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

Zagreb,

Geographically little Israel has much bigger weapons than geographically smaller Palestine. Which of those two is more likely to use a late-model American made helicopter gunship to assassinate opponents, and which is more likely to attack its opponent by throwing stones?

In fact, I think my "Big Israel versus Little Palestine" is still accurate in terms of geography, not sure about population. How much land is controlled by Palestinians versus the acreage controlled by Isreal? Yes, it's a weird situation. I don't fully understand why American foreign policy has backed Israel for so long when it could have pleased a lot of Arab nations by simply ignoring Israel, stopping all the aid that goes to Israel. Maybe just because Americans liked the idea of Arab lands being controlled by people who appear to be Europeans or Russians?

"Because sides had already been picked. It's about backing your ally against the enemy."

This might make sense except for the many times the US has dumped its allies when convenient. Russia = US ally during WWII, opponent throughout the cold war. Ho Chi Minh = US ally while he fought Japanese, enemy when he fought returning French colonists. Noriega = supported by US, later toppled and imprisoned by US. Saddam Hussein = ally while he fought Iran, enemy when he was given the greenlight to invade Kuwait. Osama Bin Laden and Mujahedin = supported by US when fighting Russia, now enemy. Russia = cold war is over! friends again in our War on Terror! (or as I like to call it, the War on top of Terror, or Terror on top of Terror.)

Some of those are more like bad decisions on who we should trust as allies in the first place, but others demonstrate US loyalty shifting with the wind. Also good examples of how choosing "the lesser of two evils" results in the lesser evil growing to a big threat after many years of our support.

Anyhow, I agree with you that the war criminal currently leading Israel is an extremist. Of course, it's horrible that so many people have been killed by suicide bombers lately, but it's scary when Israel starts talking about "joining" the War on Terror. What the hell would they call the actions they've taken in the past? As if they've been negotiating too much, or appeasing their enemy too much??? Squads of soldiers doing drive-by assassinations on political opponents in their own driveway? That's not chopped liver. I'm worried what the hell they think the next step up is, if they think they're really going to crack down harder than before. Tactical nukes? Using fighter jets to bomb whole cities instead of just the helicopters for smaller assassinations?

[Sorry, I don't mean all this hostility to sound like it's directed toward you. It's directed toward the insane idea that Israel is just now entering the "War on Terror." If anything, their many years of fruitless results from meeting violence with violence should show that negotiation and diplomatic means are necessary to stop terrorism by al-Qaeda just as it's needed to stop terrorism by Palestinians. Again, we agree that Israel is out of line.]

Lentilla,

"The U.S. became involved with Korea and Vietnam to keep their liberal democracies from being overwhelmed by those dang Communists. Didn't work, but hey, whatcha gonna do?"

Vietnam was a "liberal democracy" being overwhelmed by Communists? How can the series of South Vietnamese dictators be classified a "liberal democracy?"

"Other 'unlawful acts' such as allowing Turkey to bomb the Kurds - well, that's the UN too. America is prominent in these activities because of their resources."

Huh? Only the UN condones it? America speaks out against Turkish attacks on Kurds? You might be able to lay blame on the UN for the sanctions against Iraq, but how exactly does the UN allow Turkey to kill Kurds and prevent the US from taking the same kind of actions we claim necessary to prevent Iraq from killing Kurds? America is prominent in these activities because they agree to use their resources for every military action they can possibly think up excuses to engage in. Remember this is the same America that is behind in payments to the United Nations. US Congresspeople actively protest the UN and try to make laws preventing further payment to the UN. It's not like the big, powerful United Nations FORCES the US to jump into military action as eagerly as a kid jumping into a mud puddle.

RE: "hydraulic despotism." Good point. If we could stop wasting money on bombers and joint strike fighters and put it towards research of other energy sources, it would solve a lot of problems.

Della,

Good catch on that use of the word "proactive." Reminds me of the phrase "Operation: Enduring Freedom." Does this mean that Freedom is enduring? Or that these people will now have to *endure* the freedom that we're raining down on them? Like when you suffer and you are *enduring* the pain.

