Sunday, March 24, 2013

Answer me this

For all the freedom loving, gun toting, "it's my right to be armed to the teeth" crowd, please, answer me this question:

If you take that "right to bear arms" to an international level, why does the US have the right to tell any other country what weapons they can & can't have?

The US is the first country to develop nuclear weapons.
The US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare
The US uses spent uranium in warheads, which is kind of like "nuclear bomb light".

Another issue- that pesky problem of being self-declared "good guys".  The US (we) are safe & sane, therefore, we are justified in having the largest stockpiles of nuclear bombs, worldwide.
Problem is maybe having pre emptive war against a country not involved in the 911 attack, was not sane. Leaving bin Laden to roam freely in Pakistan, while destroying Iraq did not install freedom & democracy at gunpoint never did come to fruition.

The notion that we are the sane good ones, comes under scrutiny, when prisoner abuses took place (although Rumsfeld regrets pictures were taken & released- he regrets being caught, not the torture itself). The creation of the Gitmo prison-- not on US soil, but far, far away- so they are not technically "prisoners" but "detainees". So remote, that abuse is likely standard.
Remember when the newly elected President Obama signed his very first executive order in 2008?
Shut down Gitmo within the year's end.
Reality check, it's 2013 & Girmo is still up & running.
Let's face it when detainees go on starvation strikes & are force fed by feeding tubes, one can assume conditions there are so bad, those imprisoned would rather die, it can't be good.

There are the matters of water boarding, rendition, munitions embedded w spent uranium, accidental killing of innocents, and drone bomb strikes.

Actual postage stamp
Annihilation for Peace?

Who does determine which are the sane good guys & which are the mad men who should not possess such deadly weapons?

While I am questioning sanity-- have a glimpse of our own self imposed obsession of having the biggest, best (worst?) bombs.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A time lapse of nuclear explosions/testing from 1948 to 1998- so the last 15 years of data is missing.

Until November 1962, the vast majority of the U.S. tests were above-ground; after the acceptance of the Partial Test Ban Treaty all testing was regulated underground, in order to prevent the dispersion of nuclear fallout. Between 1940 and 1996, the U.S. spent at least $8.63 trillion in present day terms on nuclear weapons development. As of February 2006, over $1.2 billion in compensation was paid to U.S. citizens exposed to nuclear hazards as a result of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, and by 1998 at least $759 million was paid to the Marshallese Islanders in compensation for their exposure to U.S. nuclear testing.

In 2010 the United States maintained an arsenal of 5,113 warheads and facilities for their construction and design, though many of the Cold War facilities have since been deactivated and are sites for environmental remediation. (Good luck w that! Hanford is oozing toxic/radioactive goo in 2013).

In closing, perhaps Gandhi's grandson has it right, you have to be insane just to want weapons.
At what point does good turn bad, and who determines the standard.

My point, I don't think Iran should have nuclear weapons.
I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons.
Self appointing one's country as official good guys means everyone can do the same.
I think this same theory applies to individual gun owners.
Put the kibosh on open flow of high capacity, rapid fire weaponry to try to steer towards sanity.

There will always be mad men, and the mad men will probably always think they are sane & reasonable ~ therein lies the problem.

No comments: