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

There's such a lot to reply to, I don't know where to start.

Stuart suggested that, if I have a solution for the Palestinian problem, then I must have solutions to all the world's problems. Unfortunately it's not that simple, because my solution, that the US should withhold its subsidy, was tailored for one specific case (Palestine/Israel). It would clearly not work as a means of (e.g., one of Stuart's examples) getting the Chinese out of Tibet. In any case, the only way peace can be achieved in the present situation is for the Israelis to withdraw completely from the West Bank and Gaza. This is an imperfect solution. I was merely pointing out that a solution exists and that the US holds the key. I don't expect the US to do any such thing, of course. A better solution would be for Palestine/Israel to be reunited as a multi-ethnic country. If only...

It's interesting that, when one points out that Ireland was one country before the Brits messed it up, one is usually told that one has to deal with the situation as it is. The same people that say this (including Stuart, possibly,) then go back several millennia to defend the Zionist takeover of Palestine. Curiously, they won't go back to a time before the "chosen people" moved in.

I have heard that the Jews were originally followers of Aten, who left Egypt when the cult of Amun was reinstated after Akhnaten's death. Is there any truth in this?

Saladin was a good guy. He kicked the Crusaders out of Jerusalem and allowed people of different faiths to live in peace under his rule. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Dry.

If that were true, Ssubnel, Germany got pretty little thanks, what?
Sarcasm, this is sarcasm!!! (just in case). If i could credit the powers that be with a foresight of that order, maybe i wouldn't be as worried as i am now about the situation. But otherwise that is as fine a conspiracy theory as i've ever heard.

I have also wondered why the chancellor is still so dead set against this war. After all, he went to Yugoslavia filled with conviction that the NATO was doing nothing but good there, and the green party tootled cheerfully after him, and i'm sure their surprise was genuine when Serb villagers got ethnically cleansed in their turn the moment the power balance shifted.
At the very first Schröder's denial was logical, it was before the elections, the outcome was more than uncertain, and Schröder wanted to corner the voices of the hithertoo only anti-war party, the Democratic Socialists (who otherwise had become increasingly unconvincing by now, but still pulled a solid 15-20 % or so in the east). Schröder succeeded in that and won. And if you ask me, it was incredibly heavy footed of Bush et al. not to take this situation into account and mouth off as he did.
Even so, i expected Schröder to turn round any moment after the elections, saying that the situation had changed, that the proofs were finally convincing and that we would go to war after all.
When the volte vace didn't come, i got really puzzled.
I can make sense of this only if this is indeed an attempt to establish a New World Order. A power struggle between Europe and the USA, and an inner-EU one between Britain and Germany-France maybe, who woulda thunk that when The Wall came down?

Well, Dry, Salah did garner praise even from his enemies.

As for the devotees of the Aten being identified with the Israelites, the Bible does mention, in one of those obscure little passages, that when the children of Israel were returning his bones to Hebron, they were mistaken for Egyptians by the locals. So I suspect that's what they were although they probably did have some sort of ancestral claim on at least one cemetary in Canaan. Otherwise, it's a little difficult ot explain why a bunch of Egyptians would bury one of their patriarchs so far from the Nile Delta.

As far as I can tell, original title to the land in question was probably held by the Tribe of the Benjamites and some Phoenicians (Canaanites) based on documents from the archives of the Kingdom of Mari among others. If so, the living representatives would be the some of the Israelis and some of the Palestinians probably.

By admissions in their own traditions, the Israelite claim is based on purchase. The conquest doesn't count because it attests that most of the land was held by Canaanites who allegedly weren't in compliance with the Israelite god's ordinances, which is a tacit admission that the Canaanites had original title to most of the land although apparently at least some of it was held by Hittites as well.

How interesting it is to note how this sort of prefigures the situation that developed in the 20th century when the Zionists began the process by purchasing land then when they became powerful enough, conquered what they didn't have already.

Even so, it's hard to believe that any solution devised for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by outsiders is going to work well. I think the best thing the United States could do is leave those people alone to settle their own differences without massive loans or rearmaments. If the solution then became a multi-ethnic country, that would be okay, but I don't think that's something that ought to be dictated to the people involved.

Perhaps part of it is that Europe remembers what real, all out war can be like, and the US, having forgotten the Civil War, is forging blindly ahead with ideology untempered by reality.

I say perhaps. And you may very well be right. I don't know. Although the fact that Shrub is rather suddenly reversing course makes me think that if there is a struggle for dominance, he's losing.


(Anna, I went and doublechecked, just to be sure. Korea and Vietnam were called police actions, which is how Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon got around congressional approval.)

Thanks for checking that, Montana.