Perium,

"See that's the thing you're missing here. When all of our negotiations have failed, and our safety is threatened we can and do fight to protect ourselves. So while we may have noble intentions ie peace they may not, and I for one would not just lay down and die while we search for someone who can adequately appease whoever we're fighting against."

When all our negotiations have failed it represents a very long sequence of steps that has taken many, many years. The Nazis didn't arrive on "our" doorstep overnight. It took many years under the economic and social atmosphere following WWI to generate that system. So if we start looking at the causes of that atmosphere, we must also look at the causes of WWI and so on. The failure to negotiate in favour of peace takes place at *each* step in the sequence, not just in the final act of going to war.

And I am truelly offended by your statement. If you have the nerve to write a statement in my name (i.e. Neugen Amoeba said this...) then please be kind enough to quote me: put in quotes the statement(s) where I said *exactly* that! If you cannot quote me, then please retract your statement.

Just because you *feel* or it "sounds like* something to YOU, that doesn't mean it is! You've laid the fault of this lack of clarity at my feet and I do accept part of this fault. However, if you *feel* that a statement I make *suggests* a certain view, then please take the time to ASK for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions!!!

Case in point:
"So now, unless I am wrong here, you've condemned those who resort to violence. I'll agree here that some soldiers in the past have fought in wars against their choice. I'll also offer up that there are those who believe in what they are fighting for and volunteered even. Are those people stupid?"

For some reason you got into your head that I am (or maybe we?) are debating the virtues of sodiers? I don't know where you got that idea from? Soldiers don't declare war, governments do! Soldiers are as much victims of war as are civilians. So yes, I am condemning those who resort to violence, but "those" are not soldiers. The governments are supported by the population. Do I think that the large majority of the population are incapable of original thought? Yes I do. The government has done a very good job taking away the need for the majority of people to think for themselves. And fortunatelly for the government, many have complied.

Fighting and F***ing are two different things, and while I can appreciate the humor of the statement I will not agree with it. There is nothing wrong with fighting to protect.

T´mershi Duween,

Where did the war come from?

Wars are started for three reasons, greed/power/money.

Many thanks to two bit for providing the following quote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F19585&thread=154729&skip=60&show=20

During Adlai E Stevenson's 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai E Stevenson 'Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!' Stevenson called back 'That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!'

I don't think that I said that a conflict arises, and suddenly there is war. I'm not so dense as to think that wars suddenly happen without cause.

When all negotiations have failed---this means not just last weeks negotiations, but ALL of them have failed. How much clearer do I need to be on this?

I think in my posts, I've always quoted you. Perhaps you're confusing me with the removed one? I didn't see it. But how can you say I don't quote you, when all you have to do is look at the post I've written and see that I do? Are we even talking the same language here?

I cannot understand where your confusion is coming from in the sense that I read what you've said, I took issue with it, now I'm supposed to ask "mother may I" before I take issue with what you're saying? Come now, I thought that we were adults who could debate topics without feeling like our toes are stepped on. I don't agree with what you're saying. So I'm going to take issue with it.

How did we get on the topic of soldiers?

"Whole-heartedly agree! As has been stated many, many times on this forum: fighting violence with violence is just plain stupid.

However, you must recognize the fact that we are dealing with very stupid people here."

After which you go on to say that politicians are the cause. OK. So I bring up the fact that soldiers are not stupid, and that sometimes they even believe in what their fighting for. They are the ones in the trenches actively fighting violence with violence right? That makes them stupid by your definition.

Not all soldiers are victims. Not all wars are stupid. Not all of those who fight for a cause suffer from some sort of mass hysteria. Not everyone thinks that the government is wrong EVERY time it commits a nation to war. Those people also do not suffer from some sort of mass hysteria. Your paranoia is almost laughable. It's almost like if more than one person believes in something that it therefore must be deluded, that they must not be capable of thinking up an idea on their own.

Which.....makes me a stupid person in your mind because I do agree with the government on certain issues. I would fight to defend my country. I would even fight (if the cause was right) for someone elses country if they needed my help, because I don't think that those who traditionally have been the aggressors(ie my definition from above, war/greed/power) have the right to take away someone elses soveriegnity.

