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

Concerning President George W. Bush I don't really care:

that he avoided military service by being rich;

that he is an alcoholic (before anybody says 'reformed' I will point out that the general consensus among rehabilitated alcholics is 'once and alcoholic always an alcoholic);

that he is a foul-mouthed boor;

that he oversaw (with aparent glee) so many executions while Governor of Texas;

that he was wrong about Iraq's chemical weapons;

that he was wrong about Iraq's biological weapons;

that he was wrong about Iraq's nuclear weapons;

that he was wrong about Iraq's connections to terrorists;

that 'shock and awe' simply didn't happen;

that he was wrong about how American troops would be greeted by Iraqis.

What does concern me about President George W. Bush is:

that he panders to a depressingly large constituency (of which he may be a part) that believes that it is necessary to hasten what they believe to be the coming armaggedon;

that he is the apparent leader of a campaign to replace the international rule of law with American dominance;

that he is the apparent leader of a campaign to replace the United Nations Organization with American dominance;

that he and the agents of these two campaigns have no apparent compunction about using any means necessary to bring about that dominance, no matter what the cost to citizens of the world, nations of the world, and the organizations which have provided some semblance of order in the world for sixty years;

that he is the apparent leader of a campaign to turn back the clock of international relations a century, to the period of Great Power relations that had no rules, the period that lead to both World Wars, the period that was remembered with horror by the people who put together the system of international law which replaced the chaos that Mr. Bush seems intent on bringing back to us all;

that he has artificially inflated the percieved threat of terrorism to ridiculous levels (every single month in the U.S. more people die of gunshot wounds than died in the attacks of 9/11: where is the outrage? Where is the 'war on guns'?)

I don't want a return to 1910. Even without nuclear weapons in the hands of the Great Powers I wouldn't want a return to 1910. Mr. Bush wants to return the world to 1910. Mr. Bush poses a greater threat to my freedom than do 'Islamic Terrorists' (why do so few realize that the [Hindu] Tamil Tigers have a longer and graver history of suicide bombings than do any 'Muslim' groups?)

Good morning Anhaga.

I tend to agree with you on 99.9% of your points but I would disagree on some of the conclussions. I really don't believe that a president who believes in The Rapture, or even a majority of presidential appointees will significantly hasten the *end of the world*. The US is not totally in control yet, and the US is not totally controlled by the White House. It begs the point, however that those beliefs are not a positive influence on world events.

As to the bizarre Isolationist World Dominance this administration seems to be seeking, the indications are indeed bad. I would point out though that even some of Bush's Republican Congress are expressing concern, which at least is a step. In a strange way I am reminded of the Monroe Doctrine, not in the effect it had on South America but in the agreement between the US and Europe to not meddle in each other's affairs. I believe that if the US continues to meddle in other (sovereign) countries affairs that those countries will band together as a single block against such policies. I live in that hope, that is. As to the threat of terrorism I think he has shot that gun and reloading it might not be as effective an excuse to the public and other branches of government again. He's got his second term and has already shown indications of backing out of the world stage a little and dealing with domestic issues instead.

Anyway, it's all IMHO and my

Have a good day, I'll be off to work in a little.

One hopes.

I've recommended elsewhere and I recommend again Gwynne Dyer's 'Future: Tense'. In it he expands on the Orwellian terror that he sees waiting for us all if the U.S. does not hasten out of Iraq.

I've heard of Dyer but not read him. One criticism I've heard is that he fails to acknowledge the ecomomic impact of other countries. He mentions I believe that an alliance between say the US and India to control the Middle East might be countered by Europe, Russia, and China. China is heavily armed and has seemingly unlimited *bums in seats* for war, but it's economic might is only now being flexed. Taking China off the US dollar standard is a clear and powerful message to the US government and one that is understood by even those who will not be elected next time. I think that's just the first volley, and an extremely powerful one. Russia's oil reserves are being squandered by greedy capitalists that have more in common with Al Capone than Rockefeller, but this to could change easily. The EU is becoming united (with the exception of Britain and Turkey) against US agression and their organisation (although flawed) is more like what NAFTA *should* be. The Euro is already becoming strong against the US dollar (as is our CDN$ as we know). I'm not surprised Bush is backing out of the international arena, he'll try some voodoo *trickle down* economics and it will fail as dismally as Reagan.

' what NAFTA *should* be'

What NAFTA *should* be is *torn up*

<>

Yes!!!

- that he refused to sign the Kyoto agreement, which would have forced America to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions (which are the cause of Global Warming) dramatically, to the same level as other countries in the world;

As to Kyoto, at least they have a partially logical excuse. As the greatest producer of carbon (dioxide) on the planet per capita, reducing that enormous output would be an enormous task. That's not to excuse it, just to point out that as the US is a global economic engine it might cause great repercussions in other economies in the world. Unfortuneately that excuse is used to not limit the output the tiniest bit but in fact to reject the Protocol entirely.

Here's the kind of link for which I've been looking:

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%202004%20Year-Ender.txt

I find it odd that he lists the events of the last few years as if the reader had never heard them. I also think that he isn't taking in to account global economies and the religious element. The US didn't forsee the dissolution of the USSR because they didn't understand the combination of economic neccesity and national pride. That's why they didn't understand Cuba, Vietnam, and now Iraq. One of the best quotes I've seen lately went something along the lines of *Kurds, Sunnis, and Sufis are finally united- in their hatred of the US* but as long as their is oil in the country the US will try to dominate it in some way. It's interesting to note that the last time someone forceably tried to control oil fields by war was Hitler. Only economic means have been successful.

*But it will not have escaped Tehran's notice (or Pyongyang's, or Damascus's, or anybody else's) that the main reason Iraq got invaded was its failure to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction.* I think that yes, the fear of nuclear reprisal is a deterrent to the US, but that's part of the problem. They fail to see how things like oil from Venezuela in exchange for expertise is more effective than trade embargoes in eventually creating a social democracy in Cuba. They fail to see that the EU is being copied (as Dyer notes) by South America and is not copying the US or NAFTA. When they fail as in Vietnam and the economy there heads toward more free enterprise system, they don't take it off the banned list and encourage a swing toward democracy. They lobby China to keep the US$ as their standard but then don't give the slightest incentive to do so. In all, their foreign economic polices are horrific and only their sheer force of production, creation, research and development have kept them in the lead. They're now losing that lead and are once again resorting to bullying. I don't think it's going to work, personally.

'I find it odd that he lists the events of the last few years as if the reader had never heard them.'

It was his 'recap of 2004' essay.

OK, so I saw the top left hand side and unconsciously thought it was the address. So I'm a bad poster...my right wrist is red from slapping it.





What about the rest of the mild rebuke?

I'm asleep. I can't think straight (or gay).

I mean

As to fore sleepage, do so, Mine mind is of twelve thinking. ;

Wow! anhaga, you make me feel bad about where I live. If I said what you said and the word got out that I said it, they would drag me down to Crawford and hang me from the nearest tree, or send me to our base in Cuba where undesirables are kept.

Anyway, I have tagged you as a friend because you once befriended me in another lifetime when I was basefare. Cheers.

indeed.

Yep.