During the course of human events, gross comparisons arise that somehow incorporate the combined evils of Paul Hogan, Australia, Hitler, and my car. This brings me to a story. One day, Hitler decided to buy an Australian car and go to the most arcane place in the world to drive it. Unfortunately he realized to late that the outback was really Japanese and that he had been had. To remedy this, he blamed the Jews, attacked Poland, and started WWII. Upon taking over France, Hitler encountered a little operation called Renault and began selling many products from it, namely Pepsi. The worst of these products was creation XX-0032, code named "caffeine-free diet Pepsi" After the creators discovered the hideousness of what they had created, they locked it away realizing it had no practical usage whatsoever. But a fiendish lab assistant stole the formula and repackaged it as "Pepsi blue." Whoever drinks this evil is walking on the graves of the great creators of such pop legends as Barq's, Fanta (orange), vanilla coke, and coke, and is demonstrating the horrible nature of capitalism. For shame. Evil is still around us, even as you throw back that 12 oz can of astatine sweetened, yellow #5 colored, refreshment.
Although I continue to disagree with you Gross for reasons you refuse to comprehend, I will go along with your topic change. Assuming that in war, and under the influence of a tremendous amount of propaganda, German soldiers were often little more than young graduates of a society that Allied Sanctions ripped to shreds with the various treaties following the end of WWI. In my opinion, without this existing tension the Hitler's rise to power may have been significantly slowed or stunted. Thus, it is impossible to place all of the blame for the war and its atrocities on the Germans although no doubt some degree of blame does fall on those who undertook Hitler's mania. Bearing in mind they too faced horrible fates by being labeled "political undesirables." Somewhere along the line though, one or more factors disabled the conscience of Germans and allowed Hitler's atrocities to go on. In light of that, my question to you all is...
What played a greater role in disabling the moral conscious of the German people and army; the remorseless brutality of Hitler and his propaganda machine, or pre-existing factors that primed the German people to accept whatever form of Government/policy that could bring some kind of prosperity the fastest?
At this point in time I would like to apologize for dignifying Gross's remarks with a response. On the subject of NHS though, this may be the only place on earth where we realize (or at least are willing to admit) the current futility of NHS at Hopkins. I am not a very big fan of Nate Wanderman or his predecessors as they have been content to use NHS as nothing more than a bullet on their college apps. Ben is willing to work to strip NHS of its unsavory reputation as futile by ensuring that it?s activities are targeted at the school as a whole not specific groups. The man knows what he's doing, and his work ethic and aspirations for NHS will bring legitimacy back to the group and can only make the school a better place for current and future classes.
Gross, yes I do drive a WRX, but there are a few small differences...
-The WRX gets 24 miles per gallon not 8
(The hummer can go 256 miles on a 32-gallon tank; the WRX could go 768 miles on the same amount of fuel)
-Its not loaded up with absurd options like a 9,000 lb winch
-Yes it does serve a purpose (it gets me somewhere faster than I can walk)
-My family didn't buy it because we wanted to qualm fears of inadequacy
-It costs less than half of a hummer
-It isn't designed to kill the other guy
-It was designed to drive on roads. The hummer was designed for an off road environment in which most people will never drive
I have never made my car the subject of a conversation and have only talked about it when prompted to. I have never done anything with status as my rationale; you have known me long enough to know that.
Yesterday I was pulling into work when I noticed something. The hugest SUV I have ever seen was conveniently taking up 2 of the most prime spots in the lot. I was on time so I had time to find another spot farther away and I only gave it a second thought when I noticed how an old woman was also forced to park in the back of the lot (the handicap spots were full). Then I saw the driver of the monster behemoth, a well-dressed 5'4" tall woman with her two young sons who ironically enough were dressed for soccer practice. Minnesotans in particular have shown a dangerous susceptibility to what I call "need a bigger car than the other guy and use the weather to justify it" syndrome. This highly contagious disease seems to only affect those who are so desperate to qualm their own fears of inadequacy that they buy giant colorfully painted rolling squares to the tune of $49,000 to $56,000. But lets not forget all of the difficult choices. I mean, if you?re going to become the newest bad as* on the block there?s going to be some pain involved.
