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

Adelle, your brother is class of 2004? In that case I introduced him to the M240B. Probably smacked him in the helmet with a cleaning rod for letting my bolt slam forward too. What I meant about the war comment was that as long as countries are interdepent economically the costs of going to war are much higher than the costs of diplomacy. I agree with the Asimov statement that "violence is the first recourse of the incompetent." I also am realistic about the world and understand that sometimes armed force is the only way to prevent greater harm. I would love to see the UN as a political body with a set of teeth. Maybe getting the EU to form a constitution would be a god start. A unified Europe would add a superpower to world politics. At that point I would like to see US, EU, UK etc wearing UN patches going into the worlds backwaters to stop all of the frigging violence that people are subjected to. With areas secured than the work of building economies could begin. People are so much less restive if they have jobs and basic needs met. Maslow's heirarchy of needs and whatnot. I don't think that war should be an extension of policy, I do think that it is a last resort when all other means of diplomacy have failed. In a perfect world I would be out of a job. In the real world there are enough threats that job security is my last worry.

*Maybe getting the EU to form a constitution would be a god start.*

Interesting typo. What gives the US the right to be the world police? The UN, flawed or not is at least a democracy of the world. With a less than 50% electorate you aren't even a democracy of where you live. At least admit that your country isn't your country *right or wrong*. You take advantages of your position sir, talk to me like the manager of a Walmart in Portland, Oregon.

I do believe that the UN should be the governing body for world affairs. I also believe that it should be in a slightly different form. I think the Veto rights of the security council should be revoked. What good is it to have a vote if the whole thing can be upended by one country? American apathy does not prevent us from being a democracy. We are a representitive democracy not a direct one. If less than 50% of voters turn up or an election they can't bitch about what they get.
My country has made mistakes, as has yours. They all do as they are run by human beings. I think that all said and done this is a good country. Yes, there are many things it does on the world stage, and domesticly that I do not agree with. There are also many things that Americans do individualy that I hate. The biggest example is the fact that we have such a deservedly bad reputation abroad. I hate traveling and seeing the typical American tourist with no respect for local custom and expecting everyone to speak English. I assure you I go out of my way to fall into that category.
As far as what gives us the right to be world police. Usually it is the UN. Outside of Iraq every nation we have sent troops into as either been at the request of the people in that nation or under UN authority. I know we have made blunders in the past by not understanding the people of these nations. However for the most part we have created safer places for people to live in. The good comes with the bad. No we are not a benevolent knight errant of a country running around in a cape and tights saving the world just because we are do gooders. We also are not a nation bent on world domination. We are not annexing countries, we are not forming an empire. I dare say we could if we really wanted to. If you look through history I do not think that you will find another example of (I don't want to seem egotistical here but it is true) such a powerful nation not turning to empire building.

I can only state, if you want to change the UN, change the UN. Don't invade a country in disagreement, make changes diplomatically. Is this such an alien concept to you? Diplomacy takes time, granted, but we were not (very obviously now) in a hurry.

Grab a gun and run into town and kill who ever stands against you? Or appoint a sheriff and judge and work through the problem? Your own democracy stands against you, your own visions of freedom, your own membership in an international organisation.

As I said before, I wish you no harm, I don't want to debate your reasons for being there. This site is about what is wrong with American generalities, perceived policy, and anti-global attitudes. I take offense that your presence in a war zone gives you any cachet in dealing with international policy. I am a pawn in this, perhaps not one in the front lines, but none the less a part of world politic and war. You could be shot, but my children or grandchildren could be shot as a result of what your boss decides.

I have stepped through the looking glass Oetzi is making sense.

Adele there is no profit in peace, sharing resources and educating children does not create political or economic empires. Using tanks and guns does. So if you have countries who have spent billions on their military and now have to pay off debts what do you think they will do next?

Flipper the cost of war can also be measured in other ways than purely financial terms.

Blick...You can "train" folks or you can "educate" folks.
You cannot train yourself. But you can certainly educate yourself.
Corporations support "training". Ostensibly they "like" education too, but not many of 'em will pay for it.

Adelle...please call again.
We need more women on this thread!

"We are not annexing countries, we are not forming an empire. I dare say we could if we really wanted to. If you look through history I do not think that you will find another example of (I don't want to seem egotistical here but it is true) such a powerful nation not turning to empire building."

