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

I get the feeling that Zargreb has missed a pretty important point of principle here.
This is that if the US ( in the form of GWB ) states quite openly and proudly that the rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech and worship, free trade etc etc are the things that the US wants everyone to have and enjoy, then surely the US itself must be seen to stick to those principles.

Detention without trial, trade sanctions, the illegal occupation of other countries etc cannot sit well with the stated philosiphy of the US. Remember that this is the country that opposes the International Criminal Court, wont ratify the Kyoto agreement and on and on.
( Did you know that if the whole world were to have a standard of living at the same level as Europe then we would need two more planets worht of resources to make that happen. If it was to the level of the US we would need 6, makes you think )

Or do you just allow your rights and indeed everyone elses to be eaten up in the name of the war on terror just because of 9/11/01?

"if the US ( in the form of GWB ) states quite openly and proudly that the rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech and worship, free trade etc etc are the things that the US wants everyone to have and enjoy, then surely the US itself must be seen to stick to those principles."


George W. Bush is on record as saying that (by implication) that the U. S. is not a "free nation":

" free nations do not attack their neighbors; free nations do not develop weapons of mass terror" George W. Bush, Birmingham, Alabama, November 3, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031103-7.html

I'm sure we all are aware of the U. S. history of invading its neighbours (Canada and the U. S.). Given Mr. Bush's stated definition of a free nation, why would anyone believe that Mr. Bush actually had any desire to bring "the rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech and worship, free trade etc etc " to anyone?

>I don't think playing the old card of "Ah, but he's just dealing with terrorists" helps anyone.<
Ah, glad we agree on that Zagreb. So you would agree that the War on Teror is a moral and indeed, practical dead end?

"Ah, glad we agree on that Zagreb. So you would agree that the War on Teror is a moral and indeed, practical dead end?"

I didn't say that. The "War on Terror" needs two targets - the terrorist networks themselves and (more importantly) the root causes of Islamic Terrorism, namely poverty and dictatorship. Judging by the recent turnout in Turkey in protest at terrorism and the fact that terrorist movements thrive under dictatorships (Saudi, Iraq, Iran under the Shah) it can be pretty much concluded that democracy is necessary to negate terrorist influence.

Of course, Israel also needs to be made to cease the zionist fairy-tale of expansion and accept a Palestinian State (Palestinian terrorism also needs dealt with and, judging by what I've heard of a recent BBC documentary, removing Arafat from office would be a good start). It's true that this won't happen in earnest until the extremist Sharon is out of power (although he has, grudgingly, accepted the need for a Palestinian state and the end of the settlement of Palestinian land) and right-wing extremism will be a feature of Israeli politics until Palestinians realise that killing innocent people is not the way forward for political discourse.

>> It's true that this won't happen in earnest until the extremist Sharon is out of power (although he has, grudgingly, accepted the need for a Palestinian state and the end of the settlement of Palestinian land) and right-wing extremism will be a feature of Israeli politics until Palestinians realise that killing innocent people is not the way forward for political discourse.<<
You're absotively right, Zagreb!
However, you're not necessarily right about Arafat... Check out
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1657
>>Firstly, Yasser Arafat is an obstacle, but not in the way the Israeli government would have us believe. The accusations of directing terror (which is a vague term with no universally accepted definition) are many, but evidence is scant. People often gloss over the fact that Arafat has been effectively under Israeli house arrest for almost 2 years, confined to one room in a shattered building, often without electricity, water and outside communication – hardly conducive to the claims made against him. He has also condemned the deaths of civilians in Israel, which is more than can be said of Ariel Sharon and the deaths of Palestinian civilians. The Palestinian Authority is often accused of not doing enough to fight terror, but this is an institution economically bankrupt and shattered by Israeli aggression, its police forces and prisons decimated. It is also forgotten that Israel is the occupying power, yet it too is unable to stop attacks, many of which originate in areas under its full control.<<

Della saying I'm right, blimey.

Regarding Arafat, the problem seems to be that he won't cut his terrorist links completely. He seems to have moved further and further away from terrorism and closer to statesmanship but he continues to have terrorist links that he won't sever.

Oh, welcome to the real world, Mr Adams.

Sometimes, it's not about who we want to leave behind, it's about who wants to be left behind.

Some of us remember Mr Arafat producing his gun at the United Nations...

Just as a matter of interest what would people suggest SHOULD have occured after 9/11 ?

<< the fact that terrorist movements thrive under dictatorships (Saudi, Iraq, Iran under the Shah) it can be pretty much concluded that democracy is necessary to negate terrorist influence.>>

I would just ask, who funds /ed the nation quoted above?

The Saudis have always relied on US cash. The US / Uk positively encouraged Saddam in Iraq even to the point of selling him chemical weapons, and the Shah was also a western puupet.

We created these monsters and this the main problem.
The US will only poke it nose in to others affairs when it suit regardless of the consequences.
The Taliban grew out of the US funded war in Afganistan against the Soviet Union, so in the light of 9/11 the US should learn to think more carefully and act with more care

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1125/dailyUpdate.html
Article about the Peace accord going forward on Dec 1st and it is not Bushs. Bush said he would charge them (in a loan)for the security fence!

The US war on terror however it is dressed up is essentially way of removing oppostion to US plans and a big advert for US weapons producers. Bush and his cronies care not one jot about ending terror if they did they would be acting at source in a concilliatory way and not fanning the flames so effectively. The more terror attacks there are the more Blair and Bush will tell us we need the war on terror tighter security and more infringements on civil liberties to protect us.

1984

These people are politicians - in the wake of 9/11 Bush had to do SOMETHING. I'm not saying what he did was the right thing, but you must surely see that the events of that day could not be ignored.

Do you think the American people would have accepted an increase in aid to the middle east and a confrence on religous tolerance ?

It is not possible to go back in time and remove the injustices and paranoia that led to 9/11 - you are faced with the greastest attack on your nation's way of life that has ever occured. People are desperate for somewhere to take their grief and anger.

I repeat - what are you going to do ?

http://www.webfitz.com/xmas/20xmas.html

Thanks abbi normal, that's a fascinating article!

Kill

Anybody seen Bad Santa?

Glad you liked the link Della.

Bad Santa? No, sounds like fun...

Yeah!I am hoping so