Friday, March 21, 2008
WMDs
On going topic that I will expand and add to. This was too great to pass up.
Another example of pure awesomeness (hypocrisy). WMDs, or weapons of mass destruction, are not allowed for other countries, but they are allowed in the United States. The concept MAD, or mutually accepted destruction, was developed during the cold war era. This concept basically says that if you launch nuclear/biological weapons at another country, the recipient country will retaliate while the WMDs are enroute with their own nuclear/biological weapons. Thus, destroying both countries. If I die, you die too, in essence.
It's amazing to me that the UN weapons inspector does not have the authority to inspect the weapons of the United States. That is tyrannical and hypocritical in nature and practicality.
Having the UN headquarters in New York is the worst thing to happen. The UN being founded by "the big three" and controlled by "the big three" in the start was the most terrible idea. What epistemological reasoning did people consent to this? The UN is such a great tool, a tool that is, once again, abused by richer countries. Quite frankly, the UN should be removed from U.S soil and moved to a neutral, impartial dominion like Sweden. The U.N goes by a typical voting system similar to that of how representatives in congress, or the House of Commons is. The number of "votes" you have depends on the population ones country has. I have no complaints about that.
What I do have a complaint with are that some countries (the "big three," for example) have the power to veto bills, resolutions and votes developed in the U.N. What purpose does the power of vetoing a WORLD vote have other than centralizing bills that are detrimental to your country's stranglehold on another? I think that is downright dirty.
Another example of pure awesomeness (hypocrisy). WMDs, or weapons of mass destruction, are not allowed for other countries, but they are allowed in the United States. The concept MAD, or mutually accepted destruction, was developed during the cold war era. This concept basically says that if you launch nuclear/biological weapons at another country, the recipient country will retaliate while the WMDs are enroute with their own nuclear/biological weapons. Thus, destroying both countries. If I die, you die too, in essence.
It's amazing to me that the UN weapons inspector does not have the authority to inspect the weapons of the United States. That is tyrannical and hypocritical in nature and practicality.
Having the UN headquarters in New York is the worst thing to happen. The UN being founded by "the big three" and controlled by "the big three" in the start was the most terrible idea. What epistemological reasoning did people consent to this? The UN is such a great tool, a tool that is, once again, abused by richer countries. Quite frankly, the UN should be removed from U.S soil and moved to a neutral, impartial dominion like Sweden. The U.N goes by a typical voting system similar to that of how representatives in congress, or the House of Commons is. The number of "votes" you have depends on the population ones country has. I have no complaints about that.
What I do have a complaint with are that some countries (the "big three," for example) have the power to veto bills, resolutions and votes developed in the U.N. What purpose does the power of vetoing a WORLD vote have other than centralizing bills that are detrimental to your country's stranglehold on another? I think that is downright dirty.
Liberty?
This is really no surprise anymore. A lot of people tend to dislike Michael Moore for many non empiricist reasons. They simply dislike him because they disagree, but disagree with what? Other than Fahrenheit 911, which received a counter documentary from Al Gore's political party (Fahrenhype 911), Michael Moore seems to be the one giving you the photo evidence of these things happening. Even though Al Gore's party believes the election was fair - Al Gore, on numerous occasions still questions it's authenticity. I think he knows that he should have won. But that's not the point of it all.
It still amazes me, and it will always amaze me in such a typical fashion.
Americans, be more of a hypocrite, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)