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

I find the current climate very concerning.

First there was September 11th. To date nothing has made people feel so vulnerable, so angry, so helpless, so frightened all at the same time.

The Response: A "War on Terror". This was the biggest mistake, as it gave a mandate to any government fighting a small faction. Spain and ETA, Britain and IRA, Israel and PLO etc. The situation in the Middle East was exacerbated the "War on Terror".

And now? A war in Iraq? Many people in Britain and Europe are very worried about the prospect of this accelerating out of control and being dragged into somthing we don't want to start. How do Americans on the street feel?

I feel, the reason for September 11th was largely the apparent high-handed, self-centered attitude to the rest of the wold of the USA. By this I mean the lack of cooperation over the Kyoto Agreement, at The World Summit in Johensburg, US un-questioning support for Israel etc. I ask, would September 11th have happened under Bill Clinton? Of course I don't know, nor does anyone else.

The USA is the worlds one remaining Superpower and having only one is an un-healthy state to be in, as it means the USA can do almost whatever it wants. However, with power comes responsibility. And this is the reason why people "hate America". We don't of course, but we feel that the US play too much on the Power and not enough on the Resposibility.

The thing is, until the USA understand the way the rest of the world feel, this will continue and September 11th will happen again.

What do other people think?



Bambi

Hmmmmm... I'm not sure there's much America CAN do against the threat of terrorism, and I think this is one of the reasons it is trying to start (and win) this 'war' with Iraq. Whatever happens, as long as it remains a superpower, there are some people that will resent it. This is inevitable, no matter how much it reforms its political 'attitude'. It is the biggest figurehead of Western Capitalism, the influence of its culture can be seen the world over, and while many want to embrace and emulate its culture and prosperity, others resent it. Perhaps it could be said to be a victim of its own success.

This is of course very unfair on the American people, who can hardly be blamed for living in a wealthy, powerful and successful nation, and it certainly doesn't warrant blowing them up. Although I'm not saying those are the main reasons for acts of terrorism.

I think that the problem is that you CAN'T fight a war on TERRORISM. You can only fight a war, as it were, with particular TERRORISTS. It's like saying you're going to fight a war against murder or hatred, or any other action. And this, I think, is the crux of the problem. America must face the fact that other acts of terrorism may occur on its home turf. That is what 'changed the world' - or at least changed the US. The American people are now more aware than before that they do not live in a place that is protected from the outside world - and let's not forget that this isn't the first act of terrorism that the country has seen.

Everyone is vulnerable. No exceptions. I do kind of agree with your last comment, Bambi, but it does seem to suggest that the US could have prevented 9/11 somehow by understanding that some of the world violently dislike them. And the reaction I would have predicted to that, would have been to try and blow up the people that violently disliked them, thus fuelling the hate, and provoking a terrorist attack.

I think we're all very concerned about the way current events are heading. And for once I don't have any easy answers. All I know is that you can't prevent terrorism from ever occuring - not with war.

I agree with almost all that you've said here MrT, you can't fight a war on TERROR/TERRORISM. And you are of course right that Americans are now more aware that they are not protected from the outside world. It is also worth noting however, that they are not safe from their own home grown terrorists either and never have been, but that's another issue.

I think you missed my point a bit though. The USA is now more aware of the rest of the world, which is a good thing, but they also need to understand that they need to WORK WITH the rest of the world - to save the planet, to help develping countries etc. And their foreign policy should reflect this. As long as they have a president who thinks Wales is a state of England/N. Koreans are evil/calls Greeks "Grecians" and Kosavars "Kosavarians" etc., the USA is not going to encourage good feeling towards them.

I think a good way to help international feeling would be to sign up to the Kyoto Agreement/some of the deals at the World Summit etc. The US attitude to these just breeds bad feeling. I am not directly blaming the people, these are governmental decisions, but the someone had to vote for them...

As you say "we're all very concerned about the way current events are heading" and "you can't prevent terrorism from ever occuring" and CERTAINLY "not with war".

Bambi

It's absurd to believe that terrorists give a damn about environmental accords like Kyoto. We can work with other nations, but it would be absurd for us to work against our own interests.

