This article I found http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23158.shtml is almost shocking in its contents for me to read.

The thought that the world has turned to secret political assasinations rather than discourse through the established mediums is a bit radical to assume is the norm, however, it is fun and perhaps worthwhile to examine whether or not there is any truth behind the notion.

The world has been involved in espionage, assasinations, secret rescue missions (i am thinking of a secret raid on an embassy to recover hostages some 5 - 10 years ago), however there have been many instances where discussion has been the name of the game. The cold war ended with discussions and a changeover in policy, for example.

Regardless, the effect of human rights if one country decides to impose their view of what is right and just on the rest of the world is a negative one, or are they justified? At what point do the speeches of Huga Chavez and George Bush begin to signal that (either) is a threat to the common good (whatever that may be) or the good of their (the nation which they lead) nation and if they do that, does the world (the UN?) have a right or even the responsibility to act?

Unfortunately, the world has signed no social contract with each other... or have we?


tag: last301