I skipped the presidential debate last night. I heard it was little more than a "question period", nothing really worth noting. However, something that has had my hackles up all night is the proposed NMD. Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Defense Minister Bill Graham seem to be all for the idea in wrapping Canada in a blanket of null-defense. Obviously, they must have missed all those reports that spoke of the failure of the Patriot Missile System.
Its sad that people would be so bought into the notion of security, that they would was something in the ballpark of $43 Billion when all is said and done. All this, and for a system that wouldn't work anyway. Its like arming yourself with a golden wuffle bat to protect yourself from being poisoned. The next, and most obvious step, would be to replace the Patriots with active Medium Range nuclear weapons. Why not? It seems logical that if you can't hit the "incoming" nukes with metal tipped patriots, you could at least blow them out of the sky.
Which reminds me... other than Iran and North Korea, there are no serious contenders for a hostile nuclear arms program. Unless you count the US of course. Upgrading the nuclear arsenal and building an NMD has just brought the Cold War back. Hell, if I was Iran or North Korea, I'd want nukes too. There is absolutely nothing other than brute force that can protect non-democratic nations these days. With unilateral action, the US has shown that it can do whatever it wants, and then strongarm everyone else into submission. Naturally, it creates an atmosphere of internation fear and paranoia.
Fear and Paranoia?
Yeah, its the same thing that allows fearsome dictators to remain in power. I'm sure, in North Korea, the people have been told that the only thing protecting them from the imminent invasion of the Capitalist US is the glorious Communist party. Are they right? Well, we'll have to see what kind of action the US takes with regards to North Korea, won't we? For all we know, they'll be right.
How to spread democracy:
Rather than using smoke and mirrors, assasination, strongarming, and threats to spread democracy, the US should follow its own example. This doesn't just apply to the US though. Canada, Britain, Australia, just about any developed democratic nation is victim to its own apathy. I find it bitter and discomforting that we are literally cramming the giant appendage that is Democracy down the Iraqi people's collective throats, when we ourselves call a 45% turnout for a federal election a "record high". We don't even practice our own fundamental right to vote, so why in the flaming dung would we want to impose that on someone else? And why would we "establish" an "interim" government first? Why not get right into the election, rather than make a puppet sign the pages to create Iraq an oil-well for the US?
Profit maybe?
Also as a note, Bush rails against everyone opposed to the Iraq War that the US was not safer with Saddam in power. Agreed. However, it was Bush's method of blowing into Iraq, like so many other imperial dictators that earned him the ire of the world. Had he stopped to wait for a moment, the UN might have come to the aid, and Bush's coalition would consist of something more than US soldiers and mercenaries. (I'm well aware of France's pending veto, but doing so would have likely gotten them ejected from the Permanent Table at the security council).
Ah, well, not much I can do here right now.
One last question for the intellects out there:
Who is the enemy of the US?
No comments:
Post a Comment