I think the impotent response by President Clinton to prior acts of terrorism against the United States encouraged the 9/11 attacks. His responses were poorly directed and understrength. If someone is trying to kill you, you kill them. Bombing asprin factories just pisses other people off.

I'll grant you that there are a lot of people who don't like the United States and its policies. Well, we have a different political and economic philosphy than much of the world. That's the way things are. There are a lot of silly things that are going on in the rest of the world that we don't agree with. We all have to live together. You can't dictate terms to us.

Firstly Bambi. "The USA is now more aware of the rest of the world, which is a good thing, but they also need to understand that they need to WORK WITH the rest of the world - to save the planet, to help develping countries etc. And their foreign policy should reflect this. As long as they have a president who thinks Wales is a state of England/N. Koreans are evil/calls Greeks "Grecians" and Kosavars "Kosavarians" etc., the USA is not going to encourage good feeling towards them."

This is true. As Two Bit points out, it's unlikely that failure to 'play along' with environmental agreements such as Koyoto would provoke such extreme attacks as the large-scale terrorism the US has seen. But at the same time America's foreign policy cannot be ignored as a factor contributing to anti-American hatred. After all, these are the US actions that most directly influence people from other nations, and are therefore very important to them.

Two Bit said "Bombing asprin factories just pisses other people off.". yeah! Especially those with headaches.

I find your closing paragraph very interesting. Yes, 'you' have a different political and economic philosophy to much of the world, but then I think a lot of the world would be doing exactly the same - and worse - things if put in America's position with regards to such a rich wealth of resources; human, monetary or otherwise. Over the last couple of centuries the US has done very well for itself (and certain other parts of the world) and it wants to stay that way. Quite understandable.

But you say "that's the way things are". Bambi's saying it shouldn't have to be. And I don't think it should have to be either - not when its policies effect other countries and people, and topics such as the Envrionment and the conflict in the Middle East do, very much so.

Yeah, we all have to live together. I can't emphasise this enough. I'm afraid I'm very unpatriotic. At the moment the world is very divided with each nation trying to protect its own lot, but I hope that doesn't continue for ever.

In the same breath I am going to contradict myself because of course countries do try and help each other, and America, in my eyes, is at the forefront of that (provided that it doesn't have to compromise its own own interests). BUT: uou say that 'we' can't dictate to 'you', Two Bit (see, we're not far off 'us and them' and we're just having a chat!). But surely the US is dictating to other countries. It's trying to make the world a better place, which is commendable, but it doesn't seem to often be open to other strategies or philosophies, which is not. Surely it is dictating terms by deciding to remove the governments of other nations? You're right, 'we' can't dictate terms to the US, but it appears to be strong enough (or at least strong-willed enough at present) to do what it wants. And by that I'm referring to the Koyoto agreement, which was symbolic to a lot of people, not least me.

Before I stop I just want to state that, contrary to appearances in this thread, I am not anti-American. I am all too aware of the article around which this conversation is taking place and I really don't want to give the wrong impression and anger or hurt anyone. But I am no fan of the Bush administration or global capitalism, so make of that what you will!

We're at a philisophical impasse. The United States will deal with this issue, alone if neceisary. We have the power to do so. That's just the wa it will be.

I don't know what the right course of action is. I assume it will be violent, because we are dealing with violent people.

I think the United States should be a more honorable in its dealings with others. We should be careful about who we make deals with. On the other hand, you have to make deals with unsavory people to get things done in some areas of the world. Are we bribing someone now who will attack us later. Probably so. That's life.

"We're at a philisophical impasse. The United States will deal with this issue, alone if neceisary. We have the power to do so. That's just the wa it will be."

I hear you, 2bit. And I would defy any nation to honestly say that, with the power of the USA, they would not be tempted to wipe out their enemies. The end may not always justify some of the means employed, though. I'm undecided.

Re: your last paragraph - I wish I could accept the possibility of an attack on my country so stoically. But just saying "c'est la vie" or "that's the way things are" seems a way of escaping from the obligation of examining the consequences of your actions. As the world's only superpower, the US has immense power; all the more reason it should act responsibly and with all possible foresight. Or will foreign policy documents in the future end with: "F**k it, it'll all be the same in a hundred years"?

