arms dealing

dear readers,
sorry for the lack of updates but i've benn really busy. in regards to ways to protect against blog spam there are 2 ways. either block comments from spammers or ban all comments on all of your posts.
thanks and enjoy!!


Arms Dealing:
A Self Administered Hazard
Introduction: Digging our own Grave

Arms dealing is no doubt a prosperous industry for the U.S. With its vast manufacturing capability and wealthy clients it is literally a billion dollar per sale business that may very well be the answer to our struggling economy. But at the same time it also puts our nation at unnecessary risk. Once the weapons are out there they are accessible to anyone’s hands, they just have to grab them first. Sure putting guns in the arms of a nation builds friendship but what happens when your friend decides to shoot you in the head when you’re not looking?
Backfiring

In 1946 suspicions were high. We had hardly recuperated from World War II and were still not exactly friends with our former enemies. But our biggest concern was the Soviets. They where heavy on military power and were a much much bigger country than we were. On the other side of the river the Soviets looked upon us much the same way, they thought we where a loose cannon that could fire on them any minute. So we both began stockpiling arms, daring the other to step over the border and pay with blood. We tried to be prepared for the worst, but when we saw the Red Army forces spread across several nations we knew we could not deal with this juggernaut alone.
In 1980 we pleaded with Afghanistan’s leader Massoud to help us take down the Soviets and they willingly agreed. So we gave them everything, arms and the means to buy more. We were literally pumping out 200,000 dollars a day along with arms to the Afghans. Eventually, as the war dragged on, the Red Army receded and they left the country. Soon, the Cold War ended without the U.S. or the Soviets ever firing directly at each other. But it was okay because we had averted a crisis in Afghanistan and made an ally in the process, or so we thought. Despite what the U.S. thought, Massoud was a warlord. An unforgiving tyrant poised on conquering sworn enemy Pakistan, and the Afghan people were growing quite sick of him.
To free themselves from Massoud, Afghan rebels formed a militia front known as the Taliban promising to rid the world of all warlords and restore faith in the Koran. They were really just power hungry terrorists after Massoud’s throne, but people didn’t know this, they thought Bin Laden and his rebels were prophets. In 1997, Bin Laden and the Taliban rode into Kabul, cutting it in half with lead. By 4:30 Kabul was more graveyard than capitol as all of Massoud’s men including the man himself lay dead on its streets. Bin Laden declared peace with Pakistan and unconditional war with the U.S.
When the Taliban support terrorism against the U.S., we had to invade the country and attack a former ally. Suddenly, we had to fight against men using the weapons we entrusted them with; deadly weapons that killed our troops and continue to kill them to this very day.
In 1993, Somalia was at civil war. They were in desperate need of weapons and former supplier Russia was busy with other war torn countries. Spotting a possible friendship and financial opportunity, we made a deal and sold them arms, but, for safety reasons, we only gave them m249 machine guns and RPGs. According to Mark Bowden in Black Hawk Down, the thought was that the RPGs would not be a threat to our helicopters because they were “unguided and particularly hard to aim.” But the problem with this logic is that if you keep shooting at a given target you will eventually hit it and it only takes one hit to decimate a helicopter.
Not two weeks had passed by when the U.S was asked to free several hostages being held in a Somalian church. We reluctantly agreed but soon ended up with more than we bargained for. No sooner had we rescued these hostages that those “unthreatening RPGs” took down two Black Hawk helicopters, and killed 18 soldiers. Once again we had to bury troops killed by deadly weapons given to friends with the best intentions.
For Sale: Russian Arms

