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

Well said Flinch. No-one deserves what happened to New York that morning, but when are the Americans going to stop acting so bloody innocent? Their behaviour abroad has been provoking violent protests for years. There is a small island between Cuba and the States which is seen as a tactically crucial place for occupation. It was signed over to the States way-back, on the condition that they must leave the island if the number of births (of the original civilian occupants) raises above a pre-agreed figure. Guess what? If you live on the island and go into labour, the Americans cram you into a four seater passenger plane and force you to give birth on a neighbouring island (regardless of your condition) so the birth figures don't go up and they get to keep their bases there.
Truth be told, Americans may or may not love America, but the rest of the world is fed up with MacDonalds, and having to put up with clod-hopping, greed-based foriegn policies that blatently display a fierce lack of understanding and tolerance for anything vaguely un-American. America may advertise itself as the land of the free, but it is a little known fact that it is in the top 5 'civilised' countries for infant mortality and malnutrition amongst the poor. It is the land of the free, as long as you have enough money and vote the right way.
So sorry about sept 11th, but less of the crap please. You started it.

Frogbit

You should stop... You have already admitted your limited parochial view of the world. You appear to just be ranting and raving now. Why don't you go and get some exercise to exorcise some of that hate.

Who gives more aide than anyone else in the world? Who funds one qurter of the United Nations. That doesn't seem to do us any good.

Listener;
*You have already admitted your limited parochial view of the world.*

I find that insulting, frankly. Would you care to elaborate? I merely give a couple of instances of intrusive foriegn policy. I have no hate for the States, but it's lack of diplomacy is truly chilling. For the president to refer to his miltary actions as a 'crusade' was possibly the biggest insult he could have handed to the Muslim world. Did he not do history in school? Did he not know that that the crusade was a crusade to wipe out the Muslim faith? The Muslim remember. This ill thought out phrase has caused great fear and confusion across the Middle East.
You know nothing about me other than that last admitedly hot-blooded posting. You have decided that *You have already admitted your limited parochial view of the world.* and that I am full of hate. Tell me, who is being parochial and limited?

The president has apologized for the use of the term.

Thankyou for replying, erm, Two-Bit. Regardless of what I may or may not think of the guy, he's in a tough position and may not have the opportunity to run everything he says by his team. Also, America's continued support of Israel, regardless of its actions against Palestine, must also be putting them all under a great deal of strain.

No problem. I've been making a bit of an effort to be a little more measured in my responses. I'm really a pretty mellow person.

In spite of our past actions, I think the government is trying to be careful about what it does. We've recognized that our past response to terrorism was both impotent and aggravating. They're trying to be thoughtful in responding. Past administrations probably would have already bombed something.

I'm quite curious about what we're going to do. I'm particularly anxious, because I'm not in the military any more. It's hard to watch someone else do my fighting for me.

In this case, I think there's going to be a mixture of action. I expect us to reward those who forswear the use of terrorism. I think they'll get aid and trade. We'll work to build those nations up. On the other hand, I think we'll try to kill or capture the terrorists, and topple regimes that support or tolerate them.

The English language is so rich; it's easy to use something that will have a double meaning. I'm sure President Bush was thinking Crusade (a protracted war against evil) and not thinking Crusade (a long war of aggression that targeted our holy lands).

I generally support this president, although I voted Libertarian.

Two Bit

Feel free to correct me if there has been recent deveoplments but last I heard the US hadn't actually paid their UN dues and had arrears going back to 1994 or thereabouts.

I can't claim to know all the ins and outs of the UN funding but as I understand it each countries contribution is linked the the GNP.

As to international aid, the US doesn't actually 'give' money. Most of it is in loans or tied to trade agreements. Lest you think I am US bashing, I hasten to add that this is true of most aid from most countries. Last I heard Sweden was the only country that gave untied aid.

176645

I thinkt hey were holding back a portion. The Bush adminstration was making some noise about paying up the back dues a little while ago. It was my understanding that the percentages were a set amount. Somewhere around 25% of the UN budget.

I don't think we make that much money compared to the rest of the world.

