Secret Squirrel, never being one to ignore his financial and economic researches, found, on the OMRLP site, hardly surprisingly,the Official Monster Raving Loony site, that being http://www.omrlp.com/ a readily plausible and highly understandable, and simple, (even the most utterly ignorant of all frenchmen, their politicians,could understand this), explanation, on how economic bailout packages work, specificly that involving Greece and Italy,but Squirrel believes it highly applicable and self- explanatory with respect to other nations of Europe, and also the U.K. itself.
Herewith I share with you the wise MRL explanation of bailout packages, how they work, the very mechanics of the thing,a thing most definitly not to be missed...........here peruse the explanation.........
Here commences the economic explanational epistle...........
HOW THE GREEK & ITALIAN BAILOUT WILL WORK IN VERY SIMPLE TERMS:
It is a slow day in a little Greek Village.
The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted.
Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys and as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmers’ Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks and food bill at the taverna.
The taverna owner slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him “services” on credit.
The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.
The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works!!
Here doth end the wisdom of the MRL epistle.
Secret Squirrel,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering,
MP,MRL,(Dunny On The Wold),
MRL.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Secret Squirrel On Nazism Being Introduced By The U.S. Senate.
Secret Squirrel has discovered an amazing development in America, a development quietly,hidden by, ignored by, the
press,the media, a media and press pulling the blinders over the eyes of Americans, a media covering the ears of the American people, a media muzzling the mouths of Americans, such that they did not, could not, see,nor hear nor comment on a very dangerous development in America, the introduction of a bill through the Senate of America, a development which is clearly and most certainly a development of Nazism in America.
The American Senate is to vote on a bill generated by the
likes of the militarist Senator John McCain,and the likes of the fascisti Carl Levin..a bill to allow American military
personnel to arrest Americans, in America,on the streets, in the bars, in the homes,in their gardens, and also yet further round and about the world.Imagine that,and yet the media has virtually ignored this development in it's entirety,even yet we hear no press,no media outcry against this bill.Strange, and also, for American, perhaps the saddest thing in their lives.
Yes indeed here see the headlines, at least, on the internet,as a matter of fact it was on the internet that Secret Squirrel's attention was attracted to these headlines.take a look for yourself.........
http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com/tag/national-defense-authorization-act-bil/
Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial Saturday, Nov 26 2011
Emerging Police State and News and Politics and Rise of Fascism, National Defense Authorization Act bill, police state, Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial, Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)
and at............
http://destructionist.wordpress.com/tag/national-defens... /
The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.
and at....
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/AN-EGYPTIAN-MILITARY-MODEL-IN-THE-U-S-BR-I-Could-U-S-military-emboldened-with
-impunity-of-new-law-up-for-Senate-vote-arrest-any-American-anywhere-anytime-and-for-anything-I-834822
AN EGYPTIAN MILITARY MODEL IN THE U.S.?
Could U.S. military, emboldened with impunity of new law up for Senate vote, arrest any American anywhere, anytime
and for anything?NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”.
It's no joke,it's not a hoax, it's real,very real, Nazism,Fascism in America, martial law, military rule,military law enacted on a civilian population besides their usual corruption within the Senate, now there rises the evil stench of militaristic Nazism.Imagine a militaristic rule,martial law, a rule by and of those not only uniformed, but non uniformed as well, a secret police bound by no laws themselves,the rule of the military,the policing of the people by the military, much as now occurs in Syria,Egypt and other stenchlike nations.
This bill was written in secret and approved by committee without
a single hearing. Senate Republicans support the bill and enough Democrats support it to give it a great chance of passing. This provision does have opponents. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill and even Ron Paul is concerned enough to bring it up during one of the GOP debates. An amendment called the Udall Amendment has been offered by Democratic Senator Mark Udall that would delete the dangerous provision.Amazingly,though, the bill has escaped mention in the media,all of the media.The U.S. Senate is getting set to vote on Monday or Tuesday on what critics refer to as a “worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial power for the military”One of the things Senators will be voting on in this bill is this: whether Congress will give President Obama and every future president the power to order the military to pick up and imprison - without charge or trial - American civilians anywhere in the world.The bill would define the whole of the United
States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial,it gives the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office all under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill.
Clearly this bill is most definately unconstitutional,The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America,yet the Senate would defy that supreme law,just as many Senators have abused,defied, defiled, and broken many of theh laws the American people are subject to. As a metter of fact they are quite clear in their nature............and should be to each and every Senator...assuming there are any left who respect and abide by the laws and constitution of America.........
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
and also these...........
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
All of those would quite clearly be suspended,revoked,removed from the people of American by this bill.It is pointed out that the provisions of the bill most certainly and most definately raise serious questions as to who Americans are as a society and what the Constitution seeks to protect. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil.
This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given
that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or
binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.