America isn't building a classic empire, no. It is building an empire of sorts, however. The weapon is cultural imperialism and, as far as I can tell, it's intentions are essentially good.

America's empire is cultural and economic. The idea of bringing democracy to the world (even the bits that don't want or need it) and giving people the opportunity to live a lifestyle that Americans would find familiar is a form of Imperialism. The developed nations of the world, because America is by no means alone in this, don't seem to believe that other cultures can be perfectly happy as they are and simply don't need or want intervention from outside to "improve" them. We have done untold damage to other nations in many subtle ways, by introducing them to lifestyles and expectations that their own culture and economy are either unable or not ready to provide. We seldom stop to ask if they want what we are selling and we rarely hang around to see what sort of havoc is being caused afterwards.

I define the US Economy as an empire because, like an empire, it needs to expand and create client states to survive. New markets must be found, new sources of labour and product exploited. It'sa relentless outward push. The US Military may not be engaged in this at any stage but they don't need to be.

However, seargantFlipper's presence in Iraq is selling the American way of life as effectively as an advertising campaign. How many Iraqis have looked at US or British troops and seen a way of life that is so much better than their own? How many of them now have the drive to leave their country and go to the States? Is the number of Iraquis who now have the urge to recreate their country in America's image larger or smaller? How many of them are willing to set aside their own culture and import the American Dream instead of working to improve what they have in their own image?

You don't need guns to build an empire.

Adelle

good points, interesting that we had similiar sources for the previous wars. Also, about not working along the lines of the times - my dad wrote a paper when he was in college, explaining why no superpower (US or Soviet) would be able to win a war in vietnam. This was when there was no US involvement. He got a B-. Right answer, but didn't work with the existing thought of the times.

I think things are better now than when he was in school. I would say that in my science education, and where I've been involved in teaching science, we've focused on thought processes, and not the final answer. Partial credit is really big. You could get a really good score on a science exam without getting a single number right. When I volunteered with some grade schoolers, the biggest hurdle I had to get over was to teach them that the questions I was asking didn't have right or wrong answers - the most important thing was the reasoning behind their answers.

Btw, small point, but M*A*S*H was set during the Korean War in Korea, I beleive.

dave

To go back to the original question, I travel(l)ed to the US a good few years ago. I found the vast majority of people I met to be reasonably intelligent, friendly people, with a couple of exceptions, which is what I would expect of anybody's view of British people or anyone from any other country. It helps to remember that what we see on television, or even the contact we have with tourists and visitors is not representative of how people really are. Some people think that all English people are going to go on rampage through their town centre just because of a few football hooligans. (This is my first conversation, is it too wordy?)

Too wordy..certainly not.

<>

Just because most of us in the English-speaking countries are descended from Vikings and people like William the Conqueror, that doesn't mean *all* of us are like that.

But it might begin to explain our president's behavior, as he is related to the British Royal Family, and hence a scion of Conquerin' Billy.

"But it might begin to explain our president's behavior, as he is related to the British Royal Family, and hence a scion of Conquerin' Billy."

Actually, more closely related to Kaiser Wilhelm, since the Brit Royals aren't really Windsors but Saxe-Coburgs. Conquerin' Billy died childless, I think.

"as he is related to the British Royal Family"

I believe Bush is something like 7000th in line to the British throne, bizarrely enough. I wonder whether he'd be King George the Seventh or King Dubya the First.

Hi, Adelle, it's my short hand for cut-and-pasted. I am lazy!

Ah... I was confused on the other thread as to what that meant. Okay, all better now.

Oetzi, are you a closet sexist? Just as long as you don't start calling everybody sweetheart!

