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

Are they being serious? Cause from wher eI'm sitting, and everyone I know and have taleked too is sitting, they are really, really, taking the F*****g p**s this time majorly.
Right.
Lets bomb and distroy a forign nation against international law.
Let us do that for no reason, other than 'TWAT',, with no evidence they contribute towards the TWAT we are concerned with.
Then, after we have distroyed what little infrastructure they had, let us decide it needs fixing.
Let us then decide we are the nation to do that rebuilding of this nation we bombed and distroyed.
Then, and only* then, lettuce turn to every other country around th world, and ask them* for money to pay us to rebuild the country we* distroyed.
and lettuce do this in the most patronising way possible, and in entire difference to the fact that the country concerned has vast, second? biggest reserves of 'liquid gold' in teh world'.
f*****s.
How many died in those non leaning towers?
How many innocent childrend and woman have died in the two innocent countrys you decided to invade to further the political aims of your president?
f*****s.

and apparently there is a 2 billion hole in the money they already have. Seems to have 'disappeared' all unexplained like. Hmmm, never saw that coming.

And, of course, let us not forget that prior to teh war, not one single person saw the need to plan for post-war events... That was particularly clever planning on behalf of whoever it is/was that should have foreseen that a few things might get distroyed during a war, and that this might need some thought about it... And, of course, all this money going to rebuild the Iraq infastructures etc., is probably going to mean less moneys going to other countrys that need support.

"Are they being serious? Cause from wher eI'm sitting, and everyone I know and have taleked too is sitting, they are really, really, taking the F*****g p**s this time majorly..."


Has it occurred to you that businesses that take advantage of the third-world or flout the law are not always American?

Has it occurred to you that governments that flout international law or act cynically are not always American?

we you sober when you wrote all that?

I don't mind people being questioning, it's the only intelligent way to be. What I do mind is yank-hating bitterness disguised as progressive liberalism.

Do you think the way they're treating the prisoners at Guatanamo bay is shocking?

Are you aware that on the same island recently the dictator Castro had several Cubans shot dead for the terrible crime of trying to leave the country?

Guess which one gets under the skin of most "progressives" and guess which one they all but ignored.

I'm not arguing for people to "forget" the Guatanamo suspects. Of course they have rights, even if they did fight for a dreadful government. What I would like to know is why the American government is getting so heavily pressurised by "humanitarians" over it and yet, not only Castro, but also the dictatorship in Burma not to mention China (the world's only Great Power dictatorship) are all but ignored except by a few crusading journalists.

Is this really all about "human rights" or is it all about America?

I'm sorry if you wrote the original post in anger, two legs, and would have put it differently given the chance. I know I've written some dreadful crap here when I'm in a bad mood. The thing is, I'm sick of seeing simplistic anti-Americanism go unchallenged. The Americans aren't perfect, they do have an idiot for president and they are corrupt. But they're not the worst nation in the world and (more importantly) all the world's problems are not caused by them and the bogeyman of "global capitalism".

Where do I begin...
Hello, Zagreb.
>>Has it occurred to you that governments that flout international law or act cynically are not always American?<<
I am sure it has occurred to her, but her comments were specifically about Iraq, and businesses there - all of them American! Halliburton, for instance.
>>Are you aware that on the same island recently the dictator Castro had several Cubans shot dead for the terrible crime of trying to leave the country?

Guess which one gets under the skin of most "progressives" and guess which one they all but ignored.<<
The plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is 1000 times for important. First, all the information *I've* seen about the Cubans came from American sources, and to put it kindly, I don't believe them about *anything*... but secondly, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been held since about December 2001, in terrible conditions, hooded and shackled and without charge or legal representation.
Third, it's on-going.
>>Is this really all about "human rights" or is it all about America?<<
You are as hot in defence of America as the people you rail against. Why, if you're a Scotsman? You're so emotional about it, there must be more than your idea of 'justice'.

Don't bother with Zagreb. He's just rabbidly defending his spiritual homeland as usual.

--------------

"and apparently there is a 2 billion hole in the money they already have. Seems to have 'disappeared' all unexplained like. Hmmm, never saw that coming."

