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

Az,

I've looked at the thread but I can't work out what he's getting at.

I suggest you take no notice unless / until someone explains the problem instead of making unsupported accusations.

Stay cool

F

I'm standing by my point about racism, religion, and nationalism, if only because I have yet to see a convincing example that was not related.

For example, you can talk about how the invasion of Iraq was about international security, or about oil, if you want to. But I think you had to be here in this country since 9/11 to have understood what motivated the American people to support the war. The flags have been waving non-stop since 9/12. It was only a matter of time before we invaded *somebody.*

Besides, it had nothing to do with international security... it was about national security (or, more accurately, national insecurity) for the US. Though, naturally, being in the UK, most of you would have seen it differently.

I wouldn't put the Iraq war in the context of the really, really awful and atrocious things people can do when blinded by nationalism, religion, or racism, simply because the conduct of the war was moderated to a high degree. It was conducted in accordance with international rules of engagement, avoiding unnecessary loss of life wherever possible. This would be a sharp contrast to, say, the conflicts in Palestine, Rwanda, or Northern Ireland.

And, as mentioned before, these three horrible conflicts are territorial disputes that happen to fall across a religious divide. If they were strictly territorial disputes, I believe they would have been handled far better. A good parallel would be the cause of the Quebecois, which is similar to that of the Northern Irish republicans, the Palestinians, and the Iraqi Kurds. But that disagreement, which does not cross a national, religious, or racial boundary, has been handled through peaceful means.

Hi Blather .

Interesting points you make, but unconvincing I'm afraid.

It surprises me that so many Americans still think that 9-11 was an act of terrorism. Yes it was terrible, yes it was a surprise, except that it wasn't..... British and German Security services warned the US of the attack six months before it happened. They identified and tailed every one of the plotters, and even handed over the operation to the NSA and FBI when the plotters eventually made it to the USA. Then, the two largest, best equipped and reknowned security agencies in the world let each and every one of twenty individuals wander off. Inconceivable, that's not incompetence, that's planning.

The wars against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Iraq were preplanned and all the US Government needed was an excuse, so they let it happen. I don't for a minute think that they were completely aware of the scale of the 9-11 attack, but wasn't it convenient?

International security was never an issue, it was greed and national self-interest that drove the events from 9-11 to the fall of Bagdadh. before you get on your "you're a yankee-basher" high horse, I am just as ashamed of my own country's part in all this.

So you think that the war in Iraq ia less terrible than the intercenine conflicts of Palestine or Northern Ireland? If that is so how come more people have been killed or injured in three weeks in Iraq than in both the other conflicts put together?

Rwanda is in an entirely different league altogether. Like the Congo and Cambodia it happened because we, in the West, had nothing to gain by stepping in and stopping it before it got out of hand. We just ignored it.

Palestine does happen to have a religious element, but religion is not the cause of the conflict. The root cause lies in the British Mandate being too feeble to prevent the invasion and illegal occupation of a country by foreigners (East European and American Jews), and our continued active support for this illegal state. It has everything to do with the political self-interest of western politicians and little to do with Judaism and Islam.

I would argue that the Quebecois, being Catholic and very nationalistic, who believe fervently that Canada was stolen from France, and who oppose the rule of 'their land' by a largely Protestant governing majority has all the classic elements you believe foments war. However, it has never been in the political or economic interests of the controlling parties on either side to prosecute such a war. I wonder if Quebec was sitting on a few billion barrels of oil if the situation might have been a tad different?

It is interesting to see that you regard us in the UK as seeing things differently from you. We are your only steadfast ally, the only country to continuously back you in every war you have fought in the last 150 years. Despite the fact that you have singularily failed to support us except where forced to do so by circumstance.

We have weathered terrorism on a scale you cannot even begin to imagine. Terrorism funded for the most part and organised by Americans, and ignored by your government (50 years of Northern ireland). We have suffered carpet bombing of our cities while you sat on the fence and declared yourselves neutral (World War Two). We have seen your client states invade our territory and hold our citizens to ransom, then watched you back off and try to force us to capitulate to the invaders (The Falklands). Yet we still wave your flag in Europe and often wryly call ourselves the 51st State!

I think you do us an injustice sir!

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

There's that nationalism I was talking about. I'm not sure what *I* did that failed to support *you*.

That's an extraordinary claim about the British and German security services and their uncovering of the 9/11 plot in advance. May I have some supporting evidence?

