It's true. I almost disowned this show after praising it so many times over the last few days. But the conclusion that the Penn and Teller espouse to "world peace" is an actual strategy employed by the chief executive of our nation, the State Department, and endorsed by the Pentagon.
The reason I almost disowned this show is because I'm very hawkish on international-relations. I did not want our nation to engage in military action against Saddam Hussein, but, if he did not comply with our demands, then I was for waging war against him to oust his regime. You can argue the consequences of that action, perhaps put up why we went, but if you want alleged "world peace", then you have to decide what freedoms you want with that world peace, and you need to decide what you're willing to sacrifice for it, or, if it's worth it to you at all.
Good fences and good respect make good neighbors, but the variety of lunatics that Penn and Teller present, including some woman who cites Rush Limbaugh's infamous "kill people and break things" line about the purpose of the military (that's actually NOT the purpose of the US Army soldier, nor servicemen of the other services) makes you wonder what the goals of people who claim to be "for peace" are.
And, as usual, it seems like a lot of the "for peace" people are for neutering private enterprise, and then including "ending racism" in that diatribe. Again, Penn and Teller put on the breaks and bring ammo to bear on this target.
The bottom line here; when did peace suddenly include all kinds of other issues that are not related to "world peace" whatsoever?
Penn and Teller also examine the UN, and specifically the UN Security counsel which allegedly has had very little ineffectiveness on nearly all world matters.
People, notably beauty pageant contestants, tout "world peace" as being virtuous. Well, it's nice to enjoy "the good life", as Penn states, but you need to know who your political allies are, and make sure that you're sharing the same goal.
For the lady who created code pink after losing her son in Iraq, all I can say is that that was one of the risks of his job. It's pretty much what wars are all about; the physical struggle and combat over money and resources. When you disagree with someone on who should have those resources, and that person refuses to give up whatever is in their possession, and attempt to take from you what they believe is theirs, what will your response be?
That's the question that's never addressed. This is the core of military conflict ever since cavemen were fighting over mates and watering holes by throwing rocks and jawbones at one another. Although, historically, it would appear that prior to civilization actual "wars" of any kind hardly ever happened. Make of that what you will.
Today we have militaries to protect us from large organized efforts to breach our borders, disrupt our social order, and secure our assets from ourselves; i.e. theft and conquest. Penn and Teller don't really address the military need (or theorized need), but they do conclude by offering their solution to conflict on all levels. I think ultimately that is a correct solution.
If we could only have convinced the Saddam Husseins, the Osama Bin Ladens, or even our own historical miscreants of the very same.
Enjoy!
