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

> "Seems to me, people were better off before and after the fuedalism stage, not during."

Well, immediately before the feudalism in England, was the power vaccuum left by the departure of the Romans, which lasted for a couple of centuries, give or take. I'd say that this was considerably worse, myself. I have to say I'm surprised, Uber Phreak - you hadn't struck me as an anarchist before now...

In all seriousness, I'd argue that trying to compare Britain at 100 AD and 1400AD with Britain at 700AD, and hence saying that feudalism is a poor system, is missing the point. The circumstances were very different: technology, religion, education, health, literacy, world circumstances, and all these things. Feudalism was a very good solution to the problems of the time, and I think people here would have a hard time inventing something fundamentally better with the resources then available.

Still, since I've nailed my colours to the mast - what type of government would other people wish to try and encourage in Afghanistan, and how?

GTBacchus,

Guess what hole, I find your comments about the south in bad taste.

But then you knew I would...

What type of gov't would I like to see there?

I think that is kind of a strange question in the sense that I don't really see it as my place to tell someone else what kind of gov't they should have. I think one of the major reasons the gov't in America was created was (in theory) to serve the people and whatever needs they felt should be addressed by that government.

So I would be inclined to say that a system that addressed their concerns and wants as afghanis would be the right way to go.

But as an American, and a known religious skeptic, I have a real issue when religion is tied so completely with government. Particulalry when the religion has ties to religious wars.

So, when it all comes down to it, what do I suggest...I think they should make something up. Create a gov't system that works for them. I don't care particularly all that much what it is as long as it is the system that the people want. If they want a king, fine. If they want a democracy, fine.

I think that the Afgans should vote on what kind of government THEY want. Of course, they should first all be allowed to know that the definition of democrasy is not "a country Allah is going to destroy and send the citizens of to hell for all eternity."

Only then could they make informed decisions.



phreak

Perium, since I'm a Texan, born and bred, and a proud one, I reserve the right to say whatever I like about the South.

But then you knew I would...

I'm back and lurking. I think I left before I answered a question or two - if you still want that conversation, begin a discussion on my space because this thread has diverged since then.

x x Fenny (seeking hope and Zero Intolerance)

Naturally, a fan of democracy will advocate a democratic vote as the only fair means of choosing a system, in the same way that a fan of theocracy would have the decision made by a religious leader, and a fan of oligarchy would have the decision made by the 'great and good'.

Still, I hope you have time to teach people to clear landmines in between 'civics' classes, and sneak in a few handburgers into the parcels of voting forms...

Handburgers? Was that a Freudean slip, or were you suggesting a new product for the Islamic legal system?

Um... Eeew.

So then why the bashing of the South?


Admittedly I'm confused. I'm Tenn. born and bred. Want to compared pedigrees? I wouldn't mock my family like that. Why do you?

Maybe it's different in Texas. Maybe southern pride=scorn there.

Perium-

Ok, now I'm confused. I didn't bash the South, really. I admit that the south has flaws, but I was really just making a point about the word "Yankee", and it's usage in different places. I was also making an attempt at a little regional humour, good naturedly, I thought.

<<

So jus' let me get this straight here - you fur'ners call all mer'kins "yanks"? Even us God-fearin' Texans? Ain't y'all heard? - A yankee's a northerner! Wait til Gen'ral Lee hears about this!

>>

Ok, I caricatured the accent, which is not really an insult; I feigned ignorance of foreign customs, which could be read as a dig - that the South is provincial (not entirely untrue) - and I referred to General Lee, which alludes to the whole "The South will rise again" mentality, for which I admittedly don't have much respect. I also made it clear that *I'm* a Texan, which I thought softened it a bit.

I have Texas pride because I know it's a big, beautiful place, with many of the most amazingly wonderful people I've ever known. It has more natural beauty, rich history and culture, and vibrant energy than plenty of nations! It also has some serious skeletons in its closet, like small-minded provincialism and lingering racism.

I love Texas enough to be honest about its flaws. Yes, I'm living in self-imposed exile right now, but I recognize that my roots are in Texas and I have inherited a lot from it, some of which I revel in, and some of which I struggle to overcome.

Is it different in Tennessee? Am I making any sense?

I'm not a typical Texan. I admit that. Have I really been offensive?

I found it offensive, else I wouldn't have said anything.

I find the Yank thing disgusting, and it p**ses me off. I could tolerate hearing it in ignorance. But I would calmly-politely say, I'm American not a "yank".

As far as the General Lee thing, oh so not funny for so many reasons. All of which as a southerner you should be aware of. The tension that has existed in this country as a result of the states war is hardly anything to laugh at. As far as being a Texan and somehow exempt, that's laughable. One of Lee's greatest generals was from Texas.

I'm not advocating a south will rise movement. I'm just proud enough of my roots, that a Texan who should know better, is mocking how we speak here, and in turn brings up the Yank thing AGAIN. Why wouldn't I speak up?

Actually if you want to talk about this further, drop by the homespace.

I don't want to clutter this forum with this stuff anymore.

Done. Let me just say here that I apologize to anyone I've offended, and also for the topic-drift.

GTB

a country that was in the "Stone Age", without any military targets.
YET, it gets three weeks of continuous bombing!
and we are taking about changing the government for the Afghans, while we never asked them about how they like being bombed !!