The President may have apologised but surely he should have put his brain in gear before he opened his mouth in the first place.

And yes the US does give an awful lot of aid. US charities provide a lot of humanitarian support around the globe, while the US government does supply more in aid than any other government. The Americans are a generous people who like to see their money doing good work. If the American people, however, saw what the vast proportion of the "Aid" their government provides to third world countries, they might be less pleased. Aid includes food and medicines of course, and hardware - spades, hoes drilling eqipment "manufactures of metal" it's usually called in budget breakdowns, and these things are vital in rebuilding countries. But included in the category "manufactures of metal" (which comprises some 90% of the governmental aid budget) are also shotguns, pistols, revolvers, light artillery, gas masks, shields, riot equipment, plastic bullets, landmines, fragment genades, CS grenades, leg irons, armoured cars, surveillance equipment, tasers, thumbscrews, electric batons, armoured vehicles, etc.

I can't correct you on the UN payments. I know that the admistration under Clinton owed a lot, but I don't know about the present regime, I haven't heard anything.

TWO BIT - I lost it a little earlier - don't misunderstand me - I am opposed to violence. I was just a little sore as, here in the UK, we have had too many knee-cappings, murders and bombs (one of which destroyed the financial sector of London)in the last 30 years. We have been fighting terrorism for a long time. Almost every country in Europe has had similar problems. What happened in New York was unforgiveable. It hurts me that such imbeciles exist. It also hurts me that a lot of funding for the IRA (merely one of the groups responsible for our attrocites) has come from the USA. You never get used to pictures of dead children littering the streets (Omagh springs to mind).
I can only hope that any American who has funded terrorist activity in Britain can now see the heart-break it has caused.

I think they see it from a very different perspective. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the funding for terrorist organizations comes from people living in the Untied States. As I've stated earlier, this has probably protected us to some extent.

I can fully sympathize with how you feel.

As for the President's comments, he has screwed up some. I was glued to the TV last week and the week before. I saw a lot of his statements live, then I saw the coverage of them later. One of the things that I found odd is that the press is cutting his footage to cover some of his errors.

There was one talk he gave from the Oval Office that he stumbled over a few phrases. More due to his trouble with public speaking than word choice or intellect. When it was cut for the evening news they made him look really sincere and emotional.

I'm not used to the press slanting things towards a position that I support. It's a little scary. I'm used to the leftist media referring to President Clinton but Mr. Bush. Their change in attitude surprised me. Now anchormen are making off the cuff comments that are clearly biased towards war. That disturbs me.

I want neutral reporting. Let me draw my own conclusions.

Neutral reporting is impossible when the networks sniff war. Think of the ratings.
The only way to have neutral reporting is by an indipendant body. This would, of course, have to be funded by the government or private enterprise.
So this is why we have what we have.

If the government funded it, wouldn't report what the government wanted?

Actually, National Public Radio is still subsidized, as is the Public Broadcasting System. Both have liberal bias. In fairness, this has been true under both republican and democratic administrations. It is still the best reporting around.

I guess my complaint is that it is easier for me to see BS when it is biased the other way. When it is biased toward my viewpoint, it makes it harder for me to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Right now, my main interest is in the history and geography of the region. Afghanistan looks like a very beautiful, but dangerous place.

I don't know about the US but in the UK you can't hear the news for the sound of journalists clearing off their mantelpeices to make way for the pulitzers...

As for a leftist bias in the US media, i can't help but disagree. You must remember that left in the US wouldn't even pass for liberal in Europe, you have the most right wing media in the world, especially in news. The US media has never gotten over the damage done by the HUAC.

TWO BIT - that was kind of my point.
Afghanistan *is* very beautiful. My cousin and her husband travelled through there a couple of years ago. He posed for a photograph with a member of the Khyber Rifles - the best troops money can buy. He is not looking forward to the conflict. His sympathies lie with the Afghanis. They have lived under violence and oppression for so long. Only the oppressors change. Their condition does not.

HUAC?

House UnAmerican Activities Commision - McCarthy and his cronies.