“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?” asks Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.We have been warning for over a decade that Americans would become the target of laws supposedly aimed at terrorists and enemy combatants. Alex Jones personally documented how U.S. troops were being trained to arrest U.S. citizens in the event of martial law during urban warfare training drills back in the 90′s. Under the the National Defense Authorization Act bill, no declaration of martial law is necessary since Americans would now be subject to the same treatment as suspected insurgents in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you thought that the executive assassination of American citizens abroad was bad enough, now similar powers will be
extended to the “homeland,” in other words, your town, your community, your back yard.This is a sad and deplorable time for
Americans, being ruled by a Senate that is sad and deplorable.It's America, one man, one vote, and soon that vote will be
decided for each and everyone,and they'll be told who they voted for before the fact.
press,the media, a media and press pulling the blinders over the eyes of Americans, a media covering the ears of the American people, a media muzzling the mouths of Americans, such that they did not, could not, see,nor hear nor comment on a very dangerous development in America, the introduction of a bill through the Senate of America, a development which is clearly and most certainly a development of Nazism in America.
The American Senate is to vote on a bill generated by the
likes of the militarist Senator John McCain,and the likes of the fascisti Carl Levin..a bill to allow American military
personnel to arrest Americans, in America,on the streets, in the bars, in the homes,in their gardens, and also yet further round and about the world.Imagine that,and yet the media has virtually ignored this development in it's entirety,even yet we hear no press,no media outcry against this bill.Strange, and also, for American, perhaps the saddest thing in their lives.
Yes indeed here see the headlines, at least, on the internet,as a matter of fact it was on the internet that Secret Squirrel's attention was attracted to these headlines.take a look for yourself.........
http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com/tag/national-defense-authorization-act-bil/
Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial Saturday, Nov 26 2011
Emerging Police State and News and Politics and Rise of Fascism, National Defense Authorization Act bill, police state, Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial, Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)
and at............
http://destructionist.wordpress.com/tag/national-defens... /
The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.
and at....
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/AN-EGYPTIAN-MILITARY-MODEL-IN-THE-U-S-BR-I-Could-U-S-military-emboldened-with
-impunity-of-new-law-up-for-Senate-vote-arrest-any-American-anywhere-anytime-and-for-anything-I-834822
AN EGYPTIAN MILITARY MODEL IN THE U.S.?
Could U.S. military, emboldened with impunity of new law up for Senate vote, arrest any American anywhere, anytime
and for anything?NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”.
It's no joke,it's not a hoax, it's real,very real, Nazism,Fascism in America, martial law, military rule,military law enacted on a civilian population besides their usual corruption within the Senate, now there rises the evil stench of militaristic Nazism.Imagine a militaristic rule,martial law, a rule by and of those not only uniformed, but non uniformed as well, a secret police bound by no laws themselves,the rule of the military,the policing of the people by the military, much as now occurs in Syria,Egypt and other stenchlike nations.
This bill was written in secret and approved by committee without
a single hearing. Senate Republicans support the bill and enough Democrats support it to give it a great chance of passing. This provision does have opponents. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill and even Ron Paul is concerned enough to bring it up during one of the GOP debates. An amendment called the Udall Amendment has been offered by Democratic Senator Mark Udall that would delete the dangerous provision.Amazingly,though, the bill has escaped mention in the media,all of the media.The U.S. Senate is getting set to vote on Monday or Tuesday on what critics refer to as a “worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial power for the military”One of the things Senators will be voting on in this bill is this: whether Congress will give President Obama and every future president the power to order the military to pick up and imprison - without charge or trial - American civilians anywhere in the world.The bill would define the whole of the United
States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial,it gives the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office all under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill.
Clearly this bill is most definately unconstitutional,The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America,yet the Senate would defy that supreme law,just as many Senators have abused,defied, defiled, and broken many of theh laws the American people are subject to. As a metter of fact they are quite clear in their nature............and should be to each and every Senator...assuming there are any left who respect and abide by the laws and constitution of America.........
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
and also these...........
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
All of those would quite clearly be suspended,revoked,removed from the people of American by this bill.It is pointed out that the provisions of the bill most certainly and most definately raise serious questions as to who Americans are as a society and what the Constitution seeks to protect. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil.
This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given
that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or
binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.
“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?” asks Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.We have been warning for over a decade that Americans would become the target of laws supposedly aimed at terrorists and enemy combatants. Alex Jones personally documented how U.S. troops were being trained to arrest U.S. citizens in the event of martial law during urban warfare training drills back in the 90′s. Under the the National Defense Authorization Act bill, no declaration of martial law is necessary since Americans would now be subject to the same treatment as suspected insurgents in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you thought that the executive assassination of American citizens abroad was bad enough, now similar powers will be
extended to the “homeland,” in other words, your town, your community, your back yard.This is a sad and deplorable time for
Americans, being ruled by a Senate that is sad and deplorable.It's America, one man, one vote, and soon that vote will be
decided for each and everyone,and they'll be told who they voted for before the fact.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On Britain's Economic Stimulus Payment.