Mr Legion - Living in the vain hope that the future can be prevented.

Interesting. Two Bit appears to be stuffing his fingers in his ears and closing his eyes to the rest of the world and taking a very short-term view. Americans surely have an interest in the eco-system remaining in balance. Policies which mean other countries crops cannot be sold (and thrown away or burned) because of American policies are likely to destablise the political system.

I'm all right, Jack and beggar the rest, eh?

Well he didn't quite put it like that. He's just (I hope) being pragmatic. Just not on a global level...

Hello Y'all, Here I go again. Two Bit, the United States is on the Continent of North America which the last time I checked is attached to the Earth and enviromental issues are about the Earth and not countries. They are in the intrests of mankind regardless of race, color,creed or political beliefs. Kill or be killed? It is so easy to express those views when one has never seen the terror of war,smelled death or held their friends as their lives slipped away. It is also easy to second guess decisions and actions of others when one is sitting in their easy chair in front of the television. As far as responding with not enough "force" goes:at least president Clinton had the vote of the people which is more than this president has.
Yes Two Bit I am an American and I am a Veteran. I love my country, but that does not mean I love the sickness,selfishness and thirst for war that seems to have taken hold of my country.
A different philosphy than the rest of the world? I am in Europe and I see people going about their lives just like Americans, making sure that their children are warm, safe and fed. Just maybe we as Americans should stop and look around us and see countries and cities that have been alive for a thousand years. How did they do it? On the present pace giving the United States as we know it, 300 hundred more years is giving the benifit of the doubt. See the United States is just a wee one in the scope of the world, just a child with much to learn. Growth can be painful. But I say to you no pain no gain. As for taking care of things with out the help of others, it is not even possible. See we can't even take care of our own. The homeless are no longer just in the major cities but in small towns as well. How in the world do you expect to fight a war without using the land of others. Do you tresspass on your neighbors at home or do you ask for permission to walk on their land?
Its time to quit calling the plays from the easy chair and go outside and play the real game. I see a lot of sunshine patriots in my country, I saw them when I came home in 1973 and I see them today. These are just my opinions and like rear ends I know that every body has one.

Well Met all,
Well, September 11th, 2001, The Collapse of the Twin Towers..., Fascinating... or is it? I agree with Bedwyr and most other replies on this page yet I sense the vague blackness and vast void of ignorance upon us...
WAR!!!! Ok, great but how many of you actually knows what war requires? Certainly not mr. trigger happy. War is the end result of diplomatic failure. I am an American living in Europe. I have served in the U.S. Army as a Ranger. I cannot describe the feeling of your best friends entrails sliding down you chest, and back. War is truly a horrific affair. But hey, my war was merely a "Peacekeaping mission" in Bosnia. So please see my point of view as you read this post, mostly it is in response to other posts. Still it may require a certain amount of pragmatism, and cynicism.
Fact 1
Prior to September 11th there were billboards advertising "United States of the WORLD!" Mostly these could be seen in movie theaters.
Fact 2
Mr. Pretzel (Bush, but we will call him pretzel to distinguish between him and his father) was not actually elected. He was placed in office. The statistical improbability of having a victory margin of just around 200 votes at the polls is something like three-hundred billion to one. One would have more risk of being struck by lightning while releiving one's self in the bathroom.
Fact 3
Mr. Pretzel has big shoes to fill, as an American President, he has yet to prove himself. In fact most of the world regards him as a "Right wing" president and has ridiculed his administration since day one. By attacking Iraq, just like his father, he probably hopes to gain a quick and decisive victory, and thus win the next election. It must be a truly terrible thing to trade lives for votes.
Fact 4
Mr. Pretzels family is an oil family. The Kyoto agreement is to find an alternate source of energy, and reduce the rate of Global Warming. The mere proposal threatens Pretzel and George Bush senior with bankruptcy.

Now, I would like to respond to trigger boy over yonder there screaming in the corner.
he writes:
"It's absurd to believe that terrorists give a damn about environmental accords like Kyoto."