And that must make me delusional, stupid, and incapable of independant thought huh?

Are you understanding this clear enough?

What I want you to see is that those who fight the wars, and those who plan them are not evil people because the commit to violence. I'm not saying they are saints. I'm not even saying that there haven't been wars that America(for instance other countries have been just as guilty) shouldn't have fought. I'm not making a generalization here(and you shouldn't either really, that's what's got me torqued about your posts). I'm saying that violence is sometimes the answer. It's not always the answer. But sometimes it is. Especially after attempts have been made to appease the two sides, and I don't care how far back you go on that. Diplomacy is an ongoing thing(see we agree on something) but just because it fails, isn't the fault of the diplomats. The other side is just as guilty sometimes.

I'm not just talking to you however Neugen, you've just been the most vocal.

Like I say though, are we talking in the same language? I've been as clear as I could.

Perium, your post 1178 and I QUOTE:

"I still resent the fact that you call a soldier stupid. It shows your ignorance/refusal to see anything other than the way you want."

Now unless you you can produce a *quote* where I sate THAT, please retract your statement.

Actually, if you can find a statement by me where I refer to soldiers *before* YOU bring up the subject, please let me know, because I cannot find one.

OK, I'll bite.

I said above that I don't think you said it directly. You said it as anyone who resorts to violence is stupid.

Hey, I'll quote myself here(surely you read this?)
"Let me re-iterate.

At no point did you directly call an individual soldier stupid, you did this by inference, I'm not so foolish as to completely miss the tone of your writing, I don't care how fast you backpedal."

Therefore, in my mind, the patriot who volunteers for war(a soldier), who is the active force in violence is stupid, and I cannot agree to that.

Again, are you speaking english or what? I've said this over and over ad naseum in just about every post since.

In any event who gives a rip who brought it up. I've got a problem with what you're saying. Thought I'd bring it up, being as this is a debate forum.

I give a rip!

This is not "backpedaling", this is being confrontational.

You misquote me, actually going as far as to use the word "fact" in describing what I said, and then still not retracting it!

"At no point did you directly call an individual soldier stupid, you did this by inference, I'm not so foolish as to completely miss the tone of your writing, I don't care how fast you backpedal."

This is not a retraction!

"Again, are you speaking english or what? I've said this over and over ad naseum in just about every post since."

No you did not.

You have tried repeatedly to tie in "soldiers" into this discussion.

"Therefore, in my mind, the patriot who volunteers for war(a soldier), who is the active force in violence is stupid, and I cannot agree to that."

That is your opinion. It is valid. It is also one which, as far as I know, has not been challanged by anyone, including myself. The discussions so far have centered around governments and government policies.

"I've got a problem with what you're saying."

Good. I welcome a good debate. Please be kind enough to do it in context and without personal attacks based on what you *feel* or what it *sounds like* to you.

Deidzoeb:

"The U.S. became involved with Korea and Vietnam to keep their liberal democracies from being overwhelmed by those dang Communists. Didn't work, but hey, whatcha gonna do?"

Originally I was responding to Autist's comment about the U.S. preferring right-wing dictatorships and monarchies over liberal democracies, which confused me, because I don't associate the term 'liberal democracy' with communism! As I see it, Vietnam had two potential governments - the South Vietnamese Republic vs. the North Vietnamese Communists. The communist government was much more popular with the people than the dictators. The U.S. at the time was in what Hunter S. would call The Big Sweat about communism and the 'Red Scare,' so they rushed right over there to rescue those poor people from the government they really wanted. But that's what that sentence was about - just a misunderstanding.

And I don't 'lay blame' against the UN for the Iraq sanctions. They were mandated by the UN because Iraq violated UN law. And why the UN allows Turkey to bomb the Kurds, I can't tell you. You'll have to ask them. I do have a question about one of your phrases: "and prevent the US from taking the same kind of actions we claim necessary to prevent Iraq from killing Kurds?" Call me crazy, but I understood we were patrolling Iraq airspace to prevent that from happening?