But seriously, General Motors (the proud parents of the Hummer H2) recognizes your needs and offers the following options...
First do you go with the...
-Base model for $49,270
-The "Lux" series model for $52,070
(about the price of 104,140 cans of Mountain Dew at 50? a can)
-Or my personal favorite the "Adventure" series, perfectly designed for those days when you feel like taking a left-turn in the right-turn only lane, and which any mother who truly cares about the safety of little Jimmy would have no-regrets about spending $51,710 for.
But wait, why not accessorize with options!
After all God forbid you should be caught downtown without the $850 Chrome Appearance Package or be stranded on the trail of life for not paying a miniscule $1400 extra for leather-trimmed seats. (see www.hummer.com for the full list of absurdity)
The marketing program for the H2 has been no less insulting to human dignity. For the woman who is looking to "intimidate men in a whole new way" (as a recent commercial for the H2 proclaimed) why not skip the Mercedes S500 (yours for $125,000) and go American. For men, may I suggest skipping the gold-plated chainsaw as a trophy to your masculinity and instead bring out the animal within by acquiring a "well proportioned" Hummer H2. After all what better way to show the world that you mean business than with a 16 foot long, 4 ton hunk with a 32 gallon fuel tank. You'll be able to proudly pull any lesser man out of a bind with your industrial strength winch (so long as he doesn't exceed your winch's 9,000 lb capacity). Americans have the gift of space and government subsidized gas. If you drove one of these things in Europe you would probably be shot for paying $192 to fill up your tank (gas cost 5 to 6 bucks a gallon there).
It?s time to face the music. Less than 5% of all SUV's will ever see those beautiful off-road paradises you see in the commercials, and judging how Hummers make up less than one percent of SUV?s on the road, I think you've got a pretty good picture of just how badly we need these things. Except for a select few, the most daring drive anyone will take in an H2 will be a midnight run to Cub foods. But hey, if your the concerned parent or insecure suburbanite who really needs one of these things to make sure that in an accident you're safe and the other guy is dead, then for just fifty grand you'll know than when you run a red light and you hear a crunch, little Jimmy in the back seat is going to be just fine.
Jesse on Ewoks: (cute * (smart + little) )^(hard to ketch) = ewoks kicking ass
Paul on wookies: (brute force + utility belt) = certain death for ewok and those medling kids
Kudos to you Gross for sugar coating the continued ineptitude of the UN Security Council, grossly exaggerating the facts, and manipulating the truth. To you, the Security Council's failure to act upon the blatant disregard of its resolutions by the Iraqi government was the result of the UN respecting sovereignty. If that was the case, then what right does the UN have to enter Iraqi territory now that Sadam's regime has been overthrown. According to your interpretation, the UN would be violating sovereignty. Contrary to what you wrote, this refusal to follow through on blatant violations of its policy has everything to do with rebuilding Iraq. The decade long incompetence of the council raises serious questions as to the ability of the council to make the hard decisions rebuilding Iraq will entail. I talk about humanitarian aide, because at the moment, the coalition (primarily the US and England) are paying for it, and on that note, are the ones who fought to open the port and the supply lines to deliver it to the Iraqi people. The UN had more than a decade to address the situation in Iraq, but as I documented, refused to make the hard decisions that were required to prevent the escalation of the Iraqi situation. The UN had the ball in its court for 13 years but was content doing little more than pass the burden from meaningless resolution to meaningless resolution. How can you have such blind faith that an organization, whose track record in Iraq over the last decade has been such a dismal failure, with the job of rebuilding a nation torn apart by 30 years of terror? There is a clear distinction between a democratically elected government and one that worships the ground the US walks on, though your ability to blur the two blows me away. Perhaps you missed the thousands of Iraqi's celebrating at Sadam's demise.