Welcome back Fenchurch,
in fact i would like the discussion to stay in this form, becuase i think it is very relevant to what is being discussed here, in general at least...
my last post was:
Dear Fenchurch,
you say: "
ME, I have said things I hated myself for saying, in this forum, about Israel's Government. I won't come off the fence, but I hoped to see you take a step further into the middle"
I condsider myself to be in the middle, but i guess we all do I recognize Isreal's right to exist. But I also recognize the Palestinines right to exsit, as well in the 1967 occupied lands and in forming their state.

however, I have two questions for you:
1- What do you think of the Settlements?
2- Do you, not the govmnt of Isreal, but you personally , agree on giving back East Juersulem including the Holy Mosque?

Hi ME.

Sorry you've waited so long! I will answer your questions, but I will ask a couple of my own. You're all free to stick an oar in, if you want!

What do I think of the Settlements? Not an easy question, but nothing about this topic *is*! Israel occupied the territories, and began settling them. That sort of colonialism is never right at the time. In some cases, they took land as a result of war. In others, as a result of expansion. "History is written by the victors", but if it were honest, a lot more land would have been taken as a result of war or expansion. But that doesn't make it right for the people who have been displaced. Now that the land has been settled, there are two sets of people fighting for it: Palestinians, and Settlers. If Palestinians were to move back in and Settlers were displaced, there's not likely to be much difference from the current situation. But the current situation involves suicide bombers attacking Settlements. Is that right or just?

Do I personally agree on giving back East Jerusalem, including the Holy Mosque? I don't know enough. I don't think a divided city would work. Consider Berlin, consider the budding idea of dividing Afghanistan into a UN territory. Giving back the Holy Mosque? Of course, I do. My personal ethic involves everyone being the same (no matter of religion, politics, or colour, we're from the same human family) but everyone has the right to believe what they will, how they will. That means that the Holy Mosque belongs to the people who choose to worship in it.



Now I, as a Jew in England, can't read the papers or hear the news without feeling under attack. Middle East news stories seem to take a very anti-Israel slant. Israel is painted as an aggressor, Palestinians as victims. Jews are seen as representatives for the country of Israel, and I personally have been asked to justify the Israeli policies. I don't agree with these policies, but I do recognise that some countries' Governments (such as the USA) are telling Israel not to fight the Terrorists who are sending daily suicide-bombs. What gives them the right to do that? Where does the mis-reading of Israel's situation come from?

I also ask people's opinions on the historical Palestinian issue. You recognise the Palestinian's right to exist, and their need to form their own land. I also remember that at the formation of Israel, there were two groups, who made totally disparate choices. One group chose to accept Israeli citizenship. They became Israeli-Arabs. They live comfortable lives in Israel, without waging terrorist activities. The other chose to ignore Israel's right to the lands they still saw as their own. They chose to fight for it in whatever way they could. They are still fighting, as Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or with other names. One group, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation chose to work with Israel towards a common peace, with a Palestinian Homeland (Gaza and The West Bank). This has sadly been put on hold since the Uprisings. From this paragraph, I read that Israel has recognised the Palestinian's right to exist, and their need to form their own land.

Finally, I ask how many suicide bombers are needed, before people look at Israel as a victim and not just as an agressor. And I ask why Israel is entirely wrong to send in the army to fight against these attacks, and why their opponents are seen as victims, no matter how many terrorists are spawned in the anti-Israel groups. Neither extreme is right, but only seeing one extreme is more wrong.



People, sorry for the long post. Please open this discussion up, so we can find a peaceful and lasting way forward. Maybe, just maybe, someone influencial could be reading...

x x Fenny (hoping and praying for Zero Intolerance)

Fenchurch, I'm not sure what to think any more.

From my perspective here in the States, I see that everybody seems to be fighting everybody. Palestine lobs a bomb at a school one day, and in retaliation, Israel takes out a hospital the next. Tempers seem to be so heated right now that peace talks are usually interrupted by an attack or another bombing. I don't see Israel as being any more aggressive than Palestine or Afghanistan, or any less, either.

I don't know enough to give you an intelligent opinion on this issue; there are still many things I don't understand. I'm still not sure why everybody wants their own little patch of ground, instead of living together on one big patch, and sharing Jerusalem/Palestine.

maybe we should look back at the time when Israel was created, shall we?
1947-1948 does anyone know what happend in those yrs?and the "vote" that took place in the UN to create Israel in the 1948 lands, in which there was 90% native population (muslim/christian), while 10% of the population were jewish, about half of those were recent Jewish illegal immigrants which the British, the rulers of the land at the time have let in.

I am not against Jews or anything, on the contarary, they have lived with arabs/muslims in MidEast for very long time, and have made many contributions to the civilisations here.........but one can not just ignore Israel's past, which by the way MOST Palestinies and arabs now have let go of their claim for the 1948 lnds (more than 80% of the Palestine which the British ruled, now that is a BIG sacerfice for peace.
I would like to see Israel withdraw compeletly out of ALL of the 1967 lands, there is a UNITED NATIONS resolutions on this issue calling for Israel's full withdrawl.
The settleres have to be setteled in Israel, not the occupied terrotories.
and East Jeruselm MUST be given back to the Palestinies..
Israel's currnet policies, and the strong backing it gets from the US, are really making these ppl there feel helpless, (can you imagine living in a camp with your family for 50yrs?? no land no economy nothing to live for.......and on top of that: Humilation...

Ouch! Well, *I* tried to take a centralist view...

I refer back to my paragraph about Palestinians who chose to take Israeli citizenship and Palestinians who didn't.

Fenny (sore and hoping for Zero Intolerance)