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

"Stop using overblown language. It devalues your argument."

Wow! What we see here is the worst kind of nationalistic elitism. Hitler would've been proud. Saturnine I know you're not American. But with posts like this, you might as well be.

There really seems to be a belief out there that Americans are somehow genetically superior and incapable of doing wrong beyond a certain superficial level. Have you been brainwashed by their TV sitcoms and hamburgers?

FACT: Bush was not elected. He lost the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election and came to the white house through vote-counting trickery and a bought supreme court decision.

FACT: Bush is immoral. He is sociopathic. Not only does he lack any sense of morality, he sees no reason to do abything other than that which benefits Bush and his friends. He goes to church only because it's necessary to be seen going to church.

FACT: Bush is a mass murderer. He has the blood on his hands of all the innocent people who died as a result of his unjustified, unwarranted invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, the presidency is the ultimate authority. Along with the power and benefits of being president of the USA comes ultimate responsibility. The buck stops with him.

FACT: The simple fact of being American means that in the eyes of the western world (even in the eyes of non-supporters) your actions have to be twice as bad to be considered half as bad. Why IS this?

WAKE UP EVERYONE!

<>
Absolutely, Empty Sky. I think that more and more Americans are coming to understand and dislike that too. (At least I hope so!)
We watched 'Full Metal Jacket' last night - which you may remember from 1987. It's about Vietnam, but I wonder if in 2023, there'll be a film which is virtually a remake, but about Iraq...

"I wonder if in 2023, there'll be a film which is virtually a remake, but about Iraq..."

I wouldn't be at all surprised. Hollywood is replete with example of corruption of the truth. There have been many blatant and offensive examples of corruption of the truth from Hollywood recently. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Patriot, Titanic, etc etc. Films supposedly based on fact, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

There was a film on TV last week, called something like U571, about how the fearless Americans captured the enigma code machine from the German submarines. Laughable and offensive at the same time.

Unfortunately, young people simply don't read anymore. For many people, especially your typical dumb American, this Hollywood nonsense is their only source of history. Therefore the truth will be seriously and permanently corrupted.

American popular culture has a lot to answer for.

One of my sons almost watched U571, then realised what it was. 'Full Metal Jacket' was very interesting, very *subtle* and well worth seeing, if you get past the effing and blinding. It could only have been made when it was, nowadays it would be considered 'Un-American' and its actors condemned!

Empty Sky, you are a lovely example of the type of person I come across in nearly every debate I am involved in.

To the right-wing, I am a lefty loony, because I advocate gay rights, decriminalisation of drugs and I'm not racist.

To the left, I'm a flaming Nazi, because I despise stupidity, have no time for people who want to waste mine, and have a tough stance on those that "mess" up.

If you take a look at most of my arguments on this site, I look at an issue from both sides. If you want to call me names because I don't agree with you, then sink down to that level. However, I prefer to take a more balanced and pragmatic view of life.

*quiet *

Saturnine, I can't be responsible for your inability to categorise your views. But if you say something that I disagree with, you must expect me to say so.

I'm not calling you names. Merely pointing out the silliness of the things you say.

"FACT: Bush was not elected. He lost the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election and came to the white house through vote-counting trickery and a bought supreme court decision."

I don't think anyone denies that. I'm quite impressed that no one has bothered to pull their finger out and oust him from his chair. Got to give him credit, no matter how much I despise Republicans.

"FACT: Bush is immoral. He is sociopathic."

Whoa! Who made you the resident psychologist? Immoral by your standards maybe, but that's no reason to start throwing around words like that. He's an alcoholic. Let's stick with that.

"Not only does he lack any sense of morality,"

Well, he does. Just not by your standards.

"he sees no reason to do abything other than that which benefits Bush and his friends. He goes to church only because it's necessary to be seen going to church."

As does every other politician. You don't actually think political leaders are religious, do you? Religion is for the herd, not for the guys running them.

"FACT: Bush is a mass murderer. He has the blood on his hands of all the innocent people who died as a result of his unjustified, unwarranted invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq."

They were warranted. Just not for the right reasons. And by that logic, you have just as much blood on your hands for being so morally outraged and not doing anything about it. What stopped you from going and being a politician, or running your country, and changing the system?

"Remember, the presidency is the ultimate authority. Along with the power and benefits of being president of the USA comes ultimate responsibility. The buck stops with him."

Exactly. But could you say you would do different if you were in that position? Maybe. Maybe not.

"FACT: The simple fact of being American means that in the eyes of the western world (even in the eyes of non-supporters) your actions have to be twice as bad to be considered half as bad. Why IS this?"

To begin with, because most people have an odd grudge against those who are successful. And mainly because those who shout their mouth off, are those that rarely make any productive changes. But I don't think that being American means you get away with anything...I certainly don't stereotype them in that way. Yeh, sure, I hate it when a Republican is in office, but there's one important thing to remember when it comes to debating politics: you should never mistake a government for it's people. They are never one in the same.