Self education is the key to happieness or world domination.
Is that the point here? Some buddist believe that you must first indulge every moment of life, the "Good" and the "Bad". After one understands that all emotions are esential to ones being, one can move through life in a state of bliss due to the fact that one is not in a state of self referential- judging or catagorizing ones self. I think this would be a good place to start. With the Self! I every person where more understanding of what makes them thrive then they would be more apt to cultivate that enviroment. It makes me so angry that a person who takes time away from the pleasing of others and spends time with the Self starts to feel as if they are overindulging! Can you explain what is so bad about that concept? "Know Thyself, then as it goes as the day and the night, thou canst then be false to any man- Hamlet. "Any man" including Self.
The world culture is so focused on Goal vs. Proccess. This was discussed earlier with the topic of education.
What is it that would make me happy? Probably alot of the same things that would make each of you happy. Why is it we are always so focused on what our differences are? Why not what we all have in common? Here are so examples for those who lack imagination. Clean air, food, shelter, fresh water, security of self, prosperity of family, personal enjoyment, creative outlets, appreciation, religious freedom, the right to communicate, freedom of expresion, fair treatment, a warm winter, a cool summer, protection from the rain, permission to dance in it, permission to laugh- yell- cry- grieve- give birth- sing- kiss- dance- chant- pray- moan- sigh- muse- run- skip- jump- flirt- make funny faces- play in the trees, build sand castles, make love by the ocean, nurture our inner child, be vunerable, risk, escape, induldge, cook, play, and rant.
Each of these things we can all do and should relish in doing so!! Instead we wage economic, phycological, enviromental, political, and religious wars! Seargent Flipper said it right in quoting Asmiov, "violence is the first recorse of the incompetent." We are all guilty!!!!!!!! Blickybadger said, "sharing recources and educating our children does not creat [a] political of economic empire."
Well ####! When will we all come together and nurture each other? When will we stop creating empires that will fall and conficts we can't control? I am so frustrated. I want every person to hold themselves with pride and value. When did we learn to hate our hair? Or our talents? Or our differences?
I don't know the answers. I don't know where to turn and I don't know where to start? Maybe I should buy a cabin in the hills and plant a garden and write poetry that nobody will ever see. Maybe I should print this post and make it the manifesto of my new political party- [name yet undertermined] Perhaps I should give up and give in like the rest of my peers, and mentors, and family. Or perhaps I should ask for help.
All I know is that I appreciate the opinions of each of you, even if I don't agree. At least those of us here are trying to understand. At least I hope we all are and we are not just being "self indulgent."


Adelle

Lentilla, I think he may be closet bi IMHO- that would explain the obsequiousness alternated with venom and sexist comments. In any case he is a closet fascist, enamoured by the uniform and gun, fascinated by the use of force. He loves the black and white view of the world which is why he is moistened by Flipper's front line lines. Simplicity is very enticing, if not engaging.

OO, back up your statements, don't just make them.

Adelle, take heart that you are not alone. In the minority perhaps, but not alone. The world is full of people who say *Well, if A is true, why not try B to then negate A? And if that works, why not C along the same lines?* It is not logic, just simplistic, a truly black and white view of a grey universe. Humanism is not a science of the heart, it is the logic of the heart, a leap of logic.

Adelle, perhaps the guilt is not for self-indulgence but for self-importance. I would say that if you believe in a higher power, you believe in a being many times more important than yourself, so the best you can do is to put that incredibly important being above your own interests. However, if you don't believe in a higher power, then your best bet is existentialism, which'll really tell you how absurd it is to consider yourself important (I should note that I might as well say "one's self" or "ourselves"; I'm not trying to single anyone out). However, the flipside of existentialism is that your efforts are so absurd that they couldn't really be wasted on anything, even on such an unimportant thing as yourself.

To sum up: Feeling guilty for being self-important is logical, because none of us are really that important. However, feeling guilty is not in and of itself going to do anyone any good.

To your next point: I absolutely agree that we should make others happy (what else can I say, though? It's not like I could say, "No, Adelle, we should club each other with blunt objects." All right, I'm the only person who finds blunt objects funny). Whether one subscribes to Judaism, Islam, Christianity, objectivism, or just basic cable , one's beliefs probably include a form of the Golden Rule. While some prefer it to be "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you," I like the "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" version better, myself. Anyway . . . I was going somewhere with this, I really was . . . ah, yes: if all of us practiced this belief, we'd have such a wonderful existence. Imagine all the people . . .
So the only thing I can recommend is to really, honestly treat this like a Golden Rule and keep it in mind at all times. Really - I know that every single one of my moral failures has resulted from concentrating on my own selfish goals rather than on this simple rule. If you want to state it in terms of love: "Love your neighbor as yourself." What a wonderfully simple rule. It's just . . . it's staggering how much could be solved by following such a simple, simple rule . . .
Well, I'm beginning to drift off into incoherence, so I'll stop typing and go to sleep. Night, all. Let me know if I completely misinterpreted anyone's statements or if I misrepresented either of those rules of thumb.