"So you think that the war in Iraq ia less terrible than the intercenine conflicts of Palestine or Northern Ireland? If that is so how come more people have been killed or injured in three weeks in Iraq than in both the other conflicts put together?" - Are numbers of deaths the only measure of the evil of an act? Is that how we keep score? "Hah! Your group killed more than mine!"

"Rwanda is in an entirely different league altogether. Like the Congo and Cambodia it happened because we, in the West, had nothing to gain by stepping in and stopping it before it got out of hand. We just ignored it." - Isn't this at least a little bit arrogant? Does the West really have the ability to stop people? They didn't do so well in Northern Ireland, and that conflict was on a much smaller scale. And even if we could do so... should we?

"Palestine does happen to have a religious element, but religion is not the cause of the conflict. The root cause lies in the British Mandate being too feeble to prevent the invasion and illegal occupation of a country by foreigners (East European and American Jews), and our continued active support for this illegal state. It has everything to do with the political self-interest of western politicians and little to do with Judaism and Islam." - What is an illegal occupation? How did the Jews "invade" Palestine? Do you consider the UN as the legalizing authority for the Jewish state, or is there some other legal body to appeal to?

"I wonder if Quebec was sitting on a few billion barrels of oil if the situation might have been a tad different?" - Quebec encompasses a large percentage of the rare inhabitable land in Canada. It also includes some of their bigger cities, including the capital.

And now we're talking history...

The US Civil War was fought less than 150 years ago. The UK strongly considered backing the Confederacy, and would have done so had not Lincoln found an occasion to deliver the Emancipation Proclamation and taken the moral high ground. The UK government would never have been able to sell support for a slave nation over one publicly committed to ending slavery to its people.

Britain declared neutrality in the Spanish-American War and asked Commodore Dewey to depart Hong Kong with his fleet within 24 hours after having been notified of the declaration of war. That was barely over 100 years ago, and not very supportive.

A couple of months ago, a war was fought with combined US and UK troops. And although the UK government supported the effort, the people of the UK have been incredibly critical and unsupportive.

Britain suffered carpet-bombing during WWII while the US maintained a thin illusion of neutrality because the government did not have a great unifier (religion, nationalism, or racism) with which to sell the British cause to the American people. So the government instead risked merchant marines and gave away weapons, munitions, and fuel to the UK. And then they allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to succeed, giving them all the nationalism they needed.

Northern Ireland terrorism was not funded by America as a people, but by a handful of people who happened to live here who had ties with their old country. They deliberately misled the rest of their countrymen as to the purposes for their fundraising efforts. You can't hold a nation responsible for being conned. As for organization of terrorism, I'd have to see some evidence.

The United States did not support the UK's imperialistic tendencies towards the Falklands, which were in violation of a UN resolution passed in 1960 (Resolution 1514(XV)) that called for de-colonization and self-determination of peoples. Neither did they support fellow ally Argentina's imperialistic tendencies. Though they maintained neutrality and worked through diplomatic channels for a peaceful resolution(as the only honorable course in a dispute between allies), the US backed the UK-authored UN resolution 502 calling for removal of Argentina's troops from the Falklands, both in Security Council voting and in the Organization of American States (OAS) voting. One of the failures of Secretary of State Haig's diplomatic missions was that he was seen by the Argentines as an agent for the UK.

Next time you want to revise history, you want to make sure you're not arguing with an amateur historian.

(makes , pours a glass of and eagerly awaits the next installment . . . )



az

Hi Blatherskite,

As far as I know slavery was abolished in Britain in 1807, about 50 years before the US Civil War - is that what you meant?

"And then they allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to succeed, giving them all the nationalism they needed" I thought it was the loss of the Mauritania that led the US into the Second World War? Granted that was also a cause of Nationalist feeling. And the Pearl Harbour attack succeeded for precisely the same reason 9/11 (or 11/9 as we put it here) did: over confidence and a serious underestimation of the threat.

I agree that "A couple of months ago, a war was fought with combined US and UK troops. And although the UK government supported the effort, the people of the UK have been incredibly critical and unsupportive." And it's beginning to look as though the British people were right. If they were, or if they can't be convinced otherwise, then a change of leadership is likely. Meanwhile, how supportive were the American people? (serious question - I don't know what the feeling was on your side of the pond)

If body count isn't at least an indicator of the level of evil, what is?

Also: "Does the West really have the ability to stop people? They didn't do so well in Northern Ireland, and that conflict was on a much smaller scale. And even if we could do so... should we?"
This is worthy of a debate in it's own right. What about Serbia / Croatia for example? From this side it looks like the US is setting itself up as the World's police force.