My inability to catagorise my views? Exactly what does that mean? It's fine to disagree with me. But comparing me to Hitler? Again with the overblown language, don't you think?

But I certainly don't think I say "silly" things.

"And by that logic, you have just as much blood on your hands for being so morally outraged and not doing anything about it. What stopped you from going and being a politician, or running your country, and changing the system?"

And by THAT logic everytime a murder is committed anywhere in the world, the other six billion people in the world are also responsible for not identifying that it might happen and taking steps to stop it.

"But could you say you would do different if you were in that position?"

Yes of course. The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and murder. The easiest and most natural thing would've been NOT TO DO IT.

"you should never mistake a government for it's people. They are never one in the same."

I'll never understand why people say nonsense like this. In the case of America, of course they're one in the same. The present government was allowed to take power and is allowed to stay there (remember America claims to be a democracy) so it's reasonable to assume that its actions have the tacit approval of the American public. The majority of americans are stupidly and blindly patriotic and support America's actions in Iraq.

"My inability to catagorise my views? Exactly what does that mean?"

Saturnine, it was you who was frustrated at your inability to pigeon-hole yourself, I don't give a dam about it. You said things like "To the right-wing, I am a lefty loony... To the left, I'm a flaming Nazi,"

Of course you say silly things.

"The present government was allowed to take power and is allowed to stay there (remember America claims to be a democracy) so it's reasonable to assume that its actions have the tacit approval of the American public. The majority of americans are stupidly and blindly patriotic and support America's actions in Iraq."

That's a really terrible attitude to have.

I'm not frustrated. I know exactly where I stand in the world.

"That's a really terrible attitude to have."

Why??? It's perfectly accurate.

"remember America claims to be a democracy"

The United States is a republic, not a democracy.
http://www.mackinac.org/print.asp?ID=3400

Yes, you're right. The United States is not a democracy. The election was won by the person who got fewer votes. Anyway, what is the distinction?

"However was the removal of Saddam a proper begining of an apology??"
Sarge Flipper asked me-

The removal of Saddam yes!

Not the bombing of Iraq.

In no way is that an apoplogy when they fear we will do the same to them again!

When confused by someones words and actions-you cannot blame others for believing in what people do over what they say.

The US should have finished in Afganistan and kept after Osama while doing special ops to find Saddam.
What was all that we're coming to get you in a few months Saddam you can stay or go ...

If we had a proper reconstruction in Afg. while warning Iraq and using the UN in Iraq that would have been an example to the Iraqi people.

That would have been insurance and a track record for building trust. That would have made more sense than a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

The US could say; see what we did right in Afg - See Osama?

Instead it's see what we did to Iraq?
We can do that any where in the middle East(or the world).

>>The US could say; see what we did right in Afg - See Osama?

Instead it's see what we did to Iraq?
We can do that any where in the middle East(or the world).<<
Hello, abbi normal. You are correct - creating fear doesn't win hearts and minds!

Abbi, I have been accused on this site of having an overblown sense of what the US military is capable of. I think I infected you with that. A special ops mission to assasinate Saddam would have been extremly risky. Not to mention the fact that if we had done such a thing (until recently there was a federal law against assasinating heads of state) people like ES and Della would be going on twice as hard as they do now about the "criminal" US. No the war made things more legit. You have to admit. Every single effort was made to keep all casulties as low as possible. We stuck at the command and control centers. We attempted to kill the leaders first, allow the rank and file of the army to leave before we came in. War sucks. But we kept it more clean than ever in history.
You are right we came into Iraq much to quickly after Afghanistan, however the job is not done in either country and I hope we finnish it.

I'm having problems articulating this, but to the best of my understanding, a republic is a form of government where representatives govern based on the rule of law (such as the constitution) and a democracy implies rule by the majority with disregard to individual rights.


http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3388
"A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics, by their very nature, tend to be free polities, not because they are elected by the citizens of the polity, but because they are bound by charters, which limit the responsibilities and powers of the state. ...

A democracy is government by the majority. There is still a restricted group of citizens in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally runs the state. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, such as generalships and governorships, but there is no question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter (if there even is a charter), but the vote of the majority. ..."


And the election was won by the one who got fewer votes because of how our electoral college works (which I definitely cannot articulate.) http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

Sorry, I don't think I've cleared up the difference at all.

blaue, true "direct" democracy would be a system like the Athenians had. Every eligible citizen (which in Athens really was not that much of the total population) that wanted to would vote on every single issue. Government is too complex now for something like that. Imagine your whole town getting called up to decide to use 100 or 75 watt bulbs in the library. Hence the representitive system. Although some people think that the country can be bought or stolen, I feel it is the safest of all political systems. Simple and effective the whole check and balance three branches of government thing. All bound by the ultimate authority the US Constitution. You hit the nail on the head, the Constitution and Bill of Rights while granting powers serves more to limit them particuarly the bill of rights. Despite what Ashcroft and Ridge think