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

I'm thinking the new 'bad guy' nation will be China. It's quickly building factories, contributing to the world's carbon dioxide problem, and their export/import deals are currently in their favor.

Trying to second-guess who or what might cause the next world war is an interesting, if depressing, intellectual exercise. I'm reminded of Britain's General Jackson on the Balkans:

i) "Only odd-numbered world wars begin in Yugoslavia"
ii) (to his American Army commander when he refused an order that might have led to British and Russian troops commencing hostilities) "I'm damned if I'm starting World War Three for you!"

China is possible. Reasons:

i) they are North Korea's only ally and sponsor. However reluctantly, however much they'd like to drop this alliance, the Chinese would lose face if America were to decide to do something about the maniacs running NK. Losing face is the worst thing that could happen to an Oriental (can I generalise there?)

ii) they absolutely hate and loathe the Japanese for WW2 - Jaspan's continuing refusal to apologise, pay adequate reparations, and the way Jap schools and historians minimise the extent of Japanese atrocities in WW2 is a running sore. Japan is an American ally. North Korea also hates the Japs, with good reason. If NK took a slap at Japan, could this escalate?

iii) Taiwan/Formosa. If the Chinese make a concerted attempt to regain this teritory for a united China - ie, invade - this is a flashpoint for war and would drag the USa in on Taiwan's side.

iv) India/Pakistan: if these near-neighbours go to war and it looks like escalating into a nuclear exchange on China's southern doorstep, the big regional superpower might step in? There is also a disputed region in Northern India that China claims: they have been to war before over this.

Then again, look at Europe: as well as the Balkan states having their allies and advocates among European powers (the reason why Russia stepped in to support Serbia, and why General Jackson reined in the Parachute Regiment before they ran into the Russians when everyone was fully armed and nervous) there's the curent business in Poland and the Baltic States.

The Poles hate Russia and Germany with a vengeance. Currently, Germany is spent as an agressive military power and reined in by her NATO allies. So to the Poles, their traditional threat from the West, although still hated with a passion you would not believe, is neutered.
The threat from the East, on the other hand, is potent: the Poles loathe the Russians for occupying them from 1945 onwards and imposing a puppet government for nearly fifty years. So as far as Poland is concerned, applying to join NATO and asking for American and British troops (but ABSOLUTELY NO GERMANS!) to be stationed there is good sense: it deters the Russians from trying it on. But the Russians see this as a threat to their national integrity - especially if the three Baltic states join NATO and Western troops are rotated there. Hence Putin aiming his nukes at Western cities.

So the flashpoint might be Poland again...

Speaking of the stock market being an enormous pile...

I highly recommend "A Conspiracy of Paper" by David Liss.

When I was sitting in my college economics class I was beginning to suspect that the stock market was an illusion created by madmen. I mean who else but a madman could actually fathom the idea of selling something before you buy it.

Liss' story makes me even more paranoid as it shows how the whole thing began.

Yeah, it's all an illusion. The whole banking system, the stock market, the money market - it's all just numbers on paper - if the world civilization collapsed tomorrow, we'd be in a world of doo.

So keep believing!

I suspect the collapse actually began a number of years ago, and is proceeding in a manner disturbingly similar to the decline and fall of the Roman empire

>> Trying to second-guess who or what might cause the next world war is an interesting, if depressing, intellectual exercise. <<

I agree that that would indeed be depressing, but we were discussing who would be the next most-powerful and least-liked nation, not who would start the next world war. If war is the only way to that position, may I gently remind you that the US didn't start that fire?

Take a look at Iraq; the very nature of war is changing enough that I don't know if a world war as it was known a couple of generations ago would even be possible -- I would expect it to be more like localized turf wars breaking out *everywhere*, particularly if the factions you mentioned further along in the above post are true. There are too many fronts out there now, with too many borders.

Here here! to Agprov, and for all those who dont like this thread, then dont read it!

I'm deeply opposed to predjudice ethically, but found my experience of Americans (personally here in SA, the missionary or "rescuer types" who arrived after 95 and acted as if they were going to "fix" everything now - and actually knew squat about Africa and its challenges - nevermind that the US government supported our old Aphardheid governement for decades as part of the cold war) - together with the nonsense I saw in US media and Hollywood's obvious propaganda excersises - creating a deep aversion in me to all people and all things "American". At a forum of the Gold industry a few years ago proof was tabled that the US Congress had been falsely repressing the gold price for decades - creating and maitaining widespread mass poverty (death disease and ignorance) through Africa and I was appalled.

I wondered how this was all possible? How the hell was it that all these heartless, bloodsucking, arrogant, warmongering people had all ended up on that continent and how come someone didn't stop them (China maybe?).

