans are "too late" just looks like someone who is itching to see another war from his armchair. Do you really think Bush's time table is so important as to condem Iraq to a probably un-needed war?

Did anyone hear the news report that Nth Korea test fired a missile into the sea off Japan while Powel was in the area?

>>Do you know that over 50 % of the population of Iraq is children under the age of 15?<<

Just shows you how effective Saddam Hussain is in killing of the opposition.

Stuart