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

My theory is that Tony Blair aligned himself with Dubya to have a calming influence on him. Remember Tony is the leader of the British Labour party . He is boxing clever; one day the world may thank him for it.
After 9/11 Dubya under the influence of Rumsfeldt might well have gone bersek and started a world war, ie gone nuclear.

I think more of us political intellectuals ought to ponder these things and realise there's more than one way to skin a cat!

Interesting conspiracy theory.
Mine is a bit different.
Dubya is not an unintelligent person, but he is driven by many things. Stubbornness, religious fervour, a drive to outshine his father, and money. He made his far-right Republican bed and depends on advisors a great deal to lay in it. It is one of the great ironies of US politics that a State Governor or Senator, or even a successful businessman is considered ready to deal with international politics the moment they are elected. This is expected to work through advisors, career beaurocrats, and appointed members of government. Bush is listening to the appointed ones and ignoring the diplomats. Simple as that. Why? I think it is just a backlash from the Clinton years, a morally outraged Republican Right bouncing too far in the other direction from reasoned diplomacy and social responsibility. Just MHO.

Actually zoomer, there is a fair bit of evidence to back up the idea that Bush is listening to the ideologues and ignoring the career diplomats. A lot of people have quit the U.S. foreign service in the last three years because they just couldn't take the orders they were being given, and couldn't stand the senior people back home not listening to the reports they were filing. I'd post links but I just don't have time at the moment. I see if I can find some later...

Thanks, Rev. I'd be interested to see that.

Apart from the world stage, why aren't US citizens outraged that on the home front he's caused trouble as well? He's totally blown a balanced budget with his tax cuts, created a deficit for the future that can't be supported by an aging population, and reduced personal freedoms with his draconian laws post-911.

What *has* this guy done right that we can see positive results for right now? *My Country, Right or Wrong* is sounding a little thin and hollow right now....

okay here's a couple to tide you over ....
http://www.carrboroweb.com/resignations.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2892259.stm

And a lot of people got the big E after 9/11.
Those that left were pushed because they were well past their best.
GW is well rid of 'em.

Thank you very, very much for those. I wonder how much press they are getting in the US, I suspect and hope a fair bit...

I find it fascinating to read those reasoned, supportable arguments and compare them to Bush's cocky arrogance and his administration's leaps of logic.

Oetzi, don't be an ass. Twenty years in diplomatic service is proof of competence and experience, it certainly isn't *past their best*. Unlike lifting weights or digging ditches, age is an advantage in international politics.

Zoomer...where were the diplomats before 9/11?
Were they in the Azores with the senior security services sucking Pinnacolades. Yes Sir I think they were!

PS I'm a wolf not an ass!

The diplomats were where they should have been, in the UN sending investigators that didn't find what Bush didn't find- WOMD. They were also telling everyone who would listen that there was a tenuous thread between Iraq and terrorism- in fact they were saying that the biggest thread was the hatred the fundamentalist terrorists had for a bufoon like Saddam. NOW they are saying that by attacking an Islamic country Bush has managed to unite groups that were previously separate. How did he do that? By showing absolutely no concern for Islamic law, customs, and divisions.

You remind me of someone who wants to play table tennis and comes to the conclusion that a brick wall ten feet high would be better than a net because then no one could score on you.

Never thought about building walls Zoom.
The iron curtain was some sight. Did you see it?
Remote as you are I take pity on your simplistic view.
No such view was ever shared by any Iraqui taxi driver that
I met. Nor by the many skilled Iraqui medics that had their
relatives murdered or tortured.

Zoomer...have you ever been to Europe?

England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Italy, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Norway. More than twice, and my parents and siblings were born in England.

Do you seriously believe that Bush had the only possible or even the best solution? Sure the UN was slow and divided, but they were getting the job done at the kind of speed that diplomacy takes. Show me ONE link between Saddam and 911, show me ONE reason that Bush had other than greed and the desire to set up a permanent military base on Middle East soil. A QUARTER of the billions being spent could have solved the Israeli/Palestinian problem and THAT is what caused all the hate and attacks by Islamic fundamentalists. But the biggest, most audaciously stupid thing he did was to equate all of this with the Judeo/Christian ethic and go to war while he and his advisers were mouthing Fundamentalist Christian platitudes.

