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

George Monbiot has an interesting piece in todays Grauniad about the wider picture;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,911583,00.html

and here's an interesting piece about the next name on Dubya's list, the Republic of North Korea;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,911612,00.html

No taxation without representation.If a million people in Britain feeling that they were not being represented could withhold taxes it would make a fine and valid point. You'd have to be self employed to do it and more courageous then I am these days.

can anyone tell me - concisely - how in hell Tony Blah Blah Blair think's he's going to get away with what he's upto in Britain?

Funny you should mention Custer, Mr. Fulton. There's some reason to believe he had visions of gaining the Democratic nomination for president in the 1876 elections after returning triumphant from the Powder River Country. Of course, that didn't happen.

Bush is already president, but he's been under a cloud ever since the election, just as Custer was under a cloud after crossing US Grant's administration. By focusing his regime on this terrorist conquest, there really isn't any way it could be reasonable deemed a defensive war, Bush probably hopes to gain the Republican nomination in 2004. This is similar to what Custer was trying to do by trying to round up "hostiles".

The military scenario was kind of similar in the sense that there was a state of the art invasion force that had been brought up the Yellowstone to infiltrate south and meet up with Crook's command coming north from Fort Laramie in a pincer movement.

Crook was stopped in his tracks and forced to withdraw even before Custer started out, supposedly in coordination with General Terry's movement upstream in the next drainage west, so the general plan had already broken down. But neither Custer nor Terry knew that it had. That's probably why Custer detailed Captain Benteen to proceed southwest until he encountered resistence. He probably was actually supposed to find Crook.

Communications are better nowdays so the chances of the United States forces getting trapped anywhere is pretty slim. That doesn't mean that smaller units might not get separated and surrounded if they lose contact with the GPS system or whatever. Then there might be a replay or two of the Somalian debacle.

The Iraqis are no more capable of mounting an effective resistance than the Lakota and Cheyenne were. But they have little choice under the circumstances and this is similar to the historic "hostile" indian situation as well. Once they brand you as "hostile" or "terrorist" there's really no hope and no options.

The ultimatum delivered unilaterally to the Lakota who refused to go along with the looting of the Black Hills was similar to what's been presented to Iraq. Disarm and come in to the reservation or face annilation. To their eternal credit Crazy Horse and others decided to fight. Custer was the most famous casualty. What he couldn't provide to the Americans in life, he more than made up for in death.

You might wonder who will be sacrificed this time to make the Americans mad enough to keep this shit going so Mr. Bush can retain the presidency?

take the time to visit at least the other end of this link - I promise you that it will open your eyes:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/pics/terrorist.jpg

everybody should go up a bit on ?'s link, as well.

And, does anybody remember these guys?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/10/guantanamo030310

No lawyers, no contact with the outside world, no rights, the land of the free, the home of the constitutional guarantee.

This is basicly my oppinion, even if I didn't write it... http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/msteyn.html" click on his latest article; "Bring on the war - for everyone's sake"

Regarding the so called "Somali Debacle," please don't lose sight of the fact that - during the 'action' - for every soldier killed, there was a ratio of more than 500:1 Somali children, men and women killed or injured (these persons were overwhelmingly civilian and though many were incited to riot, more were innocents in the cross-fire).

This fact was recounted by the maker of 'Black Hawk Down.'

I submit that that is the fact that needs to be most prominent in our memories

My dear friend, how can you believe the "suicide" story?

Clearly, given what has been openly suggested in the media about how to deal with the last lieutenant of Osama captured, there are other things that have happened for which the cover of suicide is supposed an acceptable story.

Oh, I'm not saying I accept the suicide story. I just think it's shameful that anyone can accept the "no lawyer, no access, trust us we'll take care of them" story. There's one Canadian citizen down there that arrived when he was fifteen years old. His crime is that he allegedly through a grenade at American soldiers who were engaging him in combat. There are lots of Human Rights groups out there who try to rescue child soldiers; the U. S. sends them to Guantanamo Bay.

Thanks anhaga:

>> The diplomats continue to bolt: <<

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/10/sprj.irq.diplomat.resignation.reut/index.html

This time CNN actually quoted a line from the resignation letter!
I wonder how many more there'll be before some eagle-eyed reporter spots a 'trend'. And will it happen soon enough to stop the Bush/Rush.


~jwf~ (no more beaten around the bush!)

What the US government has permitted, it is no less than an atrocity, anhaga. There are many here who believe this and take daily action on it. It is more and more apparent that our efforts while not always robust are deliberately muffled by a media that is the hands of a select few oligarchs.

I do have one little item to put to you, again:

Canada, in the last few weeks, turned away scores of applicants knowing full well that they had no choice but to return into the waiting arms of US homeland security. The latter promptly separated the men and boys from the women and very young children and placed the males under arrest while literally leaving the tattered family remnants out in the cold. Many private US citizens at or close to the border came to the rescue of those forcibly outcast but there are not nearly enough resources.

While it is true that many of these persons were undocumented residents did Canada behave well?

definitely not. And I know that the American people as a whole are good and noble. My sadness and frustration is directed, as I think is yours, at the media and the government. I have a great many disagreements with the various governments of my country as well. I am appalled at many of the actions taken and I am not going to say "but..." I think it wonderful when our country charts its own course, independent of the big neighbour; it is a hard thing to do.

someone on one of the threads once said something about Canadians thinking they were so pure. I responded by pointing out that we don't think we're so pure; we just think we'd like to be pure. We're very aware of our past errors; we get them taught to us at school. And we keep making errors. And we keep remembering them, I hope. And our media tends to take great pleasure in making documentaries about our errors rather than just rallying us around the flag the way CNN does. I don't want to lose that self-conscious national angst. It keeps a nation in line.

speaking of national angst:

You're probably familiar with "The Nation," "The Progressive," "Mother Jones," "In These Times" magazines published in the US? There are many organizations too such as the ACLU, the American Friends Service Committee, etc. that are always active as well.

