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

So why don't the US police Israel?

and the expense is the total US defence budget, lets not bother to single out a single group (though quite an expensive one)to say that this is the only cost of enforcing US Foreign Policy.

Z.

The US could police Israel... but who is right? Who is wrong? Both sides have turned this thing into a bloodbath, and both sides are wrong. We've tried to maintain peace the the region only because we (along with France and, to a greater extent than the others, the UK) are responsible for creating this mess when we decided to let European Jews migrate there, and make their own country where a people already lived and would have liked very much to have a country of their own. They could have lived in peace together anyway, if it weren't for their stupid superstitions.

And at any rate, this is an internal conflict, and not an international one. How would the UK feel if American troops arrived to help put down soccer riots?

It's a while since we had any soccer riots, tho you shud have mentioned our inolvement in N.Ireland, (definitrely an internal conflict that has been going on for a few hundred years) and how grateful we are for the US support in this thro diplomacy and intervention!


Z.

Back around 1950, sociologist Vance Packard wrote a book called 'The Waste Makers' in which he seriously advanced the idea that the United States NEEDS to have a Cold War.

Now, I know that your Mr Orwell dealt with this at some length, but the idea holds water.

Basically, the situation is that the USA's productive capacity so far outstrips its ability to consume that there needs to be some mechanism to absorb the excess capacity. War materiel is the ideal solution:

1) It provides high-paying, technically intensive jobs requiring a high level of education in science and engineering.

2) It contributes nothing to the commercial sector. The vast amounts of effort expended produce nothing that will be used in everyday life.

3) It is relatively benign to the environment. Compared to other industries, it consumes relatively little in raw materials and produces an output that has a good deal of intellectual 'value-add'.

4) Since defense is a 'national security' thing it requires that the workers in it be US citizens, thereby protecting the labor market from cheap foreign labor.

Mr Packard's conclusion was that a permanent, vast expenditure on 'defense' was a Good Thing, much preferable to having to dump Cadillacs into the ocean to avoid ruinous price erosion.

Since then, many other countries have found themselves in much the same condition, especially in Europe (and not excluding Israel).

The present, unfolding recession is probably a consequence of the globalization of business and the collapse of an international financial bubble, so the 'retro' policies starting to be adopted by the Bush administration have considerable support.

There are, alas, two problems with The Global Economy:

1) If all of the world's labor is placed on the auction block, the winner will be the country that combines the most efficient work force with the lowest standard of living (a game neither the USA nor Europe want to play).

2) The end game of the Global Economy economic model is ruinous price competition (called 'commoditization' in modern corporate-speak) and a crash. Look at what has happened in consumer electronics, computers and networking gear. Business profits are miniscule compared to what they were 30 years ago (unless you are a Texan selling electricity to California).

During the Viet Nam war there were many anti-war bumper stickers saying, 'War i$ good for bu$ine$$ -- inve$t your $on.' (I don't know if this last survived international character mappings; the 's' characters are dollar signs.)

It is not surprising that USA, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and the other industrialized countries are all big-time arms exporters, nor that they all maintain humongous 'defense' establishments.

Way to go nihil!

Excellently put! (even if they weren't your own words)

If the american economy is on the skids they are bound to start a bit of sabre rattling until something happens - probably a bit of that war thing somewhere!



Z.

I don't think we could police Israel. You have two opponents who are by tradition terrorists. Our military is very good at conventional war. I don't think we could handle terrorists or guerrillas in there on home country. We don't have the experience.

We also lack the technical skills. Israel has some of the best bomb techs in the world, just as the Palestinians are some of the best bomb makers. They're not up to IRA standards, but they're not too shabby.

Packard's analysis is very astute. I'm not sure that I agree, but it makes sense. Except for the environment. The military is probably one of the worst polluters around.

I don't see why we have to necessarily fear wage competition. We lose some menial manufacturing jobs, but there are a lot of low skill jobs that we still need here in the country. You can't import service. So people who lack education or drive will always have employment in the richest country in the world.

In fact, since we export the very lowest paying jobs to countries where the wages are really low, even our low paid service workers can afford luxuries imported from abroad.

You can't import service? Tell that to the UAE. Pakistani road workers, Indian restaranteurs, Malaysian cab drivers...

we'd have to use Delta Force and all the special ops to police isreal. That is not only a very expensive thing to do but it's a virtually useless.

I suppose we could have guest workers too, but then again we already have illegal mexicans all over the place. Still, while they're here, they contribute to our economy. Some of the money they are paid goes back to Mexico, but a fair amount of it stays in our economy.

