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

S'ok. This seems to be one of the few threads discussing the current situation which hasn't yet descended into name calling and flame wars, and I don't want that to happen - I'd like to keep this one out of the gutter Now, to respond to your post...

Bush hasn't used chemical weapons on his own people, leastways not the way that Saddam has, but Bush's love of the oil companies and his insistence that Americans shouldn't be stopped from driving whatever gas-guzzling vehicle they want regardless of the consequences, inflicts chemicals on me every day that I sit at the bus stop here in Austin (why *do* so many American trucks and SUV's have exhaust pipes which point directly at the sidewalk btw? *COUGH SPLUTTER*). His insistence that business be de-regulated and that the allowable levels of various toxins and other nasties that companies can release into the environment should be raised, just so that business can be more efficient and make more money inflicts chemicals on all of us who breathe the air and drink the water, as does his refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty.

Bush's election to the Presidency wasn't exactly above board and by the rules, just like Saddam's. When it became clear that there were serious irregularities with the result he should have stepped down and declared a re-run. That would have been the right and proper thing to do, regardless of the monetary cost to the nation. I think it would have cost less to do that than it has cost the nation in terms of turning a healthy surplus into a massive deficit.

I guess you could also say that Bush isn't as bad as Saddam because he hasn't invaded another sovereign nation... yet, whereas Saddam has done that, and that's exactly what prompted me to start this thread. If President Bush orders troops into Iraq he will be committing an act of aggression which will have consequences none of us can even imagine yet. Iraq has not attacked the US. No country has. The people who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon weren't acting on behalf of a nation, they were doing it for a cause and an organisation. Therefore Bush has no right to invade Iraq. As has been pointed out so many times, none of the hijackers have been proved to be Iraqis - most of them were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama bin Laden. If he wants to attack a country he should go there first.

For almost 30 years the IRA waged a campaign of terror against my country - Great Britain, but at no time did Britain invade Ireland and lay waste to Dublin. Nor were British troops sent to Boston because of the NORAID organisation which was raising money for the terrorists during that time. That would have been as wrong as what Bush wants to do with Iraq.

I don't know how much (if any) of the backlog you've read - I did find the quote I mentioned in post 1 - it's here F19585?thread=248834&skip=80&show=20. Just replace 'Roper' with 'Bush', 'More' with 'world opinion', and 'The Devil' with 'Saddam'. Do you see what I mean? If Bush orders troops into Iraq, he will be giving Iraq, and any anti-American fanatic out there justification to attack America because America will be the aggressor. Do you not think that at least a few other Muslim nations will rally round Iraq just the way that the UK and Spain are rallying around Bush? And of course, if that happens (and it will) America is going to hit back even harder still... and around and around it goes until we're all blown to bits. I don't want to have to try and stand up in "...the winds that will blow" as a consequence of invading Iraq.

<< "Where was the U. S. when the Taliban took over Afghanistan and started blowing up Bhudhas and executing and oppressing women?" >>

Right, Anhanga. Where.... was... Russia!?? Germany!?? Great Britain!?? Why is it supposed to be up to the U.S.!?? Ok, so we've built that reputation, for better or for worse. But bloody hell, it sure is easy for some of my great international thinking acquaintances to just keep complaining about the U.S., and to tell her nation's people to take action against the govt!!!

What about other nations!?? And what about the nations who are themselves repressed!??

We have something of a misconception here that WE BROKE AWAY FROM BRITAIN, SO IF A GROUP OF PEOPLE WANT TO BREAK AWAY FROM A TYRANT BADLY ENOUGH, THEY CAN DO IT THEMSELVES!!! WE DID!!! Lazy!?? Oh yes. Quite. And inconsiderate about actual circumstances. But honestly... why is it always on our shoulders!??

That's damn dangerous. And I recall from your far away post, Anhanga, that the point you were reaching is that the U.N. should appoint policemen for the world. I don't know how successfully that can be done, without the self-righteous U.S. intervening.

Now please understand that I feel the U.S. has a big head. But when the rest of the world adopts an attitude that won't allow a change of mind, then the rest of the world might be a little to blame too.