Another thing that might be pertinent to the discussion is that the United States imposed settlements on Vietnam by first reinstating the French colonial government then by setting up the South Vietnamese regime in defiance of the Geneva Convention of 1954. This is similar to what they've done in Afghanistan and probably bodes ill for that country as well. American imposed solutions never seem to solve anything.

It's also interesting to note that the Republican coalition lead by Eisenhower gained office in part by promising to end the war in Korea, which is actually still going on, interrupted by a rather longed lived cease fire. The same coalition lead by Nixon gained office in part by promising to end the war in Vietnam, which might be a little more formally ended through some sort of peace treaty, but you never know.

The current Republican coalition initially lead by Reagan, and now by Bush, has roots in the earlier one but seems to have gained office initially by promising to regain American prestige after the humiliation of Vietnam. What's ironic about that is they seem to be repudiating the earlier settlement of that war fostered by the older Republican coalition.

This sort of thing tends to indicate that they're dealing with a perception of their own mismanagement of foreign affairs. You maybe should wonder why we should credit their competence in the foreign affairs arena if they keep criticizing it themselves?

bookmarking

Thanks, Analiese. I'll add that to my database.

I merely suggested that the threat of the withdrawal of US aid could be used to force Israel to listen to international demands, if the US would do this. What happens after this would, as you say, be up to the people who have to live there. I take your point that we can't tell people in other countries what to do. Unfortunately, after a long period of intervention, things can go drastically wrong when the intervention is suddenly withheld, as when the Brits pulled out of Nigeria & India. A planned withdrawal, taking the views of the people into consideration, seems to be the only sensible strategy, but this can still go wrong. I thought we'd done a pretty good job of pulling out of Zimbabwe, but look at it now! What did we do wrong? ()

Dry.

I think your own admissions bely your theory, don't you, Dry?

The point is nobody seems to be able to devise a gradual disengagement strategy that works any better than just pulling out. Gradual disengagement appears to just delay the adverse consequences. This is probably because you can't avoid the havoc caused by colonialism by delaying disengagement.

The track record on this is pretty clear. Euroamericans haven't demonstrated competence to rule other people in those people's interests, surprise surprise. And as long as Euroamerican interests are given precedence, the situation persists.

Dry, I guess the best way to answer that is by saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The US, with it's Weberian outlook (i.e., protestant ethic, manifest destiny, and the ends justify the means), has an incredibly short memory.

Alright, at the risk of being drummed out, I think this needs to be said. Given the amount of conversation surrounding this whole Iraq war/no war, is is possible that it very well may become this generation's Vietnam? What I mean is, it's been the topic of conversation, the focus of massive protests, and seems to have actually motivated people politically. In that sense, and I mean this in the narrowest possible terms, could Shrub's actions, whatever their intention, be seen as a good thing for the lackadaisical political awareness of most Americans? As in, a good swift kick in the ass?

I'd almost be tempted to agree with you, Montana, at least in the most restricted sense you imply, but I won't. Bush's actions even in that restricted sense are reprehensible. It is maybe some of the responses to those actions that might be a good thing for American political consciousness and conscience.

Sorry, folks, I credited Stuart with some comments that should have been attributed to Fairly Strange.

Analiese, thanks for your account of how the US contrived to start the Vietnam war. I'd always assumed that the US just moved in. (I was fairly naïve at the time.) I've added that to my database, also.

We Brits always referred to the actions in Korea and Vietnam as wars.
Dry.

"a good swift kick in the ass" was what Al Qa'eda intended with their 911 attacks. Unfortunately, they overestimated the size of the ass's brain & forgot that this ass can kick back.

Dry.

One last comment before I sign off: It has been said that the West may think twice before starting the next war. There's even a slim chance of avoiding this one.

Dry.

They also overestimated the structural integrity of the ass, not to mention the maturity.

Good one, Analiese. Must go now. TTFN.

Dry.