Delta Force couldn't police anything. They're not set up for sustained operations in the field. It would also be way out of profile for Special Forces. Even if there were enough of them to do it.

Hey I have an idea. Rather than policing the Palestinian suicide bombers why doesn't the US govt stop selling Israel arms and threaten to stop subsidising their economy and threaten to cut all ties & protection. This might make them think twice about bombing innocents (I used it correctly before and I will use it again "Innocents").

Israel bombs the families of the sucide bombers using fighter planes. This is because they know that the people who's lives they have destroyed have nothing to live for and will gladly commit suicide to save their families. The only way Israel can control these desperate people is to threaten to kill their families if they try to fight the war.

What would it take for you to strap a bomb to yourself and kill your enemy?

All of Palistine and Isreal have been at each other's thoats since the beginning. It doesn't help matters that the day Isreal was founded all of the Arab nations invaded! When you publically state that we will not stop until the last Jew is killed or driven out, it doesn't help in the making of friends.

It wouldn't take much for me to pick up a rifle and defend my country. But to strap a bomb on and walk into a crowded subway....that's definately not a way to make a point.

Valid point... All the Arabs said that they must defend their countries from invasion. Try the idea of hundreds of thousands coming to emigrate into my country every day. Rather like the original US Pioneers did to the Native Americans. If the Chinese All turned up one day off the coast of Calif. I doubt that the US would just stand aside. (Historic Ref: The Chinese did do this albiet much smaller scale and the Americans took away their right to vote based on "Race", {rather hypocrytical really circa 1880}.)

I think that perhaps if your family was locked up behind a miltary enclosure in your own home town and even though you have "the right to bear arms" they had been taken away by the above Chinese, and all you have left is a bomb and 4 days of food, it might well seem like inevitable action. Try the BBC Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/voices_of_conflict/default.stm

You may be right on that bomb thing, I hope to god nothing of the sort ever comes to pass...

But where else could they go? Most all their home contries wanted them gone and Hitler was killing them off by the millions. It may not have been the best solution, it may not have been the worst solution, but it was something...

The Israelis would have done better to follow our example with the Indians. Kill most of them; turn them into alcoholics; and put the survivors on welfare so that they'd never have the gumption to ever do anything again. I guess it's bad luck for the Israelis that muslims can't drink.

Actually, I'm quite pleased with how the Indians have used loopholes in the Constitution to start casinos.

Therefore -

Shud we get the palestinians hooked on gambling?

*astounded*

Z.

Did any of you actually follow the link?

They are following your advice 2bit.
They have systematically destroyed the local agriculture (fields & olive groves) just like the pioneers wiped out 6 million buffalo (Leaving about 600 in Yosemite). They have dumped them into concentration camps and forced the rest away so that they have to run to the mountains or to neighbouring countries like Canada. They have stolen land and continue to break international agreements just like the original US pioneers. They have taken their right to vote just like apartheid.

Every great country has been responsible for this (not just US) China, Russia, Rome, Britain, Germany & France they all did similar things in their history but have we not learned anything?

They are starving them and shooting them from helicopters. The people throw rocks because they have nothing left.

I didn't follow the link; I was just shooting from the hip.

Let's not forget, that the Palestinians are no angels. They have been attacking civilian targets for fifty years. Both sides have been commiting war crimes.

It's just how they choose to fight. I don't care for that kind of a war, and I wouldn't particpate. Fighting a war like this makes it very difficult to find a settlement. The worst thing that they're doing is stopping talks until the violence stops. That's not how you stop a war. The whole reason we have the Laws of War is to maintain a minmial level of trust and the lines of communication. The war will end some day, and they're going to have to be neighbors.

I don't think we should assist either side. As long as it's just between the Israeli's and the Palestians, nor should we interfere. They both made their choice.

If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war. - General William Sherman

I am surprised at how easily many Americans talk about war as if it is a "Game" that you choose when and how you want to play. There are no rules or Geneva conventions. When a country is bleeding they don't give a damn.

First off, I'm only one American. My views are colored by the fact that I'm a veteran.

I don't consider war a game, and there are laws that govern warfare. We, generally, prosecute war in compliance with those laws because they benefit us. They allow ambasadors to communicate to help bring the war to conclusion.

I didn't actually mean you I was thinking of Mr C.Heston and the NRA however...

"Soldiers do die in training. It's part of the game. We have a lot of equipment that is designed to kill and blow things up."

TBTPM 5 Days ago this thread?