First of all Kyoto has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. It is a clear example of the all to typical attitude of American Supremecy. The Kyoto agreement is to attempt to stop global warming, and we all need to do so. Regardless of where it is you live in the world, when the water levels rise, there will be less land, less land means less agriculture, meaning less food. But that is not the only problem, The less forests, the less oxygen, and more pollution. More pollution equates to higher temperatures, and then higher water levels and less land, and so on. Yet the fact remains that the US has not signed the agreement. The oil lobbyists, and industry have a firm grip on the government.

"We can work with other nations, but it would be absurd for us to work against our own interests.

Sorry to inform you but if you have a hope, no matter how small of having a US in 200 years, then Especially in this case the US NEEDS to sign the agreement.

"I think the impotent response by President Clinton to prior acts of terrorism against the United States encouraged the 9/11 attacks. His responses were poorly directed and understrength. If someone is trying to kill you, you kill them. Bombing asprin factories just pisses other people off."

Hmm, Clinton? impotent? Isnt that a contradiction in terms? Clinton was one of the slickest and smartest presidents that we have had. Or have you forgotten NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) he sold it as a way to pick up the economy, but what he was really after was Mexicos unrefined Oil. What would you do? Nuke a hundred-thousand innocent civilians, just because some terrorist somewhere had the audacity to blow up a plane or embassy? That my friend is unaceptable.

"I'll grant you that there are a lot of people who don't like the United States and its policies. Well, we have a different political and economic philosphy than much of the world. That's the way things are."

Perhaps you could explain the differences between Capitalistic societies. I would love to hear your enlightened View-point. Belgium Europe. Yes it is a Capitalistic country. Yet, living here for the last 2 years, I have seen a total of 2 bums, and one was passing through walking to China, an ambassador of the UN, planting trees, and openly opposing war. Oh, Wait, Most people never heard of Paul Coleman, He has a website, http://www.earthwalker.com But still even the one bonifide bum, ws well fed. I think that says something doesnt it. Imagine a place in the world were there is no-one sleeping under the bridges.

"There are a lot of silly things that are going on in the rest of the world that we don't agree with. We all have to live together. You can't dictate terms to us."
You give no items of interest about these so called "silly" things. Yet in America, one has Military at airports. Only in countries under Martial Law is that done. Oh and one other thing. You know the flag, "The war-time flag", you know, the one with the gold fringe, is the flag to denote MARTIAL LAW. Heres another fact, and think about this one, consider exactly how free you are as you walk down the street. You see with the propaganda machine rolling on and on and on, its easy to lose yourself to it. Ever since September 11th they have used it as an excuse to start wars and threaten governments. remember that the pretzel said "if your not with us your against us". Be careful not to become the puppet of a madman.

second post
"We're at a philisophical impasse. The United
States will deal with this issue, alone if neceisary. We have the power to do so. That's just the wa it will be."

Heres the trick, isnt it. Yes the States have nuclear and biologic weapons of mass destruction....(isnt that what we object to Hussien having?) short of firing those weapons and starting a thermo-nuclear war, as far as the rest of the world goes, (aside from Teflon Tony) The US can stick em up thier own arse. But if the US tries to TAKE the bases in Iran, Palistine, or anywhere else, then it is an invasion on the muslim world, and beleive me, before they go to war, they have thier funerals, and consider themselves already dead. An opponent like that is unstoppable. But keep in mind, OPEC also figures prominently into that picture, and will cut off most of the oil exports, and many of these countries are not third world. Lack of oil means no fuel, no fuel means no war. So if the US defies the World, it will fall, beleive me.

"I don't know what the right course of action is. I assume it will be violent, because we are dealing with violent people."

You are correct in your assumption of it being a violent action. But your reasoning is wrong and ill-founded. It will be violent because of the leaders we follow, and the lies we swallow every single day, along with young Americans who think they know everything, waving thier respective flags with fanatical fervor.