In this year/ these years we are in & going thru it is the year's of Aquarius. Some when you right about the protest & the war/no war it is because after the year of Aquarius is the year of pisices I that actully if I am correct this year 2003 is the year of pisices & last year wait no this year is the year of Aquarius the movement's of the year's is every couple of year's but, behind the Zodicact & sign's are people who where born in the time period's ofd the sign's of the Zoicact but behind those people well are. Ok let me explain it like this last basicly I have no clue to what I am writing about but I know it revolove's around around what is good of the time's for one, plus if we check are history book's that are in highschool, (I'm out of highschool but I learned something while I was in highschool) every couple of year's or decade's there has been a war ww1, ww2, Vietnam, French American war, French American Indian war 1812, in no particular order in my righting but I do see a pattern hmmmmmm. Now with America being a first world country & a country of diversity well that's all I should have to write, but now alot of the over countries I think are looking at this pattern of war, I'm not writing or anything else that I agree with the war's that have taken place or that I disagree but I LIVE IN AMERICA so I write politican's do your job & keep in your mind's that they are people who have nothing to do with this war with Iraq. Now with the french American Indian war which if I am correct was in 1812, not "cool" to me, civil war's well hey at least they were fighting something like trying to establish the country & trying to end slaverly. Now I am not racist or even really care about racisism but to each it's only. plus with out racist I really wouldn't have people yell at when Jerry Springer comes on the tv but in the same matter i'm not siding with the people who have more or less hate at each other when it comes to the subject of racistim. I have come across I guy I know a while of go & he was talking to a cop in subject of some crime going on & his friend getting blamed & an another subject came up about his friend being black but the guy I know said his was brown not black. & I like that because the in matter of skin the guy's skin was brown. On another subject on Donohue which I don't really like cause I don't like Donohue these to brown guy's where talking about equal right's & these guy's were & most likely still are rich. That type of stuff is just crazy here these guy's are have million's of dollar's & they were talking about equal right's. Now maybe I am just stuipted or don't know the separation's but if people are rich they shouldn't hide behind the old equal right's routine/trick. I know alot of people & "more power to the guy's" but please come on now the people who are rich don't have equal right verse the poor & middle classes anyway & they are saying equal right's, I have a solution for this 1 how about all you rich people get your money & shine it up real nice & we'll go out to a field somewhere & we'll burn your money & give some of it to the people who live on the street & you rich people can live on the street then I think you'll be able to srceam equal right's. Just a thought thou. Only resason I write this is because well if you rich not all of you but the one's who are screaming equal right's want to help your race then go the people who are in your race & give them some money that you earned. Instead of talking about equal right's just something I happened to pick up on & wanted to write about because it is a subject that bahfull's my mind. Only because I guess I don't just it. We have the people who say white power, white power, & the people who say equal right's, equal right's make me laugh for some reason. I do believe Tu-pac, my solider brother said it best in many different way's. Not writing that we're are friend's but, I respect man, even thou he happen's to be dead the reason I say we are not friend's is because we never meet maybe we knew each other in another life a long time ago because I happen to like Cobra's very much, like as in I love Cobra's & snake's but, You won't see me like Steve or those crazy people picking them up & messing with them. Snake's are misrepresented I in my opinion & high well they are just high. & I like them but it's some snakes are diffrent they other's & some you just don't mess with so what do people do they mess with the snake's, Cobra's in particular & that old myth that when you kill a Cobra other Cobra's know, so I just don't pick up snake's for the simple fact that I am like a Cobra. I respect other's & do what I got to do, except stepping on the little people to do it or if I am disrespected myself then well I don't need to disrespect the people that disrespested me I just handel it the best way I see fit.

I'm not sure what you're saying, Zero.

The French and Indian War occurred around 1759, not 1812, between the British and French and their indian allies. The War of 1812 was between the Americans and the British.

Who's this Tu-pac you're talking about? Is that Tupac Amaru maybe? Or the Tupac who was a rapper?

If you learn how to handle snakes, to talk to them, it's not so bad then.

I stand corrected. I guess I didn't learn that much when I was in high school. So I stand corrected well Iknow now that I was writing about another war when the people came to America & started killing the Indian's. I was thinking it was the American french Indian war but war is war to me. Meaning I am a A&&h&&e in knowning some of the name's of the war's & when they ocurred. So I learned something new today nothing wrong with that. I am not really "a buff" on the current event's list, last 200 hundred year's I know some of the war's that have gone on & taken place thru out the last 200 year's just don't know some of the particler's well actully & little bit of just don't know & forgot. Oh yeah & some stuff I just don't care about because it is a waste of thinking about I think. But it is good that I learned something new today. Na-lim-2

Oh, I get it now. Yes, there's been plenty of killing indian people in the Americas for 500 years maybe. But you're right, war is war, but there are patterns if you care about that.

>>And if you think about it, very few armed conflicts in the last 50 years have been *called* "war." Korea, yes. But Vietnam was a "police action." Kuwait was a "liberation." The Eritrians are "freedom fighters."

Sometimes, the liberal notion of political correctness comes back to bite.<<
Montana,I think that the non-declaration of wars has nothing to do with political correctness (sic) but everything to do with it being advantageous for America *not* to declare war. Look at Afghanistan, as Bush never declared war, he doesn't have to give legal rights to those poor b*ast*rds at Gitmo!