Secret Squirrel comments, suggesting a UK Tax Guidance plan with respect to the British Tax Economic Stimulus Payment.
UK Tax Guidance
Sometime this year, we, the British taxpayers, will again receive another 'Economic Stimulus' payment..
This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:
Q. What is an 'Economic Stimulus' payment ?
A. It is money that the government will send to taxpayers.
Q.. Where will the government get this money ?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money ?
A. Only a smidgen of it.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment ?
A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q.. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.K. Economy by spending your stimulus cheque wisely:
* If you spend the stimulus money at Asda or Tesco, the money will go to China , Taiwan or Sri Lanka ...
* If you spend it on petrol, your money will go to the Arabs.
* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India , Taiwan or China ...
* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala ....
* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea ....
* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan ...
* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy shares, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.
Instead, keep the money in the UK by:
1) Spending it at car boot sales,
or
2) Going to night clubs, or
3) Spending it on
prostitutes,
or
4) Buying beer or whisky, or
5) Get yourself a Tattoo
or
6) Visit a bookie.
(These are the only UK owned domestic businesses still operating in the U.K. )
Conclusion:
Be patriotic - go to a night club with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a car boot sale and drink beer day and night !
No need to thank me, I'm just glad I could be of help.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,Dunny On The Wold,(MP),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
UK Tax Guidance
Sometime this year, we, the British taxpayers, will again receive another 'Economic Stimulus' payment..
This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:
Q. What is an 'Economic Stimulus' payment ?
A. It is money that the government will send to taxpayers.
Q.. Where will the government get this money ?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money ?
A. Only a smidgen of it.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment ?
A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q.. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.K. Economy by spending your stimulus cheque wisely:
* If you spend the stimulus money at Asda or Tesco, the money will go to China , Taiwan or Sri Lanka ...
* If you spend it on petrol, your money will go to the Arabs.
* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India , Taiwan or China ...
* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala ....
* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea ....
* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan ...
* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy shares, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.
Instead, keep the money in the UK by:
1) Spending it at car boot sales,
or
2) Going to night clubs, or
3) Spending it on
prostitutes,
or
4) Buying beer or whisky, or
5) Get yourself a Tattoo
or
6) Visit a bookie.
(These are the only UK owned domestic businesses still operating in the U.K. )
Conclusion:
Be patriotic - go to a night club with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a car boot sale and drink beer day and night !
No need to thank me, I'm just glad I could be of help.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,Dunny On The Wold,(MP),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Secret Squirrel Encourages The Banning Of Ownership Of Exotic Wild Animals.
Lions & Tigers & Bear,Lions & Tigers & Bears...it ain't Kansas, Dorothy.Secret Squirrel has noticed that it really isn't Kansas, and not the land of Oz either, but there are, in Ohio,lions and tigers and bears on the loose, and this has resulted in interesting headlines here as evidenced at...........
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/19/lions-tigers-and-bears-escape-from-ohio-animal-farm-as-cops-are-told-shoot-to-kill-115875-23499057/
and
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/us/ohio-animals-on-loose/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
and,of course, others.
One Terence(Terry) Thompson,had evidently let loose the animals he'd owned, and then killed himself,in his inhumanity,he let'em loose on humanity, on the human race, on Americans, on his fellow Americans, wild animals........lions and tiger and bear and whatever else all..........loose, out of their cages......so now the entire city is on lock down as police have to hunt and kill the animals, wild, animals a direct threat to ever man woman and child, as well, of course, their pets,lest we forget,and forget we not, as they search for...........FOOD, people are their food, lots of people, meat sacks running about, and their pets,of course. So now we have to question US laws which don't ban such things as the keeping a wild animals, classed as exotic or whatever they refer them to. Is there a reason to keep such animals, and so many.No there isn't it makes no sense.The Federal government in it's inadequacy doesn't act.Lions and tigers and bears.Lions and Tigers and Bears. All loose........loose because somebody was allowed,by law, to keep lions and tigers and bears.Lions and tigers and bears. Mind you the ridiculousness extends to all wild animals as such doesn't it, cheetahs,cougars,wolves,foxes whatever et all..and this occurrence is the epitome of the idiocy of the lack of laws banning the keeping of any exotic wild animal.Do you think for one minute the Federal government sees the sense in such a ban, or the State governments, or the local governments?No, idiots all,Americans, ruled by idiots, Americans live in the midst of an idiocracy, idiocratic governments,governments of ignorance and idiocy, making laws,all sorts of laws, laws for everything, but not sane laws such as banning the keeping of exotic wild animals,lions and tigers and bears,lions and tigers and bears,the lot of them.Of course we acknowledge that the local constabulary did a magnificent job, totally,utterly ,completely, and fortunate all round and for the people it was so, magnificent.But they should not have had to do that,they would not have had to do that should there be a law banning exclusively all exotic wild animals.