I don't disagree with your basic premise, as I have suggested already, but I felt some points were worthy of comment.

F

"As far as I know slavery was abolished in Britain in 1807, about 50 years before the US Civil War - is that what you meant?" - That's the ticket. Both Britain and France were sympathetic to the Confederacy, due to enmity with the US as its power matured enough to support the Monroe Doctrine (which was really a hollow threat at the time it was issued). But both had reservations because of the slavery issue... France had abolished slavery by that time as well. But the UK and France would still have entered the war on the Confederate side if the Confederacy could deliver a convincing victory in a battle, proving it had a chance for success (France required a similar assurance, and got it, during the US Revolution).

Meanwhile, Lincoln sat on his hands with an Emancipation Proclamation. He needed a convincing victory to deliver it, otherwise it would be hollow words.

And so the so the stage was set for Antietam, where brilliant but outnumbered Confederate general Robert E. Lee had chased the timid nincompoop McClellan. As both made plans for the day, it was clear that McClellan was going to seriously misjudge his opponents intentions, and Lee was going to get the decisive victory he needed. Only, a rider bearing Lee's orders to his generals was dropped, and a Union soldier picked it up. It reached McClellan in time for him to redeploy his troops, and Lee's army was put to flight. With this decisive victory lending authority to his words, Lincoln boarded a train and delivered his proclamation, effectively neutralizing Britain and France.

Sorry... I do carry on, but it's a fascinating story to me. Harry Turtledove has a wonderful alternative history series on what would have happened to the world had that copy of Lee's orders not fallen into Union hands.

**************

"I thought it was the loss of the Mauritania that led the US into the Second World War? Granted that was also a cause of Nationalist feeling. And the Pearl Harbour attack succeeded for precisely the same reason 9/11 (or 11/9 as we put it here) did: over confidence and a serious underestimation of the threat."

You've got your wars confused. It was the sinking of the Lusitania (sister ship to Mauritania) by German U-boats that led to US participation in WWI. US participation in WWII was catalyzed by the Pearl Harbor invasion.

As for underestimation/overconfidence vs. deliberate laxity, that's a subject for debate. There are good arguments for both sides. Math argued that 9/11 (it's an event in US history, so we get to use our date standards ) was allowed to happen, and the arguments for Pearl being allowed to happen are at least as good as any for 9/11.

**************

"Meanwhile, how supportive were the American people?" - The American people were divided up until the moment that use of force was ordered by the president. Since we treated our soldiers badly after their involvement in Vietnam, the national conscience has dictated that we give the soldiers and the politicians supporting them our full support whenever the soldiers are in harm's way. As the war progressed and was successful, and jubilant crowds of civilians greeted our men, the American public felt that the government's position was vindicated, and support was quite high by the fall of Baghdad.

It's not the soldiers' fault that no WMD have been found. But the American people are mostly willing to let that slide, so long as the regime change is a success.

This is not entirely my position on the war... just the position of the American public in general. My position at the start of the war was, "They'd better be right."

***********

"What about Serbia / Croatia for example? From this side it looks like the US is setting itself up as the World's police force." - You may have noticed that the US tried to take a back seat in that conflict, and let the Europeans deal with what was basically a European problem. The US does not want to be the world's police... neither the people, nor the government. But every time it does intervene in one conflict, the pressure to get involved in another becomes greater. Hence the Liberia debate.

We'd really rather not have to police these things ourselves. We'd be much happier getting support from other countries, and being able to sit out a few of them. Unfortunately, the UK is the only country with the will and the resources to do so.

Clarification: "Only, a rider bearing Lee's orders to his generals was dropped, and a Union soldier picked it up." - The rider dropped Lee's orders. A Union soldier picked them up.

Hi Blatherskite.

Time to roll my sleeves up then he,he!

I haven't revised history but answered your real question. The viewpoint of history in the UK is quite different to that espoused in the USA. I cannot say which is right for only our great-grandchildren will see that.

The evidence for the British and German security services involvement in uncovering the 9-11 plotters was all over the British and European press in the months following the attack, but strangely never made it to the USA. My american Druid friends began using the BBC's excellent website as a result, just to get a balanced view.

Hmmm... I see your point about the number of deaths, but strangely I see the word 'outrage' used when a boy walks into a shopping mall in Tel Aviv and sacifices his own life to attack his enemy, but the words 'collateral damage' when a remotely piloted missile or bomb hits an Iraqi market. Neither is right, both are terrible and could be avoided.

