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

If someone says they're anti-American then they generally mean they're against the current American government.

And the allegations against the French that are only rumour are the ones of them supplying Saddam with weapons after the boycott. They can't really be blamed for past colonialism any more than the American people who were out protesting for peace can be blamed for the actions of their government.

Recent 'colonialism', is admittedly a different matter.

So as you see it if someones says their anti american it is to be assumed that they are speaking of the goverment not the people.

How do you know this? Ausumption?

Past actions of colonialism can not be held against a nation of goverment.

How far back is the past? 1 - 10 -100 years. What is the statue of limitations? Do you speak for the victems of these past actions?

American peace protesters can not be held accountable for their goverments actions.

Only those who protested? How about the one's who diagreed but did not protest? How about the one's who were not sure ?
The ones who agreed?

Recent colonialism can be held against those who participate.

Pray tell of who you speak of.

Thank you in advance for answering my inquisitive nature.

I don't know this, and yes it was an assumption. I think it would be a fairly reasonable assumption that Della does not, in fact, hate all Americans and blame them for all the world's problems.

For the rest I was just giving examples really, and yes I was imprecise. Unfortunately the nature of this part of the subject makes it difficult to be precise. I mean, how far can you blame the people for the actions of their government? You can automatically exclude those who didn't vote for that government I think at least, then also those who changed their minds and protested. Those that changed their minds but didn't protest? I'm not sure, do we have a responsibility to make our opposition to government actions known? I mean, democracy is meant to be the dictatorship of the masses, is there an onus on the masses to make sure their wishes are known beyond voting? But then even voting isn't compulsary. This is the sort of thing lawyers could go on for months about: Who has a duty of care? To whom? Have they neglected it?

Where 'modernity' begins and 'the past' ends I don't know either. Every field has its different boundary. I guess in the case of French intervention in Iraq I'm tempted to set it at the founding of the 5th Republic.

Just to shift the focus a bit, guess what country is being referred to in this statement:

"**** has a long culture of gun ownership. Owning a firearm is a matter of pride and a sign of manhood to many **** men, especially in rural areas where tribalism and traditional values endure. "

"Past actions of colonialism can not be held against a nation of goverment."

Because it has been stated time and again. Because you choose to ignore reality, doesn't make it any less real.

Example. I don't like you and Americans like you. Only your ego can translate that to mean disliking each and every American.

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

Pointing to colonial history of other nations does not excuse the US for it's continued screwing up of the area.

"Past actions of colonialism can not be held against a nation of goverment."

Because it has been stated time and again. Because you choose to ignore reality, doesn't make it any less real.

Example. I don't like you and Americans like you. Only your ego can translate that to mean disliking each and every American.

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

Pointing to colonial history of other nations does not excuse the US for it's continued screwing up of the area.

That could be loads of countries.

Could be Iraq.
Could be the USA, although I would doubt it since that's really only the case in certain states isn't it?
Could be Switzerland.

It's Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030601/w060142.html

US sponsored gun control? The shock, the horror!

Based on previous posts and exchanges with Della I would agree that she she does not hate all Americans. My response to her was somewhat tongue in cheek. As I took hers to be.




Yes many shades of gray.

I never even made that connection!









oh, my ribs.

only if you wanted to continue promulgating an inaccuracy. If you wanted to be accurate, you should have said something like: "decision to discuss the program and bilateral and multilateral issues surrounding it, including the possibility of taking part or not, depending on information forthcoming in the aforementioned discussions, no decisions being possible at the moment due to a lamentable paucity of anything approaching details of a coherent plan for the program." But I guess that's just a little too detailed and accurate to be used as a soundbite on the Fox network.


May I ask who you are qouting?

""During the Saddam era, few people used to keep weapons in their houses because there was real security, but now you have to protect your family by yourself," said Ali Hassan, a 27-year-old factory worker."

From anhanga's link

It doesn't relate well to the pictures painted by the pro war people does it?

Starbirth:

I was quoting a hypothetical person who had a desire to be accurate. A straw man I erected to be my mouthpiece and utter what seems to me an accurate description of the Canadian Government's proposed discussions with the American Government concerning any potential involvement with the American missile defence program which the Canadian Government might consider in the future. My impression of the Canadian Government's position is gleaned from Ministerial statements made in the House of Commons (a pretty good index of Government policy, I find)

"The station's commander, Col. Ali Mohammed, said the low turnout was the result of bad publicity.

"It is a good decision," he said of the coalition order. "Only ill-intentioned people will keep their weapons."



That's just wrong... on so many levels. Gun ownership doesn't make you a bad person. It's what you do with the gun!

"That's just wrong... on so many levels. Gun ownership doesn't make you a bad person. It's what you do with the gun!"

or

That's just wrong... on so many levels. Gun ownership doesn't make you a bad person. It [just makes you better equipped to do bad things]!

Um... yes. But I seem perfectly capable of doing bad things whether I have a gun or not. Fortunately, I have a conscience! (And so, I presume, do the Iraqis.)

I thought it was interesting that the Iraqi people were enthusiastic about shooting Americans with American guns... I wonder how that went?

If they have a good reason for hanging on to their guns (self-defence), then it certainly doesn't make them automatically evil. Now, if Baghdad was completely safe and secure then maybe you'd have to be a little bit suspiscious of gun owners.

I guess its just one of those situations. It won't be safe until the guns go, but the guns will stay until the people feel safe. Disarmament will be a slow process.

Once again, it's the cultural differences that are being ignored here. It is part of the culture of Iraq to have guns, not just as weapons as it says in that article. Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq all have long histories of weapons manufacture, everything from knives to swords to guns. In shops and villages in the region is it possible to leave a modern gun and come back in a length of time to find an exact duplicate made to your specifications along with the original. Gunsmithing is a highly prized vocation.

The point of the article was, I believe that the occupying forces are once again imposing their culture or beliefs on another.

Somewhat related site:

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2003/argument_nossel_mayjun2003.html