Nanny State

Are human beings designed to be autonomous? Can the "human spirit" be trusted to act without greed? Does this not contradict Darwin as we should all strive to ensure the strongest survive? Perhaps we need the stronger characters to take control of a society and dictate how we should live our lives. Humans are very good at saying "do as I say and not as I do", but so what? As long as what they say is beneficial for the society then who the hell cares about hipocracy! And how do you define "beneficial for society"? Is it to please the highest proportion within that society or is it to make the society as a unit more successful against other societies?
So perhaps having a Nanny state is a good thing. It's just a shame that it makes me ANGRY!

Today is Thursday 7th October 2004, the day the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) published its findings that there were no WMD in Iraq leading up to the war. The report found him guilty of wanting to rebuild his warmongering capabilities when sanctions had been lifted. Well, you can hardly blame him for wanting to rearm again – its pretty much all he knows! But what's unbelievable is that TB has tried to turn the whole thing around and say "Ha! Told you!! Ner-ner-na-ner-nerr! He wanted to rebuild his arms! So that's why he was such a massive threat and why we went to war!!" What the??…did I miss something? Has te world gone mad??? Most people are saying 'Ah, but no. I think you are wrong on this matter, Mr Prime Minister', when what they should be saying is 'HAVE YOU GONE TOTALLY FUCKING MAD??? YOU'RE TALKING COMPLETE BOLLOCKS!!!'.
For there to be a threat you need both capability and intent. He had no capability, that much we know. Intent? Against whom? The UK? I don't think so.

Comments are closed.