But,sadly, it is not so.Of course there are some who will not support and do not support such a law, those who keep or would keep such wild animals, but here we see the hazards,the dangers of keeping such wild animals.Interestingly he had complied with permits et ceterra as required for those animals, however, there should NOT have been any permits for such animals as it should never have been permitted to own such animals.As of November 2010, most US states forbid the possession of exotic pets, but 9 states have no license or permit requirements, and quite obviously these states are in dire need of such laws, especially Ohio.To commence with, local areas such as counties,cities and towns and whatever,in states lacking such laws, must initiate such laws at the earliest for their areas, enact and enforce them, whilst they wait for their state to follow the lead of the other states.Also it is for the Federal government to also enact and enforce their own ban on the keeping of such exotic wilds animals, and see to it that the states toe the line on those laws,for the good and safety of the American Citizen,there is a clear and present danger.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/19/lions-tigers-and-bears-escape-from-ohio-animal-farm-as-cops-are-told-shoot-to-kill-115875-23499057/
and
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/us/ohio-animals-on-loose/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
and,of course, others.
One Terence(Terry) Thompson,had evidently let loose the animals he'd owned, and then killed himself,in his inhumanity,he let'em loose on humanity, on the human race, on Americans, on his fellow Americans, wild animals........lions and tiger and bear and whatever else all..........loose, out of their cages......so now the entire city is on lock down as police have to hunt and kill the animals, wild, animals a direct threat to ever man woman and child, as well, of course, their pets,lest we forget,and forget we not, as they search for...........FOOD, people are their food, lots of people, meat sacks running about, and their pets,of course. So now we have to question US laws which don't ban such things as the keeping a wild animals, classed as exotic or whatever they refer them to. Is there a reason to keep such animals, and so many.No there isn't it makes no sense.The Federal government in it's inadequacy doesn't act.Lions and tigers and bears.Lions and Tigers and Bears. All loose........loose because somebody was allowed,by law, to keep lions and tigers and bears.Lions and tigers and bears. Mind you the ridiculousness extends to all wild animals as such doesn't it, cheetahs,cougars,wolves,foxes whatever et all..and this occurrence is the epitome of the idiocy of the lack of laws banning the keeping of any exotic wild animal.Do you think for one minute the Federal government sees the sense in such a ban, or the State governments, or the local governments?No, idiots all,Americans, ruled by idiots, Americans live in the midst of an idiocracy, idiocratic governments,governments of ignorance and idiocy, making laws,all sorts of laws, laws for everything, but not sane laws such as banning the keeping of exotic wild animals,lions and tigers and bears,lions and tigers and bears,the lot of them.Of course we acknowledge that the local constabulary did a magnificent job, totally,utterly ,completely, and fortunate all round and for the people it was so, magnificent.But they should not have had to do that,they would not have had to do that should there be a law banning exclusively all exotic wild animals.
But,sadly, it is not so.Of course there are some who will not support and do not support such a law, those who keep or would keep such wild animals, but here we see the hazards,the dangers of keeping such wild animals.Interestingly he had complied with permits et ceterra as required for those animals, however, there should NOT have been any permits for such animals as it should never have been permitted to own such animals.As of November 2010, most US states forbid the possession of exotic pets, but 9 states have no license or permit requirements, and quite obviously these states are in dire need of such laws, especially Ohio.To commence with, local areas such as counties,cities and towns and whatever,in states lacking such laws, must initiate such laws at the earliest for their areas, enact and enforce them, whilst they wait for their state to follow the lead of the other states.Also it is for the Federal government to also enact and enforce their own ban on the keeping of such exotic wilds animals, and see to it that the states toe the line on those laws,for the good and safety of the American Citizen,there is a clear and present danger.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Secret Squirrel Ponders A Probable Invasion Of Mexico.
Secret Squirrel has had his attention brought to Mexico,the sad and sorry state it is in at the present,a touch worse and worsening than it is most of the time and has ever been historically.Indeed Mexicans have always been portrayed in US films as mostly criminals,drunks,drugged out and poor,and so it seems at present it is across so very many levels, especially in the areas of the border near to America.It
seems,strangely, the populations there are really ruled,over ruled, and controlled by crime lords, much as in Somalia,who seem to be inundated with weapons of all sorts.The difference between Mexico and Somalia in that area, are that the Somali crime lords are visible, whilst the ones in Mexico remain invisible, but in all cases the crime lords rule they areas they are in.The Americans are becoming concerned and worried by the situation,and Mexico is in high visibility of US government view.
Look here at http://www.military.com/news/article...-collapse.html
Mexico is one of two countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse," according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico."The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."
So at high levels this state of affairs was seen as developing.
A retired CIA operative,one Sylvia Longmire,has written and informative, enlightening, and perhaps predictable book,inflammatory in title, "Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico's Drug Wars".
