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

I'm not in favour of anyone being killed. Even soldiers (and that's what they're paid for). War itself is obscene, but the 'new rules' of war are the foulest part of that. The idea that countries should protect proffesionals at the expence of civilians is appaulling.

And, as with all of my posts, i speak mainly from the point of view of the state. If a state declares war (or marketing) on another country, decimates its civilian population, then it can't whine when it gets hit back in the same way. A state which secures it's place in the global marketplace through military intervention and state terrorism 'deserves' by the rules of its own engagement to be attacked at all levels, and if that means attacking the electorate of that country, the they are fair game - BY THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT SPONSORED BY THAT ELECTORATE. Do unto others...

The Geneva convention is now an anacronism, it doesn't recognise that the nature of warfare has drasticly altered.

In 1900 the ratio of military to civilian casualties was 1 civilian to 9 soldiers, the average for 1970 - 1990 it was 1 soldier to >500 civilians.

The notion that we are not all culpable in this is ridiculous to me, a government such as the US which has commited such heinous warcrimes obviously needs to be declared war on. Firstly and formost by it's own population. And it's not tlike were even talking about Afganistan here, it's the long catalogue of crimes which you yourself allude to, that the population support by allowing it to continue. Where is the opposition movement that we saw during Vietnam? It was easy to complain when it was our boys at the slaughter. Don't fear the bin Ladens or McVeighs' of this world - fear your government for it was they that brought them to your door. Know your enemy.

>>How can you say that US civilians are "valid" targets because of the crimes our government has committed, yet Afghan civilians are not valid, when the Taliban is clearly not innocent of stoning women to death, human rights abuses, etc? but if our civilians are valid military targets, so are theirs.<<

The point is you are not a civilian, you are part of the electorate, and therefore, by proxy, part of the government machine. The Afgans don't have the sufferage that you have, and you don't have that excuse.

>>To what extent does this make me responsible for the behavior of my government? Do I deserve to be killed for actions that I disagreed with, just because I voted for a liar?<<

Lets face it, electoral representatiove democracy is a farce, what say do you really get in the running of your country? 10-13 X's in boxes in a lifetime. Look at them XXXXXXXXXXXXX it's not much of a part in running your own life is it? But we do live in an open society, we do have freedom of expression and oppostion, we can campaign for change, and beyond that, beyond the law, i believe we have the right to take arms against our states, to destroy its control systems, it's weapons, it's economy, it's infrastructure, it's busnesses, banks, communications, if necissary before the government listens and substantially changes. Voting changes nothing, action on the other hand, can change a lot.

Do take this to mean that i support terrorists or terrorism, i support the right of individuals to be free, free from being killed by the state, and by the enemies of the state.

Autist my friend, you've done it again. Stirred up a hornets nest.


I for one think it is too far of a stretch to say that I am part of the government. If that were the case, the government wouldn't have anyone to govern but themselves. I am a civilian. I am not part of a military unit, and termed loosely that is exactly what a civilian is, a person who does not belong to a military unit and is a citizen of a country.

I will not argue that our electoral system works, I believe that it does not. I have not voted the last two times because I was disgusted with both candidates. I've heard all the guilt trips about not voting and I remain unswayed. I will vote when I find the leader I'm willing to sign my name to. I have yet to meet said leader. These people that wind up running my country are not the ones that I would pick to lead it given the chance. Fact of the matter is that you need so much money just to run, and that alone sets the bar too high. The rich and elite run this country, and I think there is a problem with that.

Having said that, having done what I find reasonable to change said government, I for one do not wish to be tied in the same boat as a candidate-a human rather with very real faults and foibles- that I did not vote for. The fact that I did not vote at all should say more than any of my words ever could to explain how disenfranchised I am with the entire system.

I think you go to far Autist in saying the citizen is responsible for the actions of the government. I for one was not present when the president told his cabinet why we were going to bomb afghanistan. If I were, I may have been able to raise my concerns, but in the end, the president is the one that decides. He is the one that is responsible for good or for ill for the policies of the government. He is the commander in chief of the military. CEO of the executive branch.

In other words, look not to the citizens, look to the president. It is there that the responsiblity lies, and there that your answers will be found.

Perium: I agree. But if something is being done in your name you have to take responsiblity for it. You're funding this terrorist government, it's you're tax dollars raining down on Kandhar and Bagdad, your tax dollars destablising Columbia and Nicaragua, how can you not be involved. Tough with the terroist and those who support them... isn't that the line?

<>

In short, i am looking to the citizens to look to the president. He's your responsibility.

Kill him before he kills you. And don't have any more.

