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

Let me begin by saying that I am glad that we thouroughly wiped our rears with those terrorist b******s, and I mourn the loss of every victim and hero alike. But what if they were to attack us again, and again, every year, on a different (or same even) day? What could we really do? We cant protect every piece of America at once, and our intelligence can only do so much. It's ascary to think about, but how can we make sure that we are not the target of a successory amount of attacks? Can we? What if they dont stop?

Well, I'd say the bottom line is that if you attack them with jets and bombs, they fight back with suicide bombings etc. Therefore military action shoots itself in the foot.

Allow me to quote from William Blum's "Rogue State":

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologise to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but henceforth - oddly enough - a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of $330 billion is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

William Blum, Washington DC, January 2002

It's worth noting that George W Bush has raised military spending since this was written. The 2003 budget is set to be something like $470 billion (source: The Economist, Survey on Defence, 2002). Note:

(i) This is an unnecessary (since the US military was already invincible) rise of $140 billion dollars per annum.

(ii) Bjorn Lomborg (The "Skeptical Environmentalist") has estimated the funding required to solve all of the third world's problems at $75 billion per annum.

This puts things into perspective and underlines the myopia and insularity of the US Establishment, does it not?

Ratman, in what way did you wipe anything with any terrorists? The US invaded Afghanistan, deposed an evil government that was put in place by the US, blew up some caves and...? Brought Osama Bi Laden to justice? Do you think he's so scared he's given up terror forever? Or has it crossed your mind that today is one big advert for him, and for the absolute failure of the US military who failed to defend their country against him? Hearing on today's radio that the US military have warned against terrorist attacks today confirms their stupidity and incompetance. If any rears were wiped, it was a year ago and it will happen again, sooner rather than later ift he Iraq invasion goes ahead.

If you want to stop it happening again, you need to get to the reason why these people were prepared to die. I'm sure invading Iraq isn't going to get rid of that reason.

Bambi

Indeed it may enhance it.

Arab leaders have warned that to attack Iraq would be to "open the gates of hell".

Perhaps the US Establishment has been branded "The Great Satan" so often it believes it so isn't too bothered about what you find if you open the gates of hell...

My point exactly!

Obvious conclusion? Don't start WWIII.

You have shown me that there are some truly intelligent people out there, and it is quite the relief. The numbers regarding our budget and position in the world's eye are quite staggering, but I find the idea of all but negating our military forces a little excessive. I know that we need to draw back from many of our foreign affairs, and we should put a larger emphasis on helping those whom we are so capable of helping, but it is naive to believe that we can make everything go away by apologizing. If we said we were sorry, and continued on with life at our current pace (which we most certainly would) we would only be insulting them by treating them like gullible fools. Since the United States has chosen the role of a global parent, there will always be "children" who rebel. Siding with who we believe to be the righteous is relative, and the other side will always hate us for it. Yes, staying out of foreign wars would certainly help, but we've already established ourselves as protectors of the weak, and if we were to stop our current aid of those who we deem incapable of acheiving self-justification (and those with oil), then we would recieve equal criticism from other civilised world powers, even our allies. We've fallen into a vicious cycle, and there is no easy way out.

Good point. I know of many US servicemen who choose their role out of genuine concern to make the world a safer place. However I think it's pushing it to suggest that the US Establishment has set itself up as Protector of the World. All US Military and CIA interventions, as far as I can see, have been to protect US interests, not world interests. Only where the two happen to coincide does the US choose an outcome which benefits others (and not always then!)

If the US (and by that I mean US Establishment) believed in securing freedom for all, why did it not attempt to free Tibet from Chinese occupation? The answer is that Tibet is not strategically important.

If the US believed in securing democracy for all, why did it instal so many dictatorships? In the case of Guatemala, the answer was to secure the profits of the United Fruits Company. In the case of Chile it was (partly) to secure the profits of Pepsico and (partly) to kill a socialist president fairly elected by the people. (Socialism puts Corporate profits at risk for the sake of the people. God forbid!)

If the US believed in equal rights for all, why did it equip, train and finance the Taliban in the first place, thus ousting a progressive government which was committed to equal gender rights and replacing it with one which was oppressive of women and all religions other than Islam? The answer was to destabilise the area and thus force the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to commit resources to invading Afghanistan.

Amnesty International (1996) stated that "Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or "disappeared", at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame."

If the US has set itself up as a global parent, it is an evil stepmother, often abusing its children or selecting babysitters who it knows will abuse them.

...why didn't they sign the Kyoto agreement and those at the Johanesburg World Summit, which after all were supposed to save the WHOLE planet?

The US has 4% of the worl'd population but causes 25% of its pollution. If every person in the world consumed the resources that the average US citizen does we would need x10 planet Earths. (sources: National Academy of Sciences, United Nations Environment Program and WWF).

Saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions puts at risk the oil industry (in which George W Bush & cronies have a particular interest). George W has stated that he's not prepard to sign an agreement which would put American jobs at risk. (Never mind the american LIVES put at risk instead?). But then he does have his profits to think about.

Incidentally, international research has shown that structural unemployment (I think I have my terminology right - I mean the unemployment which occurs when a particular industry goes into decline) is insignificant in explaining long-term unemployment. Which is to say that people who lose their jobs under such circumstances mostly find new employment quite quickly. But then George W does have his profits to think about.

Short-termism it the cause of this one I think - elections tomorrow verses more kids with asthma next week...