At http://www.talkingdrugs.org/a-retired-us-major-general-has-proposed-a-us-invasion-of-mexico
"A retired US Major General has proposed a US invasion of Mexico “to protect and secure the American people.” Major General Paul E. Vallely’s blinkered response to the increase in violence in Mexico, fuelled by US demands for illegal drugs, seems to overlook the failure that a military response has had to curb drug use in the past. He states “now if I were the Commander-in-Chief, I would be on a war-footing and I would have my military commanders planning and executing a strategy that will defeat swiftly and decisively these cancerous enemies.”
He further details, in an article written for the right-wing blog Family Security Matters, how he would conduct his military strategy to protect the USA. He states that the best strategy would be to position three “Border Task Force Groups” of 5000 “warriors” each on the US side of the border. These forces will “conduct offensive and defensive operations on the Mexican side of the border.” Interestingly the retired general does not think that these military incursions into Mexican territory would be in violation of any law and he cites the Posse Comitatus Act of 1848.General Vallely compares the violence in the northern states of Mexico to the lawlessness of 1846 and states “therefore, it is in the National interest of the United States to invade, and restore order because of this clear and present danger to US Citizens and our economy.” So clearly a military invasion of Mexico is in the mind and thoughts of the military."
Gov. Rick Perry,of Texas,as far back as 2010,said he would support sending U.S. troops into Mexico to fight the drug war.He also repeated,at THAT TIME his frequent statement that he doesn't want to be president. Asked if his refusal was "Shermanesque," Perry didn't seem to understand."Shermanesque? Help me on that one," Perry said.The reporter explained it meant if nominated he wouldn't run, if
elected he wouldn't serve."How about Perryesque?" the governor said. "The fact of the matter is I'm not running for the presidency of the United States - don't want to be the president of the United States."Well It seemed it was Perryesque Shermanesque,or Shermanesque Perryesque as you will have it as he has entered his candidacy for the Office Of The President of The United States.Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Saturday,October 1st,2011 that he would consider sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug-related violence and stop it from spilling into the southern United States.“It may require our military in Mexico,” Perry said in answer to a question about the growing threat of drug violence along the southern border. Perry offered no details, and a spokesman, Robert Black, said afterward that sending troops to Mexico would be merely one way of putting an end to the exploding cartel-related violence in the region.
Mexico has been invaded before by America and vast tracts of it's territory were removed from it, and profiftable ares they were at that,perhaps now they consdier going in for it all? Well Let's look at what set the American precedances for invasions of Mexico.
The Mexican–American War, also known as the First American Intervention, the Mexican War, or the U.S.–Mexican War, was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution.American forces invaded New Mexico, the California Republic, and parts of what is currently northern Mexico; meanwhile, the American Navy conducted a blockade, and took control of several garrisons on the Pacific coast of Alta California, but also further south in Baja California.
Another American army captured Mexico City, and forced Mexico to agree to the cession of its northern territories to the U.S.The major consequence of the war was the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the U.S. in exchange for $18 million. In addition, the United States forgave debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its national border, and the loss of Texas. Meanwhile gold was discovered in California, which immediately became an international magnet for the California Gold Rush.Quite a profitable undertaking,and it was, as casualties were enormous, but what with the gain, as always, were swept under the rug.
The idea of incorporating Mexico as several new states of the United States has existed ever since the Mexican–American War of 1846–1848, when the All Mexico Movement proposed annexing Mexico by force. Today this idea stresses the strong economic and political connections between Mexico and the United States and the high recurring cost of defending a 2,000-mile (3,200 km) border. In 1913 during border skirmishes between the United States and Mexico, it was proposed by some that the U.S. annex Chihuahua.Incorporating Mexico would add over 100million to the United Satates population, of a mostly subsistance living near starving extremely poor people,heavily equipped with guns of various varities,which have strangely multiplied greatly in recent years.
There have been various break away republics formed within Mexico,but they have been short lived as they were not supported,nor annexed.
The northeast region, consisting of the states of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León (where claims about federal taxes and water usage are similar to the proposed U.S. states complaints) is frequently alleged to be more alike in general mentality to Texas than to the rest of
Mexico. These three states formed the core of the short-lived 19th century Republic of the Rio Grande.
In 1853, filibuster William Walker conquered the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora with the intent of adding new slave states to the Union. Within three months he had incorporated both states into the independent Republic of Sonora, but a lack of support from the US Government and increasing pressure from the Mexican Government forced him to retreat.
Mexico could be invaded and annexed of sorts,and split in to states, thence admitted in whole or in part, in to the United States,but there are rules,it seesm they do have them for such doings.Following the precedent established by the Enabling Act of 1802, an Enabling Act must be passed by Congress as a prerequisite to admission. The act authorizes the people of a territory to frame a constitution, and lays down the requirements that must be met prior to consideration for statehood.In light of modern times and American designs, one can easily see the sudden emergence of several constitutions of the required nature, similar in required nature,appearing with great and mysterious speed and rapiditty.
