==A Brief Introduction==


Hello, my name is Androu.

Members of the Homo sapien species, what have we done? While destroying the very thing we quibble over, earth, we wage war over ideologies and differences, the very things which distinguish us from many other species. Opinion has often been suppressed, and men are ridiculed over their view points which will often never be disproved. We have created governments which rule us, and we then attempt to change it every 4 some years. What foolishness.

We are doomed as a species, for our own kind is set out to destroy us. The following are a number of essays I have written which address the dire condition of men. Read them, understand them, and then implement them.
There are only 2 liste thus far, but more are on the way. They will be bias – but then again this is the very nature which defines us humans.

Keep in mind that as humans - we claim to be the ultimate species.

Essay #1: The sad slup towards suicide

The Planet is dying. As Whitehouse and members of Congress scurry behind the doors of government offices benignly overlooking the serious threat of global climatic catastrophe, the world races towards a reality realized in huge Hollywood hits like “The Day After Tomorrow”. They articulate it will never happen; the world will sustain its booming population and will continue its usage of the energy Earth took millions of years to manufacture. As countries like the United States, China, and India churn out billions of pounds of greenhouse emissions each year, the world races towards an environmental Armageddon faster and faster each year. Before it is too late, the governments of major greenhouse gas producing nations must follow two simple steps outlined here.

The most imperative action government can take to reduce greenhouse emissions is to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Politicians immediately jump upon this idea ruling that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Alas for those who say such things, there may not be an economy to care for if Earth continues to take toll on its irresponsible actions. Already, the effects of global warming can be seen-treacherous hurricane seasons in the South East, unheard of since people began recording weather phenomena; sea levels rising to record heights causing mass flooding in the Pacific lands; and unusually bitter cold winters in Europe. Although major emitters of greenhouse emissions have signed a pact allowing countries to set goals for reducing emissions, there is no enforcement mechanism – proving it to be as useful as the Soviet-Nazi Pact of WWII. It is true that Kyoto will reduce the GDP of participating nations, but what is a short term loss for a long term gain? By signing the Kyoto Protocol, countries are obliged to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Government must also allow for the use of alternative energy uses, such as wind and solar energy, that would cut down on fossil fuel burning and make countries like the United States less dependant on foreign oil and foreign markets. If government officials fail to find this train of thought uneconomical, then I fail to realize their definition of a good economy. Alternative energy use is the only alternative to ensure the long term health of the planet. The government must realize this reality before it is too late. Scenes from “The Day after Tomorrow” will cease to play on television, and will begin manifest itself in our own backyards if something is not done soon. Indeed, the biggest threat to our own existence is not nuclear oblivion or famine, but mass global climatic chaos. Alternative Energy, although costly in the short run, will give Earth a chance to revitalize its ailing health. Money must begin flowing in agencies and companies devoted to research into the technology of alternative energy usage and quit flowing into the pockets major oil corporations in the Middle-East.

The sad slump Humanity is taking towards suicide will then cease to exist.

Essay #2: Sounds

Sounds, they tell a lot about a society. Perhaps, somewhere in America, it is the sound of a child overcome with joy as he enters the gates of Disney Land; or maybe it is the clanging of cutlery, the clinking china plates, and the simmer of a seasoned, warm turkey dinner as a family gathers around the kitchen table – a resonance attenuated with laughs of children coupled with tender voices exchanging fond memories. Somewhere in the Middle East, however, thousands of miles away from America, a chillingly different, yet loud and distinct, noise can be heard. The cry of an orphan, waddling in his own filth, the wail of a weeping widow, as she loses her second husband to war, the melodic ‘Allah Akbr’ chanting of a strapped suicide bomber, as he prepares himself, and the sound of a bellowing mosque echo across the sands of Ancient Babylon. While the United States of America keenly flexes a muscle in Iraq, hoping to impress an otherwise troubled planet, terrorism is encouraged, hate for America and Israel is perpetuated, children become orphans, wives become widows, and most fearsome for many politicians, crude oil prices rise.