I'm rather uncomfortable myself with America being seen as the world's policeman - for three main reasons.

1) Wearing a police uniform turns too many ordinary people into thugs.
2) Because of the parochial nature of American news coverage and the insular and parochial mindset of so many Americans.
3) That's what the UN is for.

Gosho, your previous post was wise, balanced, and much appreciated.

Archangel, you have many good points.

I would like to point out though, that many countries have shrugged the yoke of imperialism without violence. And similarly that we are a world, not one particular nation.

Ah! Something I haven't really heard about! Good!!! What countries have done this, Mr. Zoomer!??

And yes, we are a world... but... unfortunately, and obviously, not everyone sees it that way.

Thank you cl This whole situation and my feelings about it have been a learning experience for me. I've never in my life felt so passionately about an issue... except maybe Thatcher's poll tax. And almost everything Thatcher did. And the Falklands war. And a lot of other stuff I guess

Ignorance was bliss, wasn't it!??

Canada, India, North Africa, etc.

The world is vast.

Oh. Clarity. Nice. I see what you were saying, Zoomer... I read too fast (are you a Mr!?? Don't want to go A Miss!!! ha ha!!!), or no... I didn't... woah...

Quite scary how deeply embedded U.S. "ideals" are inside of me!!!

Dunno just what my brain was doing.

Our blinders are thick, and very effective.


I like the diversity of thought and opinion here. I fear that those who oppose the war and those who see it as inevitable aren't flexible enough to see the far shore.

Just what I think.

Sorry Dragonfly, I think you misunderstood my post. I was not arguing that the U. S. should be the world's policemen; I was arguing that they shouldn't be and that, in fact, nobody wants them to be. I'm afraid you quoted me incompletely as well, which does misrepresent what I said a little. Here's the relevent bit again:

* For example, "Where was the U. S. when the Taliban took over Afghanistan and started blowing up Bhudhas and executing and oppressing women?" does not mean, "oh gee, I wish the U. S. would be the world's policeman." It means "what has suddenly changed that makes them want to be the world's policeman?" and "Is my country next?" The UN should hire the world's policemen and the vetos should be scrapped.*

You see? It does not mean "I wish they would police the world" it means "why the hell are these guys in a uniform I don't recognize suddenly knocking in my front door without being called?" It is not "supposed to be up to the U.S." It is not "always on [your] shoulders." As a matter of fact, the UN does appoint policemen for the world and a hell of a lot of unheralded soldiers from places such as Fiji, India, Pakistan, Uruguay, and a hundred other countries, including the U. S. have given their lives in that cause. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/fatalities/totals.htm But, to quote Mr. Bush, make no mistake, the U. S. has not made the largest sacrifice in that cause. That prize goes to India. And Sweden, Norway, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ireland, Ghana, Canada, the UK and France have each lost more lives being policemen (legally constituted throught he UN) for the world than has the U. S.
So, again, we aren't asking the U. S. to be policemen for the world; we're asking the U. S., and Mr. Bush in particular, to stop being the self-appointed sheriff for the world. Again, the policing of the world is not and has not been on your shoulders. Its been on the shoulders of thousands of Indians, and Swedes, and Norwegians, and Nigerians and on and on.
I'm saddened that you misunderstood my post, apparently thinking that I thought that it was up to the U.S. to depose the Taliban. It was not "supposed to be up to the U.S." The point I was trying to make was that suddenly the U.S. woke up and struck unilaterally, declaring war on a country for the actions of non-citizens living in that country. It was not a police action. That is a terrifying precedent and it does make people around the world wonder "Are we next?"

I know I attacked your post blindly, Anhaga. I've heard "Why didn't THEY do something?" (And they can be anyone you like to blame) for so long that I'm sick of it. And part of me wanted to regurgitate some of the arguments of heard.

Part of my post did admit your statement about the UN policing, and not just one country. I meant to come off as agreeing with that statement, but also fearful that it can't happen successfully.

I also should have clarified that I was going to just face off with one minute idea (incomplete, out of context as it is) for my own silly purposes.