"I think the United States should be a more honorable in its dealings with others. We should be careful about who we make deals with. On the other hand, you have to make deals with unsavory people to get things done in some areas of the world. Are we bribing someone now who will attack us later. Probably so. That's life."

Can I ask you a question? Seriously, I mean. Why is it that we condemn the average criminal, when he is far less dangerous, and far more honest about what he or she does, than the average politician? Do not expect me to drop to my knees and shake with religious ecstacy by the mere mention of mr. pretzel. And no, what you are talking about is a lot of DEATH, and not LIFE. I think, and beleive that The US is full of good people, unfortunately thier voices are drowned out by the propaganda and fanatic patriotism born of hubris (arrogance of ignorance) of the few. If the governments, the world over, allowed people to be people, then and only then would we see how we can live together. But that is not likely to happen in the next 300000 years so the point is mute.
Be well,
Northguardian

OK, So I started this and I think I should come back on some of the comments...

I mentioned the Kyoto agreement. I appreciate that the people who flew planes into the WTC a year ago probably weren't p****d off about that, but it certainly annoys the h*ll out of me and clearly some of the others who have replied to this thread. The thing is the attitude to the agreement (or lack of) - USA is the largest polluter and without them Kyoto lacks bite, and as Bedwyr pointed out Kyoto is needed by the WHOLE WORLD, INCLUDING USA.

Thanks Northguardian for summing up the fear of war. I have no personal experience, all I know is that the World would be better without it. Just a point about Martial Law though, I saw soldiers in Lyon airport (France), earlier this year and as someone who is used to police who go unarmed, it DID worry me a lot.

2Bit, we don't want to "dictate terms" to you (as a country), we just want to be able to feel that you are interested in the rest of us (the world) and that you listen to us as equals. At the moment we feel that unless we want what you want, our opinion doesn't count - "if you're not with us, you're against us" was said last year - but it completely misses the point. We are not against, we just think there are other, better ways. "The United States will deal with this issue, alone if neceisary. We have the power to do so" is just the attitude I have a problem with.

As I tried to say at the begining - With Power come Responsibilities; USA have the Power lets see them take on board the Responsibilities.


Bambi


PS As it seems necessary, I am not anti-USA, just object to the attitude that we in the Rest of the World see.

PPS I don't use the term "Americans" to describe people from the USA as America is a big place and not all the people there live in the USA or have the same "political and economic philosphy".

Dear Bambi,
Free thinking is always a dangerous affair when dealing with certain govenments, in this case the US. I fear that inside 100 years, the US will no longer be a free country. Already my "countrymen" if you will, are holding thier chains in thier hands. Ever since I left and moved to Europe, I have been the brunt of much aggression. The last time I was in the States, it was hard for me to find a job even on the short term. At the time I had stayed only a few months and then came back. Prior to the terrorist attacks, I have been called every name in the book due to the fact I left. After the attacks I have been called a coward and traitor.
I cannot recall a single point in my life where I clearly saw the government work for the well-being and will of the people. Yet I can show many instances where the Government clearly disregarded the people and decieved them. I think that I stopped beleiving "the land of the free and home of the brave..." bullsh*t when I took an interest in the "Iron Mountain clause".
The first point in order to establish a "One World Order" was to lull the public (private citizens) into complacency. The second point was to disarm the public. The third was to "find" a socially acceptable way of declaring martial law. The fourth point was to find a socially acceptable method of slave labour. The fifth point was to find a "diplomatic" method of forcing non-globalist countries into submission.
Scary stuff huh?.
The citizens of the US are and have been complacient for the last 25 years. There is enough distraction to divert the attention from some of the more nefarious issues.
Weapons disarmement of the average citizen is in full swing. As the law stood two years ago, any weapon valued less than 500 american dollars, was legally unsafe and needed to be turned in to local law enforcement. Those who had registered firearms were forced into surrendering them or facing felony charges of posessing illegal firearms.
With the terrorist attacks of September 11th, National Security has tightened. The US founded a new organisation "Homeland Security" was the official clause. Why not just call it what it is, as it acts on its own authority and considers "Terrorist suspects" to have no rights... the modernisation of the SS. It is hard to say exactly who played into whos hands, Osama Bin-laden into this scheme? Or the US into Bin-ladens hands.
Slave labour is frowned on by most of the free world and to implement it would be a tricky thing at best. First, taxation, then a whole new market: Prisoners. The average prisoner makes 1.75 an hour well below the 6 dollar an hour minimum wage, regardless of the persons tasks. Then lower the felony margin to 500 dollars property damage or theft. Up until 5 years ago it was 1100 US dollars. I find it interesting that they found a solution to this problem first.
As far as forcing other countries into submission, wait and see. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.
these are just 5 of the 32 point charter.