The end of the cold war was not kind to Russia. They had spent so much money on weapons that they had never considered what would happen if there was no war. They where dead broke and about to collapse, so, they began to sell arms and didn’t care who was getting them as long as they had money. They sold AK-47s to the Taliban, AKs and Drugnovs to Somalia and many many more! In fact they made so many deals, and were so available to sell arms that if you where to drive down I-5 today, you would see a ready-to-fly MiG 21 jet for sale in a used car lot!
On the first of September in 2004 students at a Beslan school sat at their desks awaiting lessons and their teacher. But she never showed, and was replaced instead by armed terrorists who forced them onto the gym floor. For hours the kids lay there motionless praying to God and their own lives. The terrorists demanded Russian troops leave Chechnya and for every hour they did not obey this command, a group of children would be blown to pieces. Finally, when all hope seemed lost, a local police force and several army personnel busted in shooting, but were only able to rescue ¼ of the 500 students and staff attending. These suicidal attackers were Chechnians, a people that Russia had sold arms to for a civil war that was ultimately against them.
Kids with Guns
Arms dealing may not be pretty but for some there is little other choice. Just look at Somalia; their other main export is charcoal, which is not only ecologically damaging but extremely dangerous. Weapons and arms dealing is a far easier source of revenue than backbreaking labor of mining charcoal Because the economy is so unstable, kids are often more willing to chose arms dealing because there no alternatives. They grow up selling the only thing they have of value, weapons.
Conclusion: the next step

Unfortunately, the UN, the global enforcer of worldwide affairs, isn’t known for fast and speedy reactions to such stories. But that is not completely their fault. Of all the things the U.S. funds, the UN gets the least money, manpower and support. It may seem like a distant need, but if we don’t fund the U.N now, it will come back to haunt us. We also need to improve our and other governments’ economies so that arms dealing is not a necessity. Either way this is a deadly problem that must be dealt with quickly or it will be too late.

harry potter and the goblet of fire

2/5 stars
daniel radcliffe

"crappy times ahead harry"
before my review i would like to give you a history of my opinion of the juggernaut that is harry potter. the first movie was somewhat magical, a well written well acted rendition that followed jk rowling's book almost to the letter. I eagerly anticipated the next one like everyone else, but, unlike everyone else the second movie left me a bit sour. Instead of using the same "follow what rowling wanted" style this movie went off on its own creating a thriller that disintegrated into god awful cornball acting and scripting and scenes diliberatly stolen from better movies.(watch jurrassic park and then the womping willow scene and you'll wonder why speilburg didnt sue.)he third movie was a little better due to the fact that it was incredibly funny, but other than that it was shallow and devoid of feeling or puberty.
so here we are with a fourth and final warning about what happens when you dont follow the freaking book. taking the very, very, barrne core of the story and tacking on pathetic scenes that are supposed to show puberty are the main problems of this sorry potter adaptation. Now as you may have noticed i have mentioned puberty quite alot in the last couple sentences and heres why: all i hear from reviewers about the lack of puberty is that rowling didnt mess around with overt sex. which is fine, there is no nead to turn the kiddie exploits of Harry into R rated sex scandles. but if you cut out so much puberty as to make it feel like it dosent exsist at all or to only insert it into one part of the movie as to make the rest look out of place, you have some serious problems. Fortunatly it manages to really pick up in the middle, its hard to believe its even the same movie. It mixes light comedy, puberty, and roller coaster like action that offers a glimpse of what made the first movie great.
Unfortunatly it ends with terrible melodramatic acting which is only good for a sick laugh(you think im cruel but try not to burst out laughing when cedrics father yells noooooooo!!!! like a mirror to the summer's bad star wars movie.). i saw a superman trailer before the movie and found it brutally pointless, why bring out the man of steel when you've already got harry potter on stage. during the course of this movie you never think Harry can experience any type of pain, or if he does, it will fix itself without Harry learning a bloody thing. But what really has me comparing Harry to the protector of the innocent is that even if he is about to win or do something great he will stop and help a commpetetor in danger, not the typical mind of a teenager.
All in all this movie makes me wonder where harry potter has to go. With so many genres all screwed up by this series(thriller, comedy, romance) will we have to go through a harry potter musical before the producers decide to actually go back to the freaking book??
if you disegree with my review then post a commentwoth your opinion, but do me the favor of rewatching this movie and at least considering what i have siad about it. thank you,
nick