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

I think, and I fear I am going to ramble here, that while I agree that the world wars were not, as such, universal, we probably aren't in for another one just yet, if only because the USA so far outguns everybody else on the planet that only it has the clout to really kick one off. I mean, that the prospect of a world war will only come about if the iniator is the USA, or if it (her, do we call the USA her? I don't know ) is the main target of the combined strength of pretty much everyone else (except Britain. We'll be on the US side I betya), which (circular reasoning) would probably only happen if the USA, I dunno, invades half the world in a short space of time: people can stomach 'Americanisation/Globalisation' (note the '') I think, but actual physical takeovers tend to get peoples' backs up.

So I'd agree that what we are left with is localised conflict, probably along ethnic/racial lines. The really 'interesting' thing about the end of the Cold War is that it turns out that our twentieth century focus on conflicts splitting people along ideological lines seems to have been just an aberation and has given way to all-out tribal warefare once again.

Somebody said about the attitude of soldiers/the public in Britain at the beginning of the first WW "Never such innocence again" but I think we have learnt very little as a species. The real question is how to stop war at all. Doesn't matter if we are blown to bits in the middle of a WW ar as part of some spat between two feuding neighbours.

And regarding Amy's comment: 'Course it depends just how much of the middle east the USA aggrivates...

And now for something completly different.....

The USA make it through to the last 16 of the world cup
despite losing to Poland (3-1).

They now face Mexico on Monday.

This should be interesting as I suspect that the Mexicans will be looking forward to beating the US.
Given the difference in the level of Soccer support in the two countries I wonder how it will be reported.

hmm. i was thinking about watching the world cup...

{[caer csd] with the England match scheduled for 12.30 BST, its going to cause some rearranging of plans. We were going to spend the day in Nodnol, lunching, museuming then going to a private viewing of the Summer Exhibition at the Royal Academy of Art in the evening. I now suspect that we won't be leaving home till after the match.}

Fate -

I agree that nations would not sign the equivalent of the Great Convention, however I also believe that if a country started lobbing nukes all other nuclear powers might decide to obliterate the offender, thus enacting a quasi Great Convention by mutual consent.

I don't believe the tribal issues went away in the 20th century, I just think we had two hugely dominant ideological regimes impressing their dominance. Now that there is only one, and hopefully the US is backing away a little, I think the old tribal issues are just bubbling up again.

Courtesy

Not looking into the possible causes for a world war (which is skipping over a lot, I know) but looking soley at the idea of weather it is possible to have a conventional/limited nuclear exchange; I feel that it is indeed possible to see this happen. If the US and her traditional allies (The UK and ummm, hmmm, I dunno anymore) are attacked in a manner that required immediate response, it may be possible to see other nations ganging up to fall into a full blown war. The logistics of a full scale war would be tough initially for the US to maintain, as we have a vollunteer military that is a shadow of itself from 20 years ago. This may cause Congress to pass actions reinstating the draft and making a conscript army. If our current forces maintain contact while a conscript army is being trained it is quite likely that they would be ground down, and then their replacements will no be combat effective. This kind of scenario seems to be why military strategists find themselves drawn to atomic responces.

Somedays I think I'm the only person in the Atelier who supports Israel. The US should continue to ally itself with the only democracy in the region, albeit in a different manner. There should be strings attached, namely forbidding violation of Palestinian human rights and construction of new settlements in sensitive areas. These conditions should be tied to monetary support.

Yu are not alone. I think that the US and the UK must support Israel as we both were party to it's exsistance. That alone makes me feel obligated to support the nation.

[]

[spk, bitter over the loss to Poland]

I too believe that due to the US & Britains role in the establishment of Israel we should support them.

I also agree with the point of tying monetary support Israel behaving. It amazes me sometimes that the US basically keeps Israel afloat with monetary subsidies, yet Israel thinks they are owed something from the US.

One thing I wonder about is how Israel can justify the subjegation of another group of people based on nationality?

I am not trying to be a lightning rod, and this is not an attack against the Israli(sp?) people. Just thoughts.

Courtesy (who is going to Las Vegas in 20 minutes so will be back on Monday)

Hi Courtesy, long time no see. And looks like it'll be longer by a few days yet.

I think Israel should continue to be supported, but I don't know how I think it should be supported, if you know what I mean.

*Affy heads over to the good old sign that some of you might remember, cleans the dust off of it, and hits it. It now reads "168 down, 12 to go"*

I'm in the final stretch, everyone.

[]

[Affy]

[Amy]

{[caer csd] That is so , Affy I was wondering to myself earlier today on how your game was going!

As to Israel and Palestine, as usual I can see both sides of the argument, which is not so different to so many trouble spots of the World.

I am on the side of those doing their best to bring their families up, trying to teach them good from bad and keeping them safe and healthy in an all too dangerous an environment.

A solution? I'm not sure that the Northern Ireland one is necessarily the best, it gets my goat that perpertrators of such violence can take Parliamentary seats without so much as a wrist slap.

But then what do I know, I'm just doing my best to bring my sons up as decent human beings and keeping them safe and healthy.}

I can remember the sign, but I can't remember what game you're playing.

I didn't meant to say that the US should withdraw it's support from Israel, but certainly the Palestinians have some valid concerns and the Bush administration's policy of ignoring those for an all-out support of Israel is problematic. There will never be peace if the mediators fully support one side, and I believe the US role as mediator is the best one.

But the US as a she? Uncle Sam in petticoats?

I certainly think the first step should be to encourage the other countries in the region--rather than the "meddlesome" West, who can never do right in the eyes of some--to work with Israel and Palestine towards a lasting peace. Help is best accepted when it comes from home. Other Arab states often bash Israel and use the Intifada to further their own political ends without raising a finger to actually *help* the Palestinians. Refugees who flee to Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon are herded into camps whose squalor rivals anything Israel forces upon innocent civilians. It's time those who live in the Mideast take care of their own people.

I'm with you, Caer. Why can't we just learn to share? I'm doing my best to raise my kids to be tolerant and kind. I have no direct control or impact over world events and feel helpless about it.

Things are so tangled up in the middle east that no matter what position the US takes there will be criticism.