I've learnt a lot on this site - a lot that's helped me to combat my own predjudice here. The US warmongring is done mostly under the banner of "spreading democracy" - but it seems that democracy is dead in the US. That people dont agree, that there are the voices that speak against, this gives us other perspectives and helps us to understand what on earth is wrong.

From the outside however, it really is difficult to grasp. We get the picture of a democratic country that chose a warmongering government and that the majority of Americans support everything the Government does. This is a logical assumption under the banner of "democracy". Also, Americans dont seem to really reject what's going on very loadly. In SA we had mass action, strikes, marches and riots in opposition to a bad government structure. What do you have? A few internet sites and some internationally inaccessible voices? I would certainly agree that peaceful change is better and yes, that might take longer - but where is the voice of that peaceful change in the world? Where is the assurance to the rest of the world that America is not completely submissive to the ideas and ideals that we see. This is no light issue, people are dying, nations being destroyed, poverty is growing and I dont know that I've heard a lot of outrage from Americans about that . . . except in here - and that has been very good to know.

Blair got the nick-name in SA "mini-me" arround the Iraq war, (Bush's minime) so the perception here is not limmited to US soil. The US controlled world bank makes puppets of most of the world - and to think that the puppet-masters are a little group of Americans - not so demacratically elected by their populations - is a frightening thought for the rest of the world.

Oprah by the way is also a great ambassador for "rational American". She also seems to promote mass education on what is going on in the rest of the world.

This thread is great! We all come here with all our preconceptions and assumtions and receive feedback and challenge ignorance. Anyone afraid to face different perceptions and even mass misunderstandings should stick to knitting or sports (although there seems to be a whole mess there too).

Keep passing open windows!



Kosh

Having long left this thread (but not unsubscribing!!) I only have to add the following:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cnnnn&search=Search

Not that in any way do those videos impinge upon the knowledge, common sense, education, social or geographic skills of the average citizen of the United States of America. The merely represent a frightening minority who vote, answer polls and speak publicly.

Kosh, poverty is spreading all over the world -- and in the US. I myself am about a month and a half from homeless if I don't find a job.

The major thing wrong *in* America is that 1% of the population hold 25% of the wealth. There's about 300 million people total, x .01, leaving 3 million who hold 25 cents out of every dollar. The other 75 cents of that dollar are shared out among the other 270 million of us, to a greater or lesser extent. We're not all below the poverty line, but way many more of us than everyone seems to realize. But think of that 1% -- America is a very wealthy country over all, so those 1% who are wealthy are VERY wealthy.

Those very wealthy ones can pretty much run America to suit themselves, if they have the desire to. It is no longer possible for an "average" American to reach higher public office than state legislature (and usually not even that high), due to the massive amounts of cash required to run.

Please remember, sometimes the media out there in the rest of the world doesn't tell the whole truth, either -- not as lies, but maybe they don't see it as relevant to what they want their stories to say, so they don't say it.

Among all of those Americans you met, you didn't meet people like me, because I and most everyone else with average incomes won't have the money to go to SA, or do world travel. You do meet missionaries, but they come with an agenda, as you've said. My step-brother has been a missionary in Central and South America for all his adult life, and he fits the profile you described. Unfortunately.

first of all, let me say that i am fully aware that most who read this posting are Brits. And, let me tell you, from some of the stuff i have experienced on here in my three weeks here, that is a pretty scary situation. Nevertheless, i WILL say what i think needs to be said here.....

your posting was doubtless filled with that famously dry Brit wit... and i take offense.

Why? Because where is the counterpoint? Did she make videos in other countries showing the lack of knowledge that the average citizen on the street has there? Or is your subtle dry Brittish humour inferring, to those in the know... Brits... that only in America is the average citizen on the street so ignorant?

It has been very difficult to 'fit in' here... why? Because, unfortunately, it appears that those who are active here in conversations are the rude kind, the callous and unempathetic. And, also, those mean nasty horrible unfriendly people also appear to be Brits. At least in my experience here.

Sooo... actually, it appears that you dont have to provide an counterpoint to your mean spirited post... your posting itself is a counterpoint message of whats wrong with BRITS!!

Ok... the moderator in those videos was a guy... i confess i didn't watch them for two reasons: one, i was on a sloooow dial-up and it wouldn't run them. two, i have seen some of them on american tv.... yes we laugh at ourselves.... but this stuff made me cry... its so indicative of what has happened to America.

And... i see that the person who i was replying to... cl zoomer... is canadian.

And... to clarify... i do not think that everyone who posts in conversations is all those bad things i mentioned.... only a small vocal minority... who do indeed give Brits a bad name because most of them have been Brits.

i liked this thread and subscribed to it because i think dialogue about differences can clear up a lot of misconceptions. But when nasty little posts like cl zoomer's appear it just makes me feel bad and and makes me feel small. i am now, at this point in my sojourn here, totally intimidated... previewing and repreviewing my posts to make sure not only that the english is correct... but that i havent done some horrible unfathomable gaff to outrage the Brits on here. And, yes, again, i realise i have run into the naysayers... who are probably a minority... but you should know i did not go looking for them... they just appear in my space.