One thing I've always got to work on as a writer is focus. I admit I saw one idea deeply embedded in there and ran with it. I disected one statement in absence of the rest, because hearing that sort of "where were THEY!?" accusation gets on my nerves.

I personally would be happy if countries would stop criticising each other. No one is perfect, dammit. And we'll always have hangups about sordid pasts because they can indicate sordid futures!!!

And likewise, I'd be pretty darn happy if PEOPLE could stop criticising other PEOPLE so much. My post (probably!??) came off as a misguided personal attack. If it did, I apologise, as that's not REALLY where I was headed.

So...!!! "Where was I when one statement popped out in a post and I wanted to wrestle it to the ground?!!!"
That's the real question.

No hurt feelings, I hope. Thank you for explaning and showing your side again so clearly.

One great thing this has brought up is the U.S. public's great misconception that the world except the U.S. to mend all fences. Obviously not true. Preposterous to expect, when you really think of it. But the scary thing is that A LOT of us believe it is that way. A lot of us really do. I've heard it too many times. I'm starting to ask people, "Why do you think that!?? Where did you hear this!??" No real answers yet, oddly enough!!!

<>

I don't think the U.S. suddenly woke up, unless you are referring to the public. There are two United States: those that represent the people, and those who are the people. I believe in government conspiracies. How COULD the "leader of the free world" be so blind about the Taliban and other overseas issues. Once the issues struck home, they decided to attack back. Kinda sounds like Pearl Harbor, doesn't it!?? That kind of again!!! Yeah, we knew there was a problem for years.

I know people around the world wonder if they are next. Try getting that concept into the mind of an average U.S. citizen, and they think you are buts. "It's liberty and justice we fight for!!!" Whose liberty!?? Whose justice!?? So many of us seem to think that the world outside our borders should be, wants to be, and deserves to be living under the umbrella of OUR ideals, not of their own. What kind of liberty is that!??

Most of us are so blinded by American bald eagle droppings that we feel the rest of the world would be better off if they were like us. But the eagle, in many ways, is just clawing the other countries. But hey, if we all end up blind and stupid, we won't know any better... will we!??

It's sad. Please understand that some days this little mind and heart of mine can really consider the position of her international friends, and those she cares for abroad. But some days it's hard just to try to understand what is happening here at home. You saw that difficulty of thinking beyond my own borders yesterday. No hurt feelings, I hope.

*World expects the U.S.....

I thought we were friends. And I still do.

I was pretty sure that you were running with the one little bit of my post but I was concerned that others might then misunderstand what I was saying. We (in the outside world) don't usually run around trumpeting our body counts on UN peacekeeping missions; we just do the job the UN asks of us. There is a large portion of the Canadian public, for example, that while praising the work that our soldiers have done in Afghanistan, lament that they went there on a U.S. operation instead of a UN one. We would be much more proud if our military never went abroad without blue berets.

gotta go.

That's just ridiculous. I think getting the oil we have under the ground here in america is a good idea, we're got to get it somehow and we'd be doing it probably better for the enviroment than they do in the Middle East because we have better technology. Anyway, it isn't like we're totally destroying all the forests. We're using our natural resources.

Interesting, but remember one is a renewable resource and the other isn't.

It's nice you have so much faith in the U.S., but like zoomer has said, oil will run out. It's foolish, in my opinion, to keep on with this power struggle for a fuel to run our economy and our engines.

I THINK you are saying, Nerd(and I'm glad you are still posting!!!), that you want the U.S. to be self-reliant!?? If that's part of your argument, then wouldn't it be intelligent for the U.S. to use our technology to make oil something we need less and less of!??

Thanks, I had a look at lemonbovril - it's funny!

Nerd42, I have heard your argument here in NZ (!) and I wonder whether you are serious, or if you are extracting the urine? I know many thousands of movies have portrayed the Middle East as being socially and technologically stuck in the late C19th but in reality, they are as capable technoligically as you in the USA are. (My brother had a friend whose husband went to work for an oil company somewhere in that area.
But CL Zoomer is right - some resources are renewable, oil isn't.

Cool unintended link!