|
you said "He destroyed the anti-ballistic missile treaty, has destroyed treaties to stop military weapons in space".
you know, most people thought I was nuts when i was telling them about how the us was trying to implement a ballistic missle program for space that would allow them to stike any target the size of a mack truck (+) on any given point on the globe. then i read an article about it in an aerospace magazine in the waiting room of my doctor's office. now, i'm definitely no conspiracy nut. but that scared even me.
and this all brings me to a sudden thought now, why all the war mongering? i mean, i know about wilsonian idealsim, and how the war in the middle east is only about oil superfically; that the war is really about trying to set up a democracy in that region so that we can get them to play ball with everyone like south america. which is why we backed saddam in the first place until he decided to invade kuwait and everyone looked at the us like "uh, america, you're boy over there is acting up you know..." and we reacted like "ah shit...well...i guess we have to clean this up now" because after all, america isn't entirely evil. but i find it disturbing that we tend to cater towards things that fancy our own ends and interests while exuding this nationalist aura of a compassionate nation trying to save the world from evil doers. if that were entirely true, we would be more diplomatic, and the peace corpe would be worth a shit. anyway, i got off track...
why all the war mongering? ok, this war mongering, i think, stems from one of the greatest social delimas of modern times, one that is widely and tacitly recognized but greatly neglected: the problem of security. if anyone is curious about this, check out Foucault. i just recently picked up a book of his i had shelved. The problem of security, for us (citizens of the world population), is that the degree of security that is demanded (either by citizens or leaders, depending on the situation) is proportional to the degree of liberty that is granted. so if we want to be free from airplane bound terrorists, our airports have to be heavily policed and we have to wait in long lines and have personal searches. which isn't a big deal to me at all. but you can see where it goes from there.
recently at the mall i work at, someone was shot. security is slack, for sure, as my car has been broken into, an old lady killed, a rape, and now 3 gunshots since the 4 years i've been there. now, to secure the mall and it's customers from this, they could place metal detectors at all of the doors (which by the way can be unlocked with ANY key), cameras (which really only serve to give the criminal something to think twice about), city police forces who could implement profiling to pick the potential criminals out of the mass, and allowing the security gaurds to carry guns and legal use of them, not to mention the searches that would take place of suspects. Now all of this compromises everyone's liberty to some degree. it makes sense to implement all of this, sure, but hopefully you see my point. Foucault is better at it than i am.
so i guess all of this is to be defensive enough for a nation to ensure security, which only seems possible in a totalitarian police state, which is hardly what one would call a free nation, as liberty is decreased as security is increased. i feel it is by education alone that the world could be "saved". you may call me a dreamer, but i'm not the only one...
|