He is a member of the world, he should act like one. If someone in your country decided they felt someone else was a threat to the country's saftey, should they grab a gun and shoot them? No, they should talk to other citizens and the police to find out if they are wrong and what should be done if they are right. That is what Bush is, a cowboy with the belief of divine guidance.

You realize the situation here since '45 to '89.
You see the economic polka game now in play.
You are aware of your mature legal system.
You know sweet FA about anything in Europe!

respondent off line

Sweet FA?

I know that the reason Dubya chose to ignore the UN was the infighting and the strategic and economic demands of Germany and France. I know they wanted and want a piece of the pie. Unfortunately I know that the US wanted a bigger piece and so went their own way. Unfortunately the economic imperialism of Germany and France was tempered by their actions within the framework of the UN. The US had no compunctions to work outside the system, flaunt international law, and invade and kill Iraqis for what they wanted. What did they want? Well it sure as hell was not to stop terrorism, or did you miss that page of the book? They wanted;

a) To establish military bases in the middle east to ease the Islamic backlash over the ones in Saudi Arabia.

b) To control one of the biggest oil production areas of the world.

c) To take the US public's mind off the terrible economic situation due to tax cuts that are ruining the next generation's hope of a better life.

d) To create a specious scape goat for 911.

Prove me wrong. Go on, show me chapter and verse to support your argument. Anything, one little quote to support your macho view of reality. If you want any shred of the truth that supports what I have to say, try looking at the thousands of posts on this thread alone, or if you want, I will repost them for you. I don't give a rat's ass about what you THINK, PROVE something to me.

Let's start with feudalism in the middle east.
So strong is the financial clout of the Arab
princes that the west's economomy would falter if
they started to invest in other places.

The future of our best, the next generation, would certainly suffer there. Arab democracy is a key aspect of the "road map".

As for 9/11. A catastrophy already outlined by many writers in the west. I find it difficult to cohere over the times I've read ambitious academic propaganda about "western imperialism".
Perhaps these folks think they are dieties and drink pinnacolades along with the rest of the nuggets that allowed 9/11 to happen.

In europe there are comprehensive strategies to try and subvert terrorism. Overt some but many covert. Suggest Canada starts too.
Start by buying your top class peace keepers some decent vehicles.

In short I respect Canada, but you need to know a lot of other people do, some of them enough to risk life and limb to protect your nation. In terms of quoting facts. Forget it....

Oetzi:

You are being startlingly offensive.

"Suggest Canada starts too.
Start by buying your top class peace keepers some decent vehicles.

In short I respect Canada, but you need to know a lot of other people do, some of them enough to risk life and limb to protect your nation."

You really don't know what you're talking of. You obviously haven't got any familiarity with effective peacekeeping strategies, Canadian history or (surprise, surprise) the personal histories of people posting to this thread. What do you know of, for example, my knowledge of other people, including those who have risked life and limb to protect my nation? You're being an offensive pig of a troll. But then, you state quite clearly that you are interested in forgetting facts. Why do you post?

You've often made it quite clear that all you know about Canada is Shannon Tweed. Maybe you should learn a little more about what's going on in North America before you start worshipping a tiny bit of it (George W. Bush) and slagging the rest.

Anhaga

Go and see your political member and demand your peacekeepers are properly funded.

Your points are noted and accepted in good faith.

Ah, yes. My political member. Should I go to the Ugandan refugee or the Indian imigrant? And what makes you think that we need you to tell us to approach our elected representatives about an issue? And why should we approach our elected representatives about an issue of concern to you? "Excuse me, Mr. Jaffer: there's this middle-aged guy in the north of England who sometimes drinks too much premium beer and then gets incoherently abusive who thinks Canada should spend more on its military. I know your just a junior member of an opposition party that's tearing itself apart over all sorts of bigotted internal issues, but could you please put some pressure on the Minister of National Defense (whoever that will be when the new cabinet gets named) to take care of this issue for the guy in England?" Yeah. I'll get right on it, Oetzi. And I'll keep sending my emails to President Bush with my suggestions for him as well.

Well lets face it Oetzi right about one thing. "Member" is certainly the right term (or a least a synonym) for many of the "honourable ladies and gentlemen of the house"