It is not arrogant to say that we in the West only act as International Policemen when it suits our very narrow self-interest. I was heartened when America tried to stop the bloodshed in Somalia, but dismayed when one small setback sent them scuttling home. I am constantly disappointed by the UN Security Council when one or more of its permanent members prevent a small action that would have led to the saving of perhaps millions. We in the West are more than capable of stoping any war we please if we act quickly, as the British did in Sierra Leone.

The European and American Jews invaded Palestine in their hundreds of thousands in old steamers and other cargo ships in the late 1940's. The british authorities tried to stem the tide but had their hands tied by politicians who were just beginning to understand the extent of the Holocaust. Local Arab rulers, as you can imagine, were absolutely aghast at the prospect of being overrun by what they saw as 'millions' of foreigners. Until then the Jews in Palestine had been a minority, like the Christians, but were protected by both Arab law and the British Mandate.

I am well aware of the Civil War and our Confederate leanings (which was based on the supply of cheap cotton to the Lancashire Mills). I spent some years in the Civil War Re-enactment scene in the UK. Which Emancipation Proclamation was that? Lincoln made several, each slightly more to the abolishionists taste than the last. Let's not get into the moral high ground of the Union in this debate or I will be writing reams .

During the first three years of the Second World War you sold us munitions and other supplies, and loaned us the money to buy them. No American ship left port except voluntarily and for a profit. We didn't stop paying you back for this until the late 1970's. When the USA's ancient ally France cried for help the beacon of democracy ignored her and the Statue of Libery must have wept. There was no real excuse for America leaving Europe to be conquered by a fascist dictatorship, other than it did not serve the interests of rich and powerful men. If they had wanted America to go to war an excuse could have been found overnight.

I did not say that America as a nation funded the republican movement in Northern Ireland. But they sure did nothing about it. For thirty years the British government forwarded intelligence on the activities of Noraid and others, on the sources of explosives and weapons and where the IRA trained. Despite the deceptions of Hollywood the IRA were not armed with AK47's and Russian RPG's, but with M-16's, Browning Light Fifties, M40 Grenade Launchers, American C-4 Plastic Exlosive and Claymore Mines. IRA arms training camps were held in the backwoods of Michigan and Wisconsin not the deserts of Libya (they only turned to the Libyans after the USA began investigating their support network).

As for our Imperialistic tendencies towards the Falklands. If you read the history we owned (by purchase) the islands and had settled it with thousands of our own citizens (many who had been there for three and four generations). How would you react if the Mexican Government claimed Puerto Rico and then invaded it? I still think it was a stupid, unnecessary war in which some of my friends and shipmates were sacrificed to prop up two failing governments.

All this though is tosh. The original argument, if I can remember it still, stands. War is rarely the result of widespread racism, religion or nationalism. War is planned, instigated and waged to feed the greed, ambition and power of a few. Race, religion and patriotism have all been used as excuses to mobilise the people, but are not the causes.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

I've said this for years, but most people thinks it's conspiracy theory gone mad. Maybe they're right. Warlord Thatcher had Her unemployed and demoralised vassals rioting in the streets, while Galtieri had a lynch mob outside his palace, asking awkward questions about the whereabouts of their 'disappeared' friends and relatives.... Both of them had an urgent need for a distraction.



Whilst I would't contradict any of this, I would observe that this could also be seen as yet another way of denying our own responsibilities. These powerful men (and women?) can do what they do only with our acquiescence....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

While the discussion of comparative history is entertaining, the reason for the discussion results from the use of sweeping statements.

War occurs when a small group of people manage to mobilise a larger group of people to prosecute a course of action that, at an individual level, the larger group would not normally entertain.

Historically, the motivations of the small groups that start wars, have largely been personal greed, ambition and power. But, there may be occasions where the original motivations of the small groups or individuals involved have not been self-serving. The original motivations for some revolutions, for example.

Historically, the masses involved in wars have been mobilised with many justifications. Frequently religious motives are proposed, and nationalism and racism also feature strongly. But other motivations also appear to exist.

Just as an aside, the NI dispute has many parallels with the original reasons for the American revolution and the later civil war. The religious dimension was originally coincidental, but has served both sides well in preserving the power of the leaders on both sides and in maintaining the antagonism between the masses.

Hi P-c

"These powerful men (and women?) can do what they do only with our acquiescence...."


