Anarchists Land!

Okay, so I'm a pessimest. I could have a more optomistic view on the world, but quite frankly, we why is it that GOD has become more important than ECONOMIC STABILITY?

Okay. So I'll start with Bush.

George W. Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Actually, I don't even think he is in a shed. I actually think he's been forgotten. And me? I think I actually made it into the shed. But that is not the point. Well, I have low expectations for Bush. Which doesn't exactly match for my high expectations for the US. Bush was in the best position a president could be. 9/11 just happened. The entire world is pissed, and we're unified. For once, we all agree on one thing. We're pissed. The economy was going on a slow decline. Some minor modifications to some economic things could have made the US economy MUCH stronger.

But no. Bush lowered taxes. National defecit goes up. We fight a fools errand for a country that hates us. We don't even fight the war properly. And guess what? Our economy goes down.

The 300 billion dollars spent on Iraq, wasted for the reason of, "Saddam is a nut. Lets get him." Or, “Because god told me to.”

There’s also the drilling in Alaska. Okay fine. I can make sense to that. But, are we going to live off of oil forever? I don't think we'll have enough to make it to the next century. I quote Bush, "oil will never run out." Well, this is my first problem. The 300 billion dollars wasted on Iraq could have been spent on alternate power. So, I predict that once oil will run out, we will have a sudden shock. There will be an energy problem. And since we have nothing to power our vehicles, we will descend into anarchy. No body can work. Transportation is down.

In simpler terms, we will be out of power. Why? Because Bush had to fight his god given war.

Anyways, I predict the US economy will fall in the 50 years because I'm being optimistic. And that’s if we get a half decent president by 2008. Not too good, not too bad. Maybe if we get a really good president, my entire post will be useless.

Well, we have another problem.
I don't think there has been a time in history that there has been one sole super power. There was Sparta and Athens. Germany, Brittan, France (psh). USA and Russia (for a time). And now it's just the US. If the US continues on its current path, who will take the next spot as a super power?

Some people say China. Well, I almost agree with this. China can become the next super power. The current leader of China is trying to get China's act together. However, China has some serious problems. For example, the high male vrs female population. The constant pirating. Corrupt government. Communism. So, China may become the next super power, but it's duration will be short. If my thoughts are correct, in about a decade, we are all back to square one. US economy has collapsed. China has been broken up into several countries. And the rest of the countries aren't close to becoming super powers.

Maybe Brittan because their British, or the Japanese, because they have one huge economy, and an actual military tradition.

(I mean. Bushido, Kendo hand to hand combat, uber navy, and the miracle stomach ache pill?)

Unfortunately, both Brittan and Japan are small countries. And that is a setback.

Well, I don't think there is anyone who actually rivals the US in terms of power. And yes, having a super power is a good thing. So the US is unrivaled. What happens when we collapse? Who takes the next super power position? This is the problem.

And this is why I think everything will descend into Anarchy. Once the US economy collapse, the entire world's will. Maybe if we had world war three, a new super power will arise. But world wars are never good.

And why is this caused? Because Bush had to use his god given right to fight his god given war. The oil crises will cause a large uproar in the entire world. That will be one problem. Two, our economy is dwindling. Bush fought the war wrong. He spent the money in the wrong areas. And because we don’t have any other country that can rival the US, we will be screwed. No other country can effectively take our place as a superpower.

Idiocy of the Human Shield

Okay. In the Middle East, they have this thing called the human shield. Basically kids or women who get in front of the guy with the gun. Now, the point of this is, you will not shoot an innocent bystander. However, if they were innocent, why are they in front of the guy in the first place? It's like they want to be in the cross fire.

Okay. Call me a heartless bastard.

If anyone goes, "HOLLAH HOLLAH HOLLAH," in the middle of a firefight, he will get shot. Very quickly. It's that or he lives and he's a lucky bastard. So, that's one thing. Another thing. This happens in Israel. Now, some of the soldiers in Israel have just turned 18. They are still kids. Now, lets label one guy, A, and another guy, B.

Now, soldiers A and B are best friends. They went to school together. They grew up together. They did through training together, starved together, basically a bunch of buddies. Now, soldier A says, "Gun fire." So now bullets are whizzing everywhere. Both guys are hunkered down behind a wall, scared to death. Soldier B gets the guts to take a look to tell Soldier A.

Okay. So we have two soldiers scared to death. Soldier B gets drilled in the head. Now, masses of enemy forces...with human Shields, are advancing to his position.

Stop. Think.

What would you do? You have a screaming mob, backed up by guys with guns. Your best buddy's head has just exploded, and your covered with his brains. You can either die here next to your buddy, or you can fight.

Continue

Soldier A fights. In the crossfire, women and kids are killed. The other side goes, "OHHHH, LOOK AT HOW HORRIBLE THEY ARE!!!"

Dude, the soldier is scared to death. Any soldier would be scared if his best friend got drilled in the head. And there's a mass of people advancing to his position. People he doesn't know. No hostages, just people.

Human Shields are just an excuse to get your people to say, "look how horrible they are." It's just a bunch of freaking bullshit. Sure, you should minimize civilian casualties, but as far as I'm concerned, if their civilians are willing to walk in front of the guns, they aren't civilians anymore.

Parents: Take Your Own Responsibility

Throughout history parents have always been given control over most of their children's activities. So why is it when it comes to violent and mature video games that parents want the video game industry to stop their children from buying the games for them?

Does it make any sense that the parents who give their children permission and oftentimes provide them with the money for the violent games to blame someone else? Would you blame McDonald's if you ate there daily and got fat? So why would you blame an entire industry based on your actions?

Many people cite an example with the tobacco industry. Yet in this case the parents have told their children not to buy cigarettes. The kids are simply disregarding what their parents are saying, not asking nicely and getting them. It makes no sense for parents, who blatantly say "OK" to violent video games to then turn around and snap at the industry as a whole? It's not as if there are no warnings. The front of the video game box clearly shows an "M" for mature. It even lists the types of violence. And yet these parents continue to buy the games they themselves say are bad for kids.

Parents, face it. If you can't control your own children and prevent them from buying video games that you wouldn't approve of, then you've failed at your jobs as parents.