My guess is, they needed a whole load of hammers and toilet seats for the rebuilding.

"You are as hot in defence of America as the people you rail against. Why, if you're a Scotsman? You're so emotional about it, there must be more than your idea of 'justice'."

I didn't think my post was overly "emotional". It does p**s me off that ideas that are enormously prejudicial and often racist are "ok" if used to talk about Americans ("they're greedy! They're all stupid! They're all fat!"). And hypocrisy bothers me and the anti-American lot seem to be full of it, as far as I'm concerned. Hence my point about the concern shown for the Guatanamo detainees whilst Castro has a whole bunch of people shot dead on the same island without comment.

My opinion is that America is just the most powerful country in the world. I'm seen as some sort of "wanabee yank" or "stooge" simply because I refuse to hate it and firmly believe that most other countries given the same power would behave far, far worse. And I do get sick of the way everything it does is criticised. Sorry, but if you want a reason why America tends to ignore it's critics remember the story of the boy who cried wolf. When you hear "evil imperialists!" no matter what you do, then you soon start to ignore it.

"Don't bother with Zagreb. He's just rabbidly defending his spiritual homeland as usual."

Yes, my post was utterly rabid. You could almost feel my uncontrollable rage and venemous splutter.



Oh, and nice sidestep of all the points I raised in my post. As usual.

"The plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is 1000 times for important."

Taliban fighters held at a military base is a 1000 times greater human rights crisis than people being executed for hijacking a ferry? Sorry, I can't quite get my head round this.

"First, all the information *I've* seen about the Cubans came from American sources, and to put it kindly, I don't believe them about *anything*... "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2978257.stm

"
but secondly, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been held since about December 2001, in terrible conditions, hooded and shackled and without charge or legal representation.
Third, it's on-going."

1) Yes, but they've not been shot dead.

2) Of course it's on-going, they're not dead.

Zagreb, I saw that you criticise Apparition for side-stepping your points - well, how about the way you sidestepped mine?
The point is that we have heard almost nothing about the Cubans Castro 'executed for trying to leave Cuba.' Given that there is heavy Australian and American ownership in our news media, I am certain that if the story had validity appropriate to the emotion you have vested in it, we've had heard a hang of a lot more about it! As I said, since 8th October 2001, and the American attack on Afghanistan, I have had complete distrust of any information from any American source. (Everyone seems to have forgotten the complete lack of any established connection between 911 and Afghanistan - let alone a connection sufficient to justify carpet bombing...)

Thanks for the link, Zagreb - I had (as I explain below) seen almost nothing about the story in our local media.
However, your initial mention of it made it sound like the 'refuseniks' in Russia, people sat patiently protesting in the lobby of Government Buildings in Moscow because they wanted to go to Israel and had been disallowed. Commandeering a ferry with extreme prejudice is a whole other story!
That being said, I strenuously oppose capital punishment, and always have. Kudos to Il Papa on that...
My point is that two wrongs (or 1000) don't make a right. Castro could be executing people daily, and it would *not* make the Bushies treatment of foreign nationals tormented in what the Marines call Gitmo, acceptable!

"Oh, and nice sidestep of all the points I raised in my post. As usual."

The quote below shows why there is no point addressing your points. Aside; anyone older than the last shower knows that your points are never backed up with anything and you'll quite happily ignore any point, put directly to you, that you don't have a good answer for.

"My opinion is that America is just the most powerful country in the world. I'm seen as some sort of "wanabee yank" or "stooge" simply because I refuse to hate it and firmly believe that most other countries given the same power would behave far, far worse."

"The point is that we have heard almost nothing about the Cubans Castro 'executed for trying to leave Cuba.' Given that there is heavy Australian and American ownership in our news media, I am certain that if the story had validity appropriate to the emotion you have vested in it, we've had heard a hang of a lot more about it!"

Did you bother reading the link to the BBC site I posted above?

"The quote below shows why there is no point addressing your points. Aside; anyone older than the last shower knows that your points are never backed up with anything and you'll quite happily ignore any point, put directly to you, that you don't have a good answer for.