Lentilla, I am glad we see eye to eye (sorry about the cliche) when it comes to Spocks Brain! It is absolutely the worst!
The black/white guys are in an episode called 'Let this be your Last battlefield'(I think, if I am wrong someone will say...) I also thought of the Klingons as Japanese, because of the honour/warrior thing - tho' Leonard Nimsy said in an interview that the Klingons were meant to represent Cold War Russians (Hence movie nr VI, Undiscovered Country, which I found one of the weakest movies)
Jimmy and I agree our favourite race is the Romulans. Vulcans get boring very quickly, I personally don't relate to the Klingons - in her excellent book on the biology of Star Trek, Athena Andriadis says that neither the Klingons nor the Vulcans are viable societies.

I thought you could be hanged for saying that! (It seems you can here in NZ, sometimes.)I have to berate my son for saying 'Americans are evil' and that they (the ones who died Sep 11th)deserved what they got - because he doesn't distinguish between policy and people who may or may not have any influence on policy! May or may not, because although some people killed were cleaners, secretaries, kitchenhands and IT geeks, others were very powerful people in the finance industry..

This post has been removed.

It's as I said to Jimmy this morning, re the Taliban and women: the Americans are not the good guys, the Northern Alliance are *certainly* not the good guys - but the Taliban are not the good guys either! No doubt to the great sorrow of the ordinary Afghani, there are no good guys there! We're lucky in NZ - our leaders (busines,military and political) are not all good 'guys' (some, I think,might qualify as bad) but they are NOT harming us!

Yes, were complaining about the withdrawal of womens rights which were granted under the Soviets, and who was responsible for the war against that regime? Us. We stole these womens rights, and we didn't care either until the terrorists brought it to our attention.

uh, i living in America do have some points to make, i have no experience with foriegn countries other than mexico and canada so ill confine my opinions to ones about the US. First, where i live, pennsylvania, there are alot of fat and rude people that teach their kids to be fat and rude also. Morals and the ability to use an "inside voice" are going downhill quickly too. But, Other than that i tend to think it is a decent place to live. there are parts of America where discrimination against minorities is still sadly rampant. But as far as an inability to get an education or job, thats pretty much equal for any race. anywho thats a synopsised opinion.

oops sorry guys, i got a little lost and posted to the wrong place

autist,

In a way, I think I see what you're saying. If nothing else, I think the overreaction by most citizens of the US has been absurd, as if they could never understand how such an attack would be motivated. Guess I'm just disagreeing about the wording you used, that they "deserved" it.

It also disgusts me when pundits say, "The world has changed since Sept 11." Wars and massacres are practically routine in some parts of the world, but suddenly it happens to the US and we act like the sun started rising in the West and setting in the East. OUR world may be different, our understanding of the world, but for the rest of the world this kind of event seems like "Same s**t, different day." It seems really arrogant, or at least naive, when people think that their own shattered illusions about their safety must have an earth-shaking impact on the rest of the globe.

"In 1900 the ratio of military to civilian casualties was 1 civilian to 9 soldiers, the average for 1970 - 1990 it was 1 soldier to >500 civilians."

Could you cite your source for this statistic please?

"In short, i am looking to the citizens to look to the president. He's your responsibility."

"Kill him before he kills you. And don't have any more."

When I argue with people about the innocents who were killed in Iraq and who continue to be killed via siege tactics of sanctions, some argue that citizens of Iraq should overthrow their dictator, and until then they all deserve whatever he brings down on them. Your reasoning sounds similar.

It's like saying that a battered spouse deserves everything she gets if she fails to attack or kill her batterer. Blaming the victim.

Yes, Deidzoeb (is that right?) Magazines here talked about the Sept 11th events as "the day the world changed forever". What has surprised me since, is how *little* it's actually changed! Nothing is different here in NZ at all, and as for the rest of the world - "same old, same old" as they say on TV, and that is majorly depressing! It really must be that Americans are totally stunned by being vulnerable as *they* never have been! NZers follow America, and so are filled with fear, quite unnecessarily, in my view...

There was a debate programme on the BBC the other day, Melvin Bragg was talking to the some military historians / theoreticians, and there was this astounding statistic - it's kind of hard to believe!

As a British citizen, resident in the US, I have found that the average US citizen is far more fearful than the average European - and this applied prior to Sept. 11th. I personally witnessed near-panic buying of bottled water, canned goods and batteries at my local superstore on the 11th, and the number of jobs lost in the travel and hospitality industries since that time is amazing.

Americans always had a tendency to cancel trips abroad at the first whiff of Semtex, and I certainly did not see this level of fearfulness in London or Birmingham at the height of the IRA bombing campaign. In advance of Sept. 11th, both flight and/or vacation cancellations due to fear of BSE and even foot and mouth were at a surprising level. In general, the majority of Americans have little knowledge of European, African or Asian current affairs, and the US government is therefore able to manage the news at a level which Alistair Campbell can only DREAM of!

but they've had 50 years of being told that they must live in fear of the International Communist Conspiricy. The US government keeps its people in line with fear, just like any other fascist organisation.

autist, I was also curious if there are other qualifiers to the statistic you presented. Are those numbers supposed to represent a comparison of civilians to military killed in war, or the numbers who die of any cause each year?

It's the number killed by military actions.