One need not look far to see the short-term results of the Iraq war, for bloody headlines are secreting scary statistics. Across newspapers of North America, banners read of mosques being blown up, soldiers losing their lives due to car bombs, suicide bomber killing innocent civilians, and warnings of imminent civil war in an already unstable county. However, if one is not moved by pictures of dead civilian bodies laying the streets spattered with red blood, a flip of the page can reveal unsettling reports on imminent international recession and inflation, a situation realized in the 1970’s due to sharp increase in oil prices. Many war-supporters, not aware of possible international boycott on American items due to an unwanted presence, will immediately point to World War II as a perfect example of economic stability being achieved because of war. This is foolishness - the world has changed and I beg to differ. Take the substantially reduced prospects of US retailers due the scorching of KFC franchises in Pakistan after the invasion of Afghanistan. Boycott at this level against all American merchandise is clearly lethal. Waged internationally, and the situation becomes hopeless.

A prolonged war will cause economic recession in developing countries, leading to a decrease in exports to developed nations. Coupled with that will be an increase in spending on national security, as the US becomes more prone to attack by terrorists attempting retaliatory actions. The Congressional Budget Office has already estimated a 0.1% decrease in growth rate as direct result of increased national security along with a 670,000 decrease in jobs . Negative war outcome would also, according to William Nordhaus, lead to economic recession - lowering the GDP of United States by 2.4%. With Iraq lying on 10% of the world’s oil reserves, a continuation of the war in Iraq is economic suicide in a highly competitive international economy. With a slow withdrawal of American troops from Iraq over the course of next year coupled with an increase in economic aid to sectors, such as the policing, Iraq will once again rebuild its immune system and become a self-sustaining nation, capable of protecting its law-abiding citizens and chastising the remaining ones.

Einstein once wisely stated that “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” How true. Like a group of young boys standing waist deep in gasoline inside a large room, all arguing over who has the most lightened matches, yet all knowing that one dropped would single their demise, so too the world proliferates weapons of doom without truly realizing their destructive capabilities. Indeed, only mutually assured destruction (MAD) and international war law stands between the present and human extermination. Ignoring this straightforward fact, the USA has paraded their ‘smart bombs’ in the Iraq war, even coining witty terms such as “Shock and Awe” to further impress the international audience. What immaturity. It is even more disturbing to realize, however, that while the Unites States churns out $518, 000, 000, 000 on ‘educating’ their murder machines , 18% of the world population lacks basic literacy skills . Hoping to root out terrorists, America has used the finest technology on earth in an attempt to fulfill its grand objective. Unfortunately, Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and American conventional warfare is not working too well against the terrorists. For instance, former President Bill Clinton once deployed 80 state-of-the-art Tomahawk missiles each $750, 000 to in an attempt to destroy Osama Bin Laden, but failing to do so . On September 11, 2001, the terrorists lost 19 individuals and $500, 000 on a series of attacks that killed over 2800 Americans and leaving the economy a projected $ 125, 000, 000, 000 short . So much for American conventional warfare.

However, with its nuclear arsenal over 10,000 strong, no country will ever dare to mount a Pearl-Harbor style attack on the US for obvious reasons. Can nuclear weapons then act as deterrence for non-nuclear war, which would drag on considerably longer yet have infinitely less destructive fallout as nuclear war? Before anymore is discussed, the term terrorism must first be properly defined. As defined by The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, terrorism is “the use of violence to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes” ; and there is no doubt that the individuals who attacked on 9/11 were terrorists in their purist form. However, can the United States along with members of the nuclear club, through their intimidation with colossal nuclear arsenals, be considered terrorist states, keeping in mind that they intimidate other states? Are the 10,000 American nuclear weapons , each capable of killing a million people, yet collectively capable of the complete obliteration of planet earth, really required for self-defense purposes? Are terrorists, through their coercion, really challenging American military dominance, or is their objective meant to scrutinize American foreign policy and inflict damage on morale? Begging answers, these questions also shed light on the true intentions of armed states: to terrorize one another.

To demand all armed nations to give up their nuclear weapons is like asking a soldier at 11:01 on November 11, 1914 to give up his, for in a world where stakes are high, nuclear weapons assert military dominance and establish fear into the hearts of the enemies of those who own them. However, by establishing frequent meetings of members of the ‘Nuclear Club’ and applying heavy international pressure on these countries to dismantle their weapons of doom, armed countries would feel obliged to lower their nuclear arsenal. As the only world superpower, the United States must exemplify this: to dismantle 90% of their arsenal thereby providing a stepping stone on which other countries can build on. Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan, would then feel obliged to decrease their nuclear arsenal by the same percentage. Few will clam this to be imminent while others will claim it to be impossible – I say let us work together to make the impossible imminent.


----