I believe the media in Canada is primarily under public ownership; my guess is that allows it to do or not do things very differently from CNN or Fox, etc., don't you agree? Not that I would for a moment say that CNN is the dominant 'news provider!' It does seem to work best when covering disasters, ironic, eh? (one must laugh).

In all the people I meet in all the 'real world' places I go, both in the US and when elsewhere, I have not met any who have passionately supported the idea of war or of endless war or pre-emption.

I read that piece and it is absolutely frightening. This war about to be inflicted on Iraq is but a first step to a wider world domination. I believe that from all the huffing and puffing the date is 17th March to commence the killing and that is why Blair in particular is in a big hurry! So what does HE expect to get from all this. After all lately he has been walking the tight rope on many other issues in the UK which are unresolved. He is a very worried man and rightly so, because for the first time since his tenure began the teflon has flaked off. We now see the real man and it is not a happy sight. I saw the Paxman interview and listened as he (Blair) was described as the Rt Hon Member for Texas North and even Mr Vice President. I guess he knows now that he is on borrowed time. But he has his flats to fall back on so he won't go short er pardon the pun Clare. So I hope he is made to squirm. Dubya doesn't have that problem, his gung ho attitude suits the US citizens very well. They haven't a clue what is going on, but they as sure as hell will follow the leader. I mean after all isn't that why they swear the oath of alegiance every morning? Contracts already issued to his cronies for the rebuild of Iraq. Just read the list and it tells you all! No mention of rebuilding infrastructures such as roads and hospitals, schools and the like. Since when did Haliburton and Root get on and do that? They are oil related companies! No, they are there for the black stuff, the oil. The only way to defeat this blatant attempt to hijack the worlds oil resources folks is to find an alternative! And let the likes of Dubya and his pals sit back and drink it! If we don't, then we are really lost! We know and we can see the dangers, it is here as you read post by post! Lets be thankful that we have at least got this forum to state our case, at no other time in our history has such a communication tool been available to the likes of the folk who post here. Otherwise it would be left to the "letters to the editor column". But there is only one way to stop this before it gets completely out of control, to coin a slogan which is so apt, "united we stand, divided we fall". It was that unity that finally stopped the Vietnam war and that I regret to say is all we folks have left! We have seen it on the streets of major cities throughout the world. There is a groundswell of opinion which covers it seems every aspect of life and religeon. Like the countries at the moment agonising in the UN whether to sign up or not! When the time comes WE know where to place our crosses don't we?

Ravenbait asks:

>> Or does this evil require qualifiers so that only humans can do it? <<

Yes.
Man is the only animal that kills for any reason other than food. Struggles for dominance in most animal species seldom (but occasionally), and never intentionally, end in the death of the combatants.

Now if we planned to eat all those Crispy Fried Iraqis I could accept that it was parallel to your examples from the animal kingdom. But we aren't planning on eating them, just killing them.

While we (generally) no longer eat our enemies, we occassionally feel the need to kill some for apparently ritualistic and cultural reasons that are probably deeper seated in our psyches than we care to imagine.

Without opening a whole 'other' can of worms about 'why' men kill each other, I will suggest that war is a residual behaviour of our cannibalistic ancestory. Cannibalism is really what distinguishes us from the beasts. Our opposable thumbs, larger brains, keener vision, cleverness with objects and bi-pedal motion are all products of that behaviour.

From an animal's point of view, to kill something and not eat it is evil. To eat your own kind is truly evil. To kill your own kind and not eat them is evil incarnate. We are the beasts.


~jwf~

George Senior's control of the media during Gulf War I was calculated to avoid the problems the press finally posed for the government during Vietnam. And apparently it worked.

Not only that, but now they're even willing to let roving reporters with bulletproof vests and satelite links on their helmets wander around the battlefields during the upcoming war. They're even talking about instant battlefield updates. In fact the cable networks have already invested huge sums of money in the technology required to accomplish this. Needless to say, they getting very nervous with the delays in the shooting schedule, the war one and the movie one.

This probably means that in the intervening years, the press has been domesticated enough to be trustworthy in the role. That ought to make just about anybody jittery. So much for the Fourth Estate providing any security for a supposedly free people.

The really salient point is that the Bushboys have apparently always considered this sort of thing as fundamentally a public relations issue, not a moral or ethical or even political issue. It reminds me of the so-called damage control that big corporations go through to convince people they're really not doing anything wrong without actually having to stop doing the wrong things they've been caught doing.

>> ...and meet up with Crook's command coming north from Fort Laramie in a pincer movement. Crook was stopped in his tracks and forced to withdraw even before Custer started...<<

Sounds like we're now watching that same old Turkey trot.

Two carrier groups are now in the wrong ocean. They can't offload and go across Turkey, so the northern pincer is effectively 'stopped in its tracks'.

That's the nice thing about history. It repeats itself so often that after a while one can safely predict that certain personality types will make the same stupid mistakes on a grand scale.


~jwf~

?:

sorry, I was out for a bit. I agree with what you say about people around the world (and about the smaller news outlets). I also would like to add what I've said a few times before: I've never met an American I've disliked (except that guy in Paris . . .) The only ones I don't like seem to hang around the White House and I don't get invited to those kinds of parties.

A classic ethical dilemma:

Do you tell an idiot he is an idiot or do you keep treating him as if he has all his faculties?

Beleive me the answer is not as pat as you may think at first blush...