So on to this whole Obama thing. Having watched Thirteen Days on the weekend with Mister Aurelius himself, we talked about JFK and how things would have turned out if he had not been killed. What started off as a decade of hope and optimism in the 60s, gradually turned into a culture of fear, ignorance and stupidity that brought about some hardcore conservatism in the United States in the 70s and 80s - the outcome of which we are still seeing today. But what's important to remember is the great speeches that JFK had as President. His speechwriters were brilliant at using positive, inspiring words to get citizens to act. And in that, I thought he was a useful leader. Obama came to power by using the same rhetoric in his campaign speeches and what not. It was exciting to see a relatively young leader connect with people in such a way. I'm convinced that there is racist element in America that likes to blame his presidency for all the problems in their lives - a lot not even related to politics. However, I am now certain that the Presidency was a big mistake. I don't believe in the hype because it's all a bunch of lies. These latest revelations regarding the NSA and its surveillance activities on everyone is horrific. It's unconstitutional and it spits in the face of the very soldiers who go to war and die against the same sort of tyranny. Yet you ask a lot of people and they will say this sort of spying is justified. So what about when your enemies do it? Is it justified then? Or only you can be the good guys, because you're on that side and you can't possibly be wrong? What a betrayal of the American people.
Glenn Greenwald (the American journalist who helped break the Edward Snowden NSA leaks stuff) commented that he is afraid of these former left wing types who were critical of conservative governments pulling these sort of unconstitutional tactics, and now they are the ones pulling it off. You get the NSA heads all lying to congress and to the people about the extent of their activities, and nobody is pulling them up on it. I fail to believe, because this is not how a democratically elected government should act, especially with regard to foreign policy, as well as domestic policy. I think Americans are probably the worst treated citizens by its own Government throughout the entire developed world. As long as they are kept in the dark and spending money on things they don't need, the government is happy, and sadly, so are the people. When you factor in things such as Bin Laden's murder - I don't care if it was State sponsored, or if Bin Laden was a bad guy (which he was), to authorise a military attack on a nuclear equipped sovereign nation in order to assassinate someone, who they may not be aware of is actually living in their country, just wreaks of arrogance and stupidity. What if something went wrong? What if the military stealth helicopters were attacked? What if Pakistan didn't take kindly to being invaded? Technically that was an act of war, and Pakistan would be allowed to retaliate in kind. But to not bring Bin Laden to justice through trial and evidence, and then on top of that, throwing his body out to sea - what kind of civilised society is this? If we go to war for American ideals, shouldn't we be upholding those ideals at all times? Then folks will say terrorists don't follow those rules, so why should we? Well I say if we sink to their depths, then there's really no difference between them or us, and there's no right, there's no wrong.
Also had an interesting discussion on nuclear weapons, with regard to game theory and how things could play out in simulated scenarios. In a nuclear war, the only option that makes sense is first strike with no possibility of retaliation. The only way this would be possible is if you could allow your missiles to strike in a limited timeframe. The issue is that modern changes in technology have resulted in mutually assured destruction being the most likely outcome in most nuclear war scenarios. Essentially if you strike at someone, they will have enough time to launch a retaliatory strike against you. So if you press the proverbial button, you're effectively signing your own death warrant. This is why you don't really see nuclear weapons being used in wars. If there's unusual rounds being used, they tend to be chemical in nature, to ensure mass destruction at a cheaper cost (conventional ammunition doesn't do as much damage, so you need to pay more to buy more and do the same amount of damage). It's like the Macchiavelian principle, if you take over a society, you have to completely destroy them, because they won't ever forget what you did to them and somewhere down the line you will pay the price. First strike allows you to do this, because if there is no chance of retaliation, you're essentially the winner of the conflict in just a few minutes, with most likely no cost to your own defence force. But I guess the problem is that there are a lot of allied nations with nuclear weapons and if you took out one country, I'm sure there would be other countries ready to take you out. It also doesn't get into the complex situation of certain countries having their nuclear stockpile in other countries.
Oh my god, it's only Wednesday!! I thought it was Thursday! Won't this week ever end?? Goddamn it!
I should find out more. Or do I come out on top?
We'll find out.
Joaquin out.