I won't ever say that America is completely altruistic when it puts its nose into international activities. But the reasons aren't so they can use up their bullets and kill their soldiers and make more nairoplanes...it's to protect their interests. No, the UN doesn't force America to assist in a military action. But the U.S. can see which way the wind is blowing, and recognize a potentially dangerous situation - a dictator's arming for war, a small nation over here is testing nuclear arms, etc. At this point in our world history, we need to keep a close eye on *anybody* who has access to destructive weapons, and that's really what the UN is for.

There is an excellent speech by Bill Moyers somewhere on-line... I believe you can find it at the 'Common Sense' website - found it Tues. when I was looking for comments on war vs. terrorism. It's about how this war has allowed people to overlook environmental concerns... Good article - wish I could give you the URL!

PERIUM;



Not to mention religion and sex.



TD.

OK, one more time and then I'm tired of this.......I'll start at the bottom.

Good. I welcome a good debate. Please be kind enough to do it in context and without personal attacks based on what you *feel* or what it *sounds like* to you.

Be kind enough to do it in context....so I should therefore only talk about what you're talking about. I'm not allowed to extrapolate off of what you've said. Sounds kind of foolish.

As to personal attacks, sure I suppose you can look at it that way. People are bound to be upset about things that they believe in when called on it, but rather I would think, you would look at words like *feel* or *sounds like* as an invitation to clarify or talk about what's been said rather than backing up, becoming angry, and simply ignoring the question.

Which is:

What about the patriot? Is he/she stupid for resorting to violence?

I've said this in about every post since the first. I'm bringing it up because I think it is related to your bitch about gov'ts being corrupt and evil. The army is the arm of the gov't. So be kind enough to answer, or back up and say you don't think soldiers/patriots are stupid people. Generalizing on such a broad forum is not a very good idea and by lumping gov'ts and people who support gov't policy into a category that you call stupid is offensive. I suppose I could say that's a personal attack on me, but I don't really care about that, I want you to see that not all gov'ts are stupid all the time. Not all soldiers are mindless. Sometimes their commitment to what they believe is just as strong as a person who believes violence is not an answer. I personaly think that soldiers and peace seekers work towards the same goal from different ends of the spectrum but that BOTH are essential for progress.

How could I not be more clear than that?

As far as using the word fact....fine if it bothers you so much that the word was used, I'll retract it. However, by using the *context* you're so fond of, the idea remains the same. My statement loses nothing with the omission of fact. I still have a problem with what you're saying.

And last.....this is only a website. I'd offer that you're being a little bit to personal about this. I let myself get caught up in the whole yank/american debate to for awhile until I realised that it's pretty lame to be offended personally with what you folks say on this site in response to my ideas. This is an open forum. It's ok to be pi**ed about what I say, but let's not take it personal. I don't even know you. But I know your idea, and it irks me.

Lentilla, regarding the USSR and WWII, I suggest you read the history books. Soviet civilian losses alone were in the millions, military losses even greater. It took much, much more than the Russian winter to defeat Hitler. The winter stopped him, but his armies were driven back to Berlin at a terrible cost.

Yeah, I guess I need to bone up (tee hee) on my reading... Most of my WWII history was gleaned from documentaries.

Perium wrote: "Wars are started for three reasons, greed/power/money."

T'mershi replied: "Not to mention religion and sex."

Wouldn't religion & sex be covered under power, possibly greed, and sometimes money?

Perhaps someone should do an analysis of "war-speak". There's a lot of it around - someone once collected "gems" from the Vietnam war :
"It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"
"Friendly fire" (I just this moment heard on the radio of yet another instance of it!)
"Collateral damage"

" I'm saying that violence is sometimes the answer"
Perium, sorry, but the quoted phrase inspired in me some kind of visceral horror! (It got me torqued, to use your phrase). I spend half my life convincing my child(ren) that violence is *never* the answer, and I really believe that!

" I'm saying that violence is sometimes the answer"
Perium, sorry, but the quoted phrase inspired in me some kind of visceral horror! (It got me torqued, to use your phrase). I spend half my life convincing my child(ren) that violence is *never* the answer, and I really believe that!