Why would this occur, why ever would America attempt to absorb Mexico? Well Mexico, in spite of it's people being poor, is rather like the Arab states, great in resources.Mexico, America's southern neighbor, has been for centuries and continues to be a hellhole of political corruption, poverty and despair. It is indeed remarkable that a nation this vast, with great resources such as an abundance of oil (Mexico is a major petroleum producer), can be worse off than most Third World countries. It's no secret that Mexico is routinely ranked as the most corrupt
country in the world, even surpassing Nigeria.Mexico is of a much greater vital interest to America than, say, Libya. And, ironically, Mexico also has large oil reserves,(need I mention this again?)and vast natural resources,resources such as petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber.
Well.........timberrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr,there's oil there, lots and lots of oil and so very close to the USA as well, just admirable for pipelines to suck the oil to the American oil companies,and if it's one thing American oil companies like, and send the USA to wars of acquisition for, and control of, it's oil. Well, let's see the effects of invading Mexico, the possibilities,the probablities,the mechanics of the thing.
First. America has all along denied any purpose to interfere in the internal affairs of Mexico and the St. Louis platform declares against it. Intervention conveys the idea of such interference.And modern blow hard politicians no advocate such intervention,and should they achieve power can and will do it, indeed even yet Obama might.
Second. Intervention would be humiliating to many Mexicans whose pride and sense of national honor would resent severe terms of peace in case of being defeated in a war,which is what the interevention would be.Occupied or defeated, the Mexicans are heavily armed, even yet more heavily armed and spread out and in far greater numbers than were and are the Arabs of Iraq.
Third. American intervention in Mexico is extremely distasteful to all Latin America and might have a very bad effect upon Americas Pan-American program, of peace love and amistad and whatever they call not invading any iof them at any particular moment,for the time being,they'll just have to be placated by telling them, "It won't happen to you,Amistad lad!".That'll do it for sure, and it will too since there's nothing they can do about it in either and all cases.
Fourth. Intervention, which suggests a definite purpose to “clean up” the country, would bind America to certain accomplishments,such as occupation, which circumstances might make extremely difficult or inadvisable,there being so very mandy weapons no round and about and in the hands of Mexicans at large,Mexicans who are wisely ,and ever increasingly,arming themselves with what ever they can get their hands on.
Fifth. Intervention also implies that the war,of intervention would be made primarily in the interest of the Mexican people,it being billed as such, while the fact is it would be an intervention America forces onthe Mexican Government, and, if we term it intervention, we will have considerable difficulty in explaining why we had not intervened before but waited until attacked.
Sixth. Intervention with America's favorite attack group,the Coalition,the NATO Alliance attacking a nation for it's own good, as in all the NATO partners, as in for the oil, share and share alike,which suits all of them just fine,and especially the oil companies who are the huge driving force between all of the present wars of acquisitional intervention(for.............oil).
Will there be an intervention, and invasion of Mexico? Yes I see it in the cards.An acquisitional war of intervention of Mexico? Ye,s but for control and acquisition of natural resources, especially the oil.Will there be an entire absorptive acquistion of Mexico? No,I see that as being far too expensive and a drain an America,a simple less costly occupation is the most likely course of events accomplishing, but at high cost in lives, yes, the control and acquistional farming of Mexico's resources,especially of course, the oil,after all one simply just must make them pay for themselves for having necessitated the military intervention so indicated.I see that as the future of and for Mexico and Mexicans.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Secret Squirrel Examines Aircraft Cost Overruns.
Secret Squirrel looks at the recent F35 purchase costs, and ponders
the ever increasing costs of an aircraft regarded as being barely
sufficient to the needs of nations such as Australia,an aircraft many
regard as inadequate yet one they are purchasing,having made the decision to,an aircraft whose costs have magically ballooned to twice the signed for costs.
THE Rudd government gave the green light to Australia's largest ever defence purchase, approving a buy of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters at a cost of $3.2 billion. What do we find, and di we find, after a year or two,that the price Zooms from $50 Mil Original Cost Per Aircraft to $80-95 Mil in 2002.
In 2003 the Current terms did not require foreign partners to pay for cost overruns, and the Pentagon has not asked its partners to cover any such,but as you know that ALWAYS changes when the Americans are involved.The other eight nations participating in the program - Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the U.K. - aren't going to be happy about the cost increases either. I suspect some sweetheart deal will be made to make them less unhappy.