The way i feel now i dont want to be here anymore.... i can imagine cheers coming from across the pond at that revelation... high fives all around... yes another stupid yank down... now who is next?


i think Douglas Adams said this site was for all the world, not just for Brits.... but from what i have experienced here... misunderstanding, snubbing, rudeness and out-and-out attacks... its small wonder most of the posters here are Brits.

First off, yes I am Canadian. If you look at the related video links beside most of those Australian videos when they are played you will find one of Canada's comedians (Rick Mercer) asking questions of US citizens that show up their knowledge of Canada. If you want to, just watch Jay Leno when he does his *Man in the Street* interviews, they generally show how dense the average person can be when caught unawares.

Secondly, this thread is over 8,000 posts long! I remember when it was started and I remember when it was generally abandoned when it was decided that YES, some citizens of the US are woefully ignorant of the rest of the world but NO there is nothing *wrong* with Americans. (Actually at one point I mentioned that *Americans* include all the citizens of the Americas so I like to refer to y'all as USAians)

The backlog may be daunting but have a look, you might be pleasantly surprised.

I do apologise if what I said caused offence, I only think that a (relative) lack of an independant media can cause an unworldlyness in any population, I am also concerned that the UK is heading this way as well,

I am an American (living in Texas, no less), and while I have not read all the replies (which may even include my own), I do agree America has problems. My opinions include the preference for celebrity over expertise, credentials over education, style over substance, etc. It bothers me that Oprah and Dr. Phil have become the oracles.

But Christopher Lasch said it better in books like "The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations" (1979 with an update in 1991). From Wikipedia:

"Lasch posited that social developments in the 20th century (e.g., World War II and the rise of consumer culture in the years following) gave rise to a narcissistic personality structure, in which individuals’ fragile self-concepts leads, among other things, to a fear of commitment and lasting relationships (including religion), a dread of aging (i.e., the 1960s and 1970s "youth culture") and a boundless admiration for fame and celebrity (nurtured initially by the motion picture industry and furthered principally by television)."

That can't be good.

I see it this way, just as national and international economic trends seem to erode the middle class, social and educational trends seem to erode those who had at least a bit of awareness of the world around us. We're dividing into rich and/or world-aware people and poor people scrambling for wealth who often tend to ignore everything that doesn't directly affect them.

Is that plausible?

>>(Actually at one point I mentioned that *Americans* include all the citizens of the Americas so I like to refer to y'all as USAians) <<

It's true -- when people are being derogatory or at least critical, the Americans (like in the title of this thread) they're referring to are the Middle North Americans.

Not the Northern North Americans (Canadians), the Soutnern North Americans (Mexicans), and not the Central Americans or the South Americans...all of whom are indeed Americans!

So, USAians it is.

>> I see it this way, just as national and international economic trends seem to erode the middle class, social and educational trends seem to erode those who had at least a bit of awareness of the world around us. We're dividing into rich and/or world-aware people and poor people scrambling for wealth who often tend to ignore everything that doesn't directly affect them.

Is that plausible? <<

That's an interesting way to put it. Let me ask a slightly different question:

Do other countries see the same degree of class separation as we're seeing in the US, with such a wide gulf between the classes that it's unlikely transition between them will even be possible, soon?

>>>>it's true -- when people are being derogatory or at least critical, the Americans (like in the title of this thread) they're referring to are the Middle North Americans.

Not the Northern North Americans (Canadians), the Soutnern North Americans (Mexicans), and not the Central Americans or the South Americans...all of whom are indeed Americans!

So, USAians it is. <<<

no

everyone else in the americas has a country name by which they are refered to... Canadians Mexicans Brazilians Cubans etc ..........and we are the ones who are called Americans.... from our country name of "The United States of America"

you can discuss us...ridicule us... bash us... do whatever you like... but you CANNOT rename us.

Um, sorry, but they are *also* Americans, in that they live in either North, Central or South America. This is in the same way that people who live in Europe are referred to, as a group, as Europeans, as well as the name of their individual nationalities, Danish, Spanish, Germans, French, Austrians, etc.

I think you weren't following the context, fluffykerfluffle, that the designation above, as "USAians", is for the purposes of this thread, and was meant in a jocular tone.

I'm a citizen of the USA, too, BTW.

"I think you weren't following the context, fluffykerfluffle, that the designation above, as "USAians", is for the purposes of this thread, and was meant in a jocular tone."

What's the point, though? When people say "Americans" everyone knows that they're not referring to Canadians. Nobody's going to be confused by a thread saying "Americans this" and "Americans that" because they thought they were talking about Mexicans. It's a solution to a "problem" that doesn't even exist.