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

>>"Supported by the Scottish Council for the promotion of Literature".

If so it was good investment. It was a major, major bestseller.

Let's leave the swearing thing aside. It's a bit of a distraction, no?

Re. my accusation of anti-Semitism. I fully accept that anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Zionism. In fact, Vicky, my own political views are, believe it or not, probably closer to yours than to others here.

OK - so maybe I've got it wrong. Can you possibly try to explain why it is that you pointed out the ethnicity of the three people I refered to? What point were you trying to make about them or their views?

Note: Not what point were you trying to make about me or about the Israel/Palestine conflict. What point were you trying to make about *them*?

I'm giving you a chance here to present yourself in a better light than your original words - perhaps accidentally - suggested.

Speak of the :
http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/

Read the other link text...and then the last one. Chutzpah!

Needless to say, I totally disagree with him. For example:
'I am one of those who, for example, believes that the global conflict that began in August 1914 did not conclusively end, despite a series of "fragile truces," until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.'

I hear where he's coming from...but I'm not convinced the conflict has stopped yet. The cause of WWI was the German proposal for a Berlin-Baghdad railway. The first British forces dispatched were an expeditionary force to Basra. Clearly his Marxism is a little rusty.

He's spot on about religion, mind.

'The cause of WWI was...'

What, the one and only definitive cause? Didn't someone shoot a duck called Archie?

Gif

Wars aren't caused by minor political events in far-flung provinces. As any Marxist fule kno, the underlying causes are economic.

As a very wise man once (nearly) said, the British Empire covered a third of the globe; the German empire consisted of a small sausage factory outside Hamburg. I don't think we can be held entirely innocent on the imperial/economic front.

Gif

Oh, indeed not. But the point is the oil was *ours*. We couldn't have upstart European powers building easy access routes to it.

And does anyone *really* think we're in Afghanistan to get women out of Burqas and that it just happens to be on a relatively convenient route from the Caspian Sea without transiting Russia?

etc. etc.

(Although when I was in Moscow, circa 1986, I was assured that the Russians invaded to get ahold of quite different black, resinous substance for which it was then famed. And damn fine it was, too. )

btw...Tanzania. Namibia.

Yes quite clearly everything really comes down to oil.

Because as I said our civilisation will fall apart without it. And the overly critical need to face that.

Just because Vicky doesn't mind living in a mud hut and growing her own food, and most probably being regularly raped and pillaged, because law and order will inevitably be break down with out oil, I'm not so keen on the idea.

nnn...I'm not quite sure I agree with you there. It doesn't follow, for example, that our thirst for oil need be quite so high. That's driven by the expansionist need of Capital. It doesn't follow that the means of oil production should not be in the hands of the resource-owning nation (or their people). It doesn't follow that the convenient existence of oil and the profits to be derived therefrom need stifle innovation in alternative energy sources.

The Great Game goes back well before oil was found in the region - and in that instance, was mostly economic. Russia was after access to ports on the Caspian, Britain thought that would allow them a platform to invade India. And both were trying to get their trade goods into Afghanistan.

Remind me what happened during the Afghan Wars...?

Gif

>>Britain thought that would allow them a platform to invade India.

But more importantly, it would have allowed Russia warm-water seaports, providing it with global trade routes which were not dependent on the European powers.

See also the Russo-Japanese war.

It may not follow Ed. But I'm not prepared to take the risk. That's why I'm never overly critical of western governments approach to middle east and Afghanistan.

I think its quite hypocritical that a lot of people are so critical, without properly facing the possible consequences.

I'm fully accepting of people being critical, but its really important to face up to risks.

Well...I hear where you're coming from and could get on board...if we could trust our governments to serve the interests of their people competently. Was it really in our long-term interests to reneg on Lawrence's promises to the Arab insurgents? Was it really in our interests to overthrow Mossadegh? Or support Pahlevi? Or Saddam Hussein? Dunno - it's easy to criticise with hindsight - but where was the democratic oversight of all those moves?

We really do need a Middle East thread don't we, folks? Someone feel free to start one on my PS.

Anyone?

This is too funny!

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

May I join you?

Man, that is hilarious!

Gif