But the fact remains, that cost overruns,are always present in American programs,and anyone you're involved in, sweet deal, then, more cost added, of course, cost over run.America itself,what with maintanance figured in etc etc etc for THEIRS, is at a cost of over a trillion, about equal to Canada's GDP,and they claim it costs more than Australia's GDP,with respect to America's purchase and maintenance of it's purchase of this type of aircraft,albeit in much larger numbers,so no wonder America has huge unpayable debts....but does America worry, not really it just prints up more money to cover it, other
nations..........can't do that.Canada, which has agreed to buy 65 planes at an official program cost of $14.7 billion,($20 billion on 72 F-35.)the cost over the next 30 years would be $29.3 billion twice the official estimate of $14.7 billion. The F-35 does not have the stealth, power (supercruise ability), or range to engage SU-30 as a fighter aircraft,Su-30 out performs it but the F-35 has a larger weapons load, 42 aircraft being procured by Indonesia, By August 2010,they cost $4.3 billion or $102 million each,far less than the F35.Now, not to argue who's getting a better deal in a superior aircraft, we do see substantial savings in the Soviet aircraft, as a final cost.
So we do have to consider that Australia would have been much better off in the first place buying from the Soviets,at enormous savings, not withstanding the American cost overruns, but we do have to look on America with great suspicion with respect to stated purchase,sale ,cost of the aircraft.A cost overrun, also known as a cost increase or budget overrun, is an unexpected cost incurred in excess of a budgeted amount due to an under-estimation of the actual cost during budgeting. Cost overrun should be distinguished from cost escalation, which is used to express an anticipated growth in a budgeted cost due to factors such as inflation.So cost overrun is common in infrastructure, building, and technology projects,it is profitable, and increases profitability,in short, it is an influencable form of profit fraud,contract fraud,as all nations let the developing nation off the hook as it were,over the initial signed and price stated contract,final cost contract,or a stated, final cost.
However, in all such cases, there is no binding litigations with respect to final cost, no abilities for lawsuit, utterly no abilities to hold anyone, to the stated contract cost.However all round we must consider that a cost overrun results in increased final costs, and in all cases at levels at least twice those of stated contracts,and we really do have to recommend and consider that it would be better for Austrailia, as one nation,or perhaps any other nation, not purchase a selected aircraft until the final cost emerges, and so consider purchase at a final off the shelf cost, and then knowingly,regardless, not have a crippled aircraft, but a fully developed and working one,purchased at a clearly stated and final cost.
THE Rudd government gave the green light to Australia's largest ever defence purchase, approving a buy of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters at a cost of $3.2 billion. What do we find, and di we find, after a year or two,that the price Zooms from $50 Mil Original Cost Per Aircraft to $80-95 Mil in 2002.
In 2003 the Current terms did not require foreign partners to pay for cost overruns, and the Pentagon has not asked its partners to cover any such,but as you know that ALWAYS changes when the Americans are involved.The other eight nations participating in the program - Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the U.K. - aren't going to be happy about the cost increases either. I suspect some sweetheart deal will be made to make them less unhappy.
But the fact remains, that cost overruns,are always present in American programs,and anyone you're involved in, sweet deal, then, more cost added, of course, cost over run.America itself,what with maintanance figured in etc etc etc for THEIRS, is at a cost of over a trillion, about equal to Canada's GDP,and they claim it costs more than Australia's GDP,with respect to America's purchase and maintenance of it's purchase of this type of aircraft,albeit in much larger numbers,so no wonder America has huge unpayable debts....but does America worry, not really it just prints up more money to cover it, other
nations..........can't do that.Canada, which has agreed to buy 65 planes at an official program cost of $14.7 billion,($20 billion on 72 F-35.)the cost over the next 30 years would be $29.3 billion twice the official estimate of $14.7 billion. The F-35 does not have the stealth, power (supercruise ability), or range to engage SU-30 as a fighter aircraft,Su-30 out performs it but the F-35 has a larger weapons load, 42 aircraft being procured by Indonesia, By August 2010,they cost $4.3 billion or $102 million each,far less than the F35.Now, not to argue who's getting a better deal in a superior aircraft, we do see substantial savings in the Soviet aircraft, as a final cost.
So we do have to consider that Australia would have been much better off in the first place buying from the Soviets,at enormous savings, not withstanding the American cost overruns, but we do have to look on America with great suspicion with respect to stated purchase,sale ,cost of the aircraft.A cost overrun, also known as a cost increase or budget overrun, is an unexpected cost incurred in excess of a budgeted amount due to an under-estimation of the actual cost during budgeting. Cost overrun should be distinguished from cost escalation, which is used to express an anticipated growth in a budgeted cost due to factors such as inflation.So cost overrun is common in infrastructure, building, and technology projects,it is profitable, and increases profitability,in short, it is an influencable form of profit fraud,contract fraud,as all nations let the developing nation off the hook as it were,over the initial signed and price stated contract,final cost contract,or a stated, final cost.
However, in all such cases, there is no binding litigations with respect to final cost, no abilities for lawsuit, utterly no abilities to hold anyone, to the stated contract cost.However all round we must consider that a cost overrun results in increased final costs, and in all cases at levels at least twice those of stated contracts,and we really do have to recommend and consider that it would be better for Austrailia, as one nation,or perhaps any other nation, not purchase a selected aircraft until the final cost emerges, and so consider purchase at a final off the shelf cost, and then knowingly,regardless, not have a crippled aircraft, but a fully developed and working one,purchased at a clearly stated and final cost.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On The United Nations Veto.