As badly as I hoped the UN would intervene and take action, in light of their failure to do so, I would rather see the US, UK, Australia, S. Korea, e.t.c. handle efforts to rebuild the country. In terms of Aide, the US fought to reopen the door to sufficient humanitarian aid operations. The UN's only response to the Iraq issue was to put in place an oil for food program (the majority of the proceeds of this program have been funneled into Sadam's coffers not the welfare of his people. In addition to that, you easily cast aside the fact that Sadam has embezzled nearly $7 Billion and not spent a cent on his people. The UN has developed a bad habit of ensuring itself in a web of resolutions, forcing alternate coalitions to act. Gross, you have demonstrated a tremendous ability to latch onto information you find favorable, and blindly reject information that refutes your beliefs. While you are correct that toppling Sadam's establishment will have a tremendous impact on the middle east and indeed the world, you seem to have eliminated the very real possibility that this change can and will be for the betterment of Iraq and the world; be more careful with your use of the "regime" word and let the situation play out before you assume a worst-case scenario that is yet to manifest itself.
April 3, 1991: United Nations Security Council Resolution UNSCR 687 is passed. The resolution calls for the following
1.) Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
[-Coalition forces are finding this stuff as we speak]
2.) Iraq must "unconditionally agree" not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
[-Documentation has been found of Iraqi attempts to acquire both refined nuclear material and the equipment needed to refine unprocessed nuclear ore into useable weapons; as well as the equipment needed to launch ballistic missiles]
3.) Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
[-Several weapons including Scuds have been fired against Kuwait in the current engagement while others have been modified for range in excess of 150KM. The firing of a Scud was proof of Iraq?s failure to comply as the weapons have a range of 298 KM (roughly 185 miles)
-British reports indicate the Iraq also has around 20 Al-Hussein missiles that have a range of 644KM and can be tipped with biological or chemical weapons]
-According to CNN Iraq also has an unknown number of FAW 200 cruise missiles that have an operational range of 200 KM.]
4.) Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
[-See Chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds in 1988]
5.) Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
[-UNSCOM and the IEA were expelled from Iraq after they began to make headway exposing Baghdad?s widespread failure to comply.]
6.) Iraq must fully declare its weapons of mass destruction programs.
[-Documentation has been found of the continuation of Iraqi efforts to obtain and produce weapons of mass destruction, that have remained undeclared]
7.) Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
[-Coalition Troops have found a number of Terrorist Training Camps in
Northern Iraq]
And so it began...
A total of 17 resolutions were passed between 1991 and the passage of Security Council resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 which called for:
-An immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
-UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
-[Also contained reminder that] the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations
It has been a decade long story that has shown the inability of the Security Council to act back up its words with action, and enforce its' mandates when and where they are violated. The Council knew full well that Iraq was violating its resolutions. However instead of taking the action necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance in the future, it "condemned" or ?deplored 10 times the failure of Iraq to abide by conditions set by the Council (this being more than just the United States.)
Other Iraqi Infractions recognized by the Security Council are documented in:
UNSCR 1060 : "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
UNSCR 1134: Repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060
UNSCR 1137: "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and it?s tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
UNSCR 1205: Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 ?to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Yet, people remain convinced that the UN is capable of making the hard decisions needed to rebuild a country ravaged by thirty years of terror that runs so deep; Iraqi civilians eager to see Sadam gone are still haunted by his barbaric though now faltering regime. The UN can and should play a significant role in Humanitarian relief, but it?s track record over the past decade has proven that the UN is incapable of making tough choices in a timely manner even when the Iraqi Government has eliminated all doubt of their refusal to comply with the UN. After a decade of condemnation and inaction, a number of people would rather put the UN back in charge of rebuilding a country whose regime it repeatedly failed to keep in check. The US and its allies will finish the job in Iraq for just as we haven?t abandoned Afghanistan and we will not abandon Iraq. Under the "watchful eye" of the UN, Iraq has managed to keep a $7 Billion black market program alive. Instead of using the money ease the plight of the Iraqi people, the Iraqi leadership funnels the money into the pockets and the bank accounts of the Iraqi elite. Palaces, lavish cars, foreign assets, the Iraqi leadership has been keen to spend the both legitimate and illegitimate funds on everything except the welfare of the Iraqi people. The Security Council has had over a decade to bring accountability to its efforts in Iraq, only to remain complacent in it?s ineptitude.