"My opinion is that America is just the most powerful country in the world. I'm seen as some sort of "wanabee yank" or "stooge" simply because I refuse to hate it and firmly believe that most other countries given the same power would behave far, far worse.""

Why does that show there is no point addressing my points? I don't quite follow.

If you have something to "put directly to me" I'm happy to answer it.

Now, will you address the points in my post re: prominance given to Guatanamo Bay suspects versus prominence given to Cuban executions or will you just sidestep it again?

Give it a rest, Zagreb.

It's the usual "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mental masturbation.

So toss a bog roll into the fray and step back with a mop ready.

>>Did you bother reading the link to the BBC site I posted above?<<
Yes, I did, good skills by the way, posting a link! (You must admit you don't often do that...)
But I'd only just read the story after your link.

Z, lets be honest mate - We all know that the Chinese and the Burmese Governments suck. We're adults. But then so do all those interesting little oil producing nations like Azerbaijan, Kazekhstan, and Equitorial Guinea, and they are propped up soley by American Oil Money. Who was propping up the *throughly* corrupt Schevadnadze in Georgia, and who has been slowest to recognize the new government, just in case they prove not to be in favour of the Black Sea pipeline? Who props up the appalling human rights abusing Saudi government and why? And why do all these 'economic allies' of the US receive so much less coverage for their human rights abuses than China and Burma do?

The Red Haired Clown sh*t himself when given the opportunity to trade inside China. Given the chance to exert forms of economic pressure on these governments, the American way has always been 'Hmm, nope, we like the money.'

It's not imperialism (that takes a certain amount of intelligence and arrogance to achieve), it's just rampant capitalism (which takes nothing more than greed and stupidity).

The Cuban thing was cute, but exactly why should castro be expected to 'allow' acts of gun toting terrorrism in the name of freedom any more than 'the West does'. That's the deal with the devil that the US have made with the 'War on Terror'. The Russians have carte blanche in Chechnya, the Chinese in Mongolia and Tibet, and so, come to that, does every tin pot lunatic dictator in the world. We have no way of protesting about these acts, which *will* be committed in the name of 'combatting terrorism' because we have lost our moral compass and authority.

Just as the US's refusal to ratify the Kyoto agreement gave every third world country the absolute right to pollute as they see fit in the name of economic expansion, thus the war on terror gives the moral authoruty to the butchers in secret police forces all over South America, South-east Asia and Africa. 'Terrorism' becomes the convenient catch all for anybody who has a little problem they'd like to see go away, as we ourselves saw at the Birmingham Arms Fair recently.

Blues, Castro executed some hijackers who hijacked a ferry and killed no one. I don't think playing the old card of "Ah, but he's just dealing with terrorists" helps anyone. I stand by my point that Castro executing hijackers who didn't actually kill anyone is a far greater human-rights violation than keeping Taliban fighters in custody on a military base and should be treated as such.

I'm a pragmatist. I know the West "props" up horrible regimes (through apathy and economic necessity rather than actual desire, incidentally. And they are always very, very quick to let them fall at the first opportunity - see Iraq and (increasingly) Saudi Arabia). As always, we can get rid of a few police states or none at all. But there's no point in choose "none at all" because we won't/can't pick "all".

Incidentally, the capitalist system that so many protest about might not be perfect but it's part of the lifestyle the protesters live as much as the people they hate and almost none of them are willing to give it up. Reform, yes, but let's not keep kidding ourselves we're willing to accept a "socialist" alternative. They tried that in the USSR, China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea...

>> I stand by my point that Castro executing hijackers who didn't actually kill anyone is a far greater human-rights violation than keeping Taliban fighters in custody on a military base and should be treated as such.<<
I, for one, just have to continue to disagree with you about this. It is a human rights violation, but 'far greater'? Give me a break!
>>As always, we can get rid of a few police states or none at all. But there's no point in choose "none at all" because we won't/can't pick "all".<<
Who ever said 'none at all'? No anti-war protestor I know! But you stand by your assertion that the Americans went to war on (read invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq) to 'get rid of a police state'. It is to laugh, as Bugs Bunny would say. It is becoming increasingly clear, except to those who *don't want* to see, that the USA are occupying Iraq for the oil and the money. It's that simple.