As for taking responsibility, I am sorry to say, The US is like a 4 year old with a hand-gun.
I am not anti-american, after all I am American, but I am against the American Government. If one judges a government and society by the way it treats its children and prisoners, then The US is sadly lacking.
It is rapidly approaching the point of if the government was to evolve and get back to its base, the will of the people, it would most likely take another civil war.

Like I said I hope that I am wrong.
be well
Northguardian

That's certainly a very threatening scenario you're describing. But do you really believe that the US Government are using the current distractions to get away with underhand restrictions on personal liberties, perhaps to some greater plan, or are they just signs of a government trying to stay on top of a difficult situation? It's all too easy to read conspiracy into the Government's actions. I'm not denying that it is doing these things - but I am undecided as to whether or not it's a concious effort to remain dominant and become stronger (in a sinister sense) or if its just trying to protect its own interests - and those of the people that, supposedly, keep it in power.

Northguardian: they called you a traitor just for emigrating? Seriously? Is that a common sentiment in the States?

Mr Legion,

Why do you seem so surprised? I have been called that and more simply for declaring that I don't agree with th "war on terror".

That you were called a traitor for simply stating your point of view is worrying in the extreme. We used to have that in Britain about 50 years ago - people who objected to the war were called "conchies" (from "concientious objectors"), I'm glad to say I think (and hope) we grew out of it.

Bambi

Wow, lots of interesting things discussed here. A personal bit first: I am an American, and I live one mile (two klicks) from the Pentagon. I saw and smelled the fire and smoke for two days. Even by Christmas Day, I was still crying often for no reason I could explain.

The United States government has done many things that are selfish, evil and wrong, and many things that are generous and right. Yes, Bambi, the attacks would still have happened under President Clinton. The planning for them started well before Bush became president. And you are correct that all Americans do not share the same opinions on issues -- just look at the results of that election! I did not vote for Bush and I do not agree with our stand on the Middle East (too one-sided; I still don't understand why the Bush administration does not connect its Middle East policy with some Muslims' hatred of the U.S.), the Kyoto Accord, the World Criminal Court, etc. I think going to war with Iraq at this moment in time is insane.

But no real or perceived wrong I can think of justifies the shocking evil of murder and destruction that I personally witnessed a year ago.

Someone asked what Americans on the street think about Iraq. Most of them aren't thinking about Iraq. Some polling has showed that they support war with Iraq, but I have read that that is because they think there is a link between Iraq and al Qaida (which there is no evidence of). Even those who do support war, however, think it should come only after approval from Congress and the U.N.

I appreciate very much the outpouring of empathy from Europeans for all that we suffered last Sept. 11. Please don't lose patience with us or think we're all gun-totin' unilateralists. We aren't, by any stretch.

Peace and love to all.

Thanks BR for that, on the whole I agree with you.

As to whether the attacks would still have happened under Clinton, I'm not so sure. The whole point about 11/9 is that it was so simple. Very little planning was required, all it needed was an ingenious (devilish, but ingenious too), mind.

You can't imagine how good it feels to hear a "real" US citizen, in the USA and everything (!) say you see "going to war with Iraq at this moment in time is insane".

Thanks!

Bambi

And to you, Big Red.

I've never thought of Americans as homogenous - as in eveything, there are all sorts of shades, as well as the extremists on both sides.

As you say, two wrongs don't make a right and I agree with you - there is nothing that would justify September 11.

I admit that I don't have enough information to make a proper judgement and my gut feeling is that any action is 'being seen to take action' and that other methods should be investigated.