I agree with this but acknowledge that there are times when the only justifiable response to aggression is to fight back. Would anyone deny that Britain was right to carry out its promise (to support its ally, Poland against Nazi aggression) in 1939 with force?

F

Only because Britain's leaders had actually decided to defend Poland in the couple of months prior to Hitler's invasion of it.

PC:

F:

Yes, my statement was value-free: it may be right *or* wrong for us to do what we do. However, if we don't carry out their instructions or wishes, it can't and won't happen. Good or bad. It is long-established that "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

hi Math,

You said this in a previous posting:

<>

As you know, I am Canadian. And in fact, for example, the Spanish government have sent people to Canada to try and understand how Quebec continually manages to maintain their 'separatist' position without resorting to violence. Because, as you also know, Spain is plagued with the ETA terrorist problem.

No, Quebec does not have oil but she does have an abundance of natural resources that she sells at cut-rate prices to the United States.

Also, they did have a terrorist group in the 70's called the FLQ. Have no idea if they still exist. But the first time this group kidnapped and murdered a British diplomat (and someone else - sorry, cannot remember who right now) the then prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau declared marshall law on Quebec. The army moved in, everyone there lost all their 'constitutional rights' while the army searched every home and very quickly discovered and ousted the terrorists. At the time all of Canada was up in arms about this - especially Quebec - and Trudeau came under fire for his very extreme response to terrorist activity. They said - NO! You cannot do this! This is a democracy and we have our constitutional rights! And in a very famous television interview Trudeau looked straight into the camera and said - 'I can't do this? Just watch me'.

Result - terrorists apprehended. The FLQ was dismantled. And since then there has been no further terrorist activity in Quebec. They still have their usual referendums, which always end up with the majority of the population not wanting to separate. At least so far.

Bit of a history lesson. By the way, Trudeau ended up becoming a national hero for taking such a strong stance when he did. And also for other various things he did during his time as Prime Minister. Okay, he had the dodgy wife, but people mostly felt sorry for him about this.

When PET died all of Canada mourned incredibly. He had been our only 'sexy' prime minister ever!

az

ps
Quebec is not concerned at all about having connections with France. Or that they think their land was stolen from France. They want to have their own 'distinct society' within Canada which would allow them to have their own laws that are different from the general Canadian laws. This is the crux of the matter. And they went totally silly about language laws there. But that's just my opinion. Quebec is so beautiful - the most distinct and 'European' province in Canada. I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Azahar,

I stand corrected.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Fathom

"Would anyone deny that Britain was right to carry out its promise (to support its ally, Poland against Nazi aggression) in 1939 with force?"

Ah, but we didn't. We let Poland die, twice. The mistake that led to all this was the signing of the Entente Cordiale. If, in the early 20th century, we had maintained our traditional alliance with Prussia / Germany (by then a 300 year old treaty) it is likely that the Second World War could have been avoided altogether.

Our participation in the First World War on the Germans side, or even our neutrality, would have led to a quick French capitulation and a strong Germany. Neither the fascists nor the communists could have triumphed in a strong, free Germany and a lot of history would have been different. Indeed the German and British Imperial Families could have provided support for the Romanovs and prevented Russia from becoming a communist hellhole (not that for the Russian peasantry things changed much in either scenario).

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

United with Germany against the French?

Something disturbingly Anglo-Saxon in me finds that strangely appealing!

F

I hope this question does not seem totally off topic, since the FFFF thingy is also about life, the universe and everything.

Question - would anyone here consider paedophilia just 'a state of mind' and not something that should be considered a crime? Even in countries where the so-called age of consent is perhaps younger than in others?

It was a question raised on another thread. I am hysterical.

It was also suggested that paedophilia and homosexuality were one in the same - as 'states of mind'. Say what?

az

My :

Paedophilia may be a state of mind or a crime, it doesn't matter which. Having sex with children is unacceptable, and people who wish to do this should be prevented. This is only fair to children. In the interests of justice and reasonable behaviour, such prevention should encroach on the freedom of paedophiles as little as possible. Yes, even paedophile citizens have rights! NOTE: I didn't say that paedophiles shouldn't be prevented from having sex with children! They should! But I am not in favour of the more brutal responses to this practice. As long as the children are protected, all is well.



Poppycock! If a paedophile pursues a same-sex relationship, this is still peadophilia. And it's still unacceptable, of course. Homosexual relations take place between consenting *adults*, not children!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"