Secret Squirrel's attention has been recently drawn to the ridiculous and improper United Nations veto, as one was presently cast by The United States of America, in efforts to see to it that a free nation, a new nation, the nation of a free Palestine coming about, in and after the very self-same fashion that Israel came about.Squirrel will not comment here on that putrescent and sad fact, that of the United States casting a veto preventing the nation of Palestine coming in to being, but rather here will comment on the United Nations veto itself.
Veto power circumvents the power and rule of the majority and subjects to nations to the slavery and idiocy, of the few, or given, one of the few at any given time.It subjects the majority to the will of a minority,it binds, it enslaves.It removes rights, and freedoms.The putrescence of the veto, is in the same fashion as the presentation of The Noble Peace Prize, to war mongers at any given time.It is subjectively imprisoning in its effects. It enforces the will of the one,over the will of the many, the belief of the one, over the belief of the many,Veto Power, we need to eliminate it. This was created more than half a century ago.Ambassador Charles W. Yost cast the first U.S. veto in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly on resolutions criticizing Israel; since 2002 the Negroponte doctrine has been applied for the use of a veto on resolutions relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements.and used mostly by the US to veto resolutions involving Israel starting in the 1970's, "(and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel)".
Regard the comments here found at..
http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/394
Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.
The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right
Member States met on 16 and 17 March,2009 to discuss the veto in the second of five meetings devoted to different substantive issues connected to Security Council reform.The Philippines noted that “...even in the face of this extreme difficulty to remove the veto power, we may yet consider the need to curtail its exercise or use. There is a big chance for that,” ambassador Hilario G. Davide pointed out. To address this issue, the ambassador not only supported disallowing or denying the use of the veto power in certain grave cases, he also reiterated a Philippine proposal for a veto to be set aside or overturned by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Security Council itself.Reportedly, almost half of all Member States took the floor during the almost two-day long meeting. According to several delegates present, a number of African countries stated - in accordance with the common African position - that they are against the veto in principle.Italy's Ambassador Giulio Terzi said that even when not used, the veto can alter or block the discussion of urgent issues. "Again and again the 'hidden veto' has prevented substantial discussions of questions that are crucial to international peace and security," he said. German Ambassador Thomas Matussek apparently stated that the veto was "an anachronism and should be abolished." But hopes of scrapping or giving it to new council members were unrealistic and should not be used as a pretext to halt reform, he added.Apparently China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, permanent members of the Security Council, all signaled unwillingness to give up, change or reform the current veto structure.
Here ends the epistle .
The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a "procedural" draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.
The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called "P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution.However The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.
The UN Charter provision for unanimity among the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the veto) was the result of extensive discussion, including at Dumbarton Oaks (August–October 1944) and Yalta (February 1945). The evidence is that the UK, US, USSR, and France all favoured the principle of unanimity, and that they were motivated in this not only by a belief in the desirability of the major powers acting together, but also by a hard-headed concern to protect their own sovereign rights and national interest. Truman, who became President of the US in April 1945, went so far as to write in his memoirs: "All our experts, civil and military, favoured it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate."
The UNSC veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. One of the lessons of the League of Nations (1919–46) had been that an international organization cannot work if all the major powers are not members.It had already been decided at the UN's founding conference in 1944, that Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course" France, should be the permanent members of any newly formed Council. However,they all wanted control over issues, plurality, will of the majority,rule of the majority, was not and is not for either of them,nor shall it ever really be.The veto, is a representation of injustice,a mockery of any forms of democratic prinicples the United Nations is supposed to uphold and represent.Removal of veto would address the lack of meaningful action in the face of atrocities and other urgent crises.The presence of veto allows those possessing same, to rule the roost.A former Pakistani Ambassador to the UN, Ahmad Kamal, states that in a democracy no one can be more equal than others and he terms the veto anachronistic and undemocratic, a sentiment echoed by many African countries. Abolishing the veto altogether seems to appeal to quite a few member states.Among those who oppose abolishing the veto—and the P5 are the most prominent in that group—references are made to the League of Nations, which many believe ended up in demise because major powers such as the US refused to join. This, they argue, is exactly what would happen if the veto was abolished: the major powers of the world would either leave the UN or disregard or refuse to pay for UN actions they oppose.I either case, what the veto is is the enslavement of the member nations of the United Nations, enslavement of an entire group of United Nations, to the will of a single one,the dominating one, the enslaving one,the democracy destroying one,the nation which casts the Veto.If the United Nations is ever to be a free and democratic institution devoted to world rule,world self-rule, world democracy,world peace,global stability,the veto must be removed in its entirety.However,the domintating nations holding the veto being what they in reality are,sadly this will never,ever come about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)