Peace in our time?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Peace in our time?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    324

    Peace in our time?

    I would suggest that the anti-war elements within our communities are, despite the quantities of information being rendered by the media, either poorly informed or deliberately ignorant of the actualities of the situation.

    UN resolution 1441, the 17th such resolution since the end of hostilities with Iraq 12 years ago, places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi regime. Iraq is no first offender with a right of innocence until proof of guilt, but a convict, one with a thirty year history of re-offence. The role of inspectors is simply to validate the assertions the regime makes, that it has divested itself of those weapons of mass destruction that were prohibited by the UN after Iraqs most recent war of conquest in Kuwait. A regime bent on hiding such weapons however can do so indefinately and under such circumstances, as Hans Blix points out, the number of inspectors is irrelevant. It was because of this fact that the trigger for the "serious consequences" described in 1441 was not the sucsess or failure of the inspectors to find prescribed material, but the success or failiure of Iraq to prove to the inspectors that they have finally "come clean". Anything less than 100% co-operation is a material breach.

    In a post 9/11 environment even the most liberal of those marching on Saturday will be unable to deny that there are, without question, those in the world who would use such weapons of mass desruction against us without the least hesitation. If left unchecked the transference of weapons of mass desruction from proliferating rouge states to international terrorists is simply a matter of time. The Iraqi regimes links to terror are without question. The regime pays compensation to the families of Hammas martyrs who kill Israelis. The Iraqi second secretary, Husham Zed Husain, was yesterday expelled from the Philippines for his role in the bombing in Malagutay, Zamboanga City, in October last year. And in so brutal and oppressive a regime as that of Iraq the Al-Zarqawi network, responsible for the recent risin outrages in the UK and Europe, would be unable function without the tacit compliance of that regime. Any of these terrorist networks could be employed to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to a western city if the regime chose so to do, and that weapon could be delivered without a return address.

    I feel sure that much will be made during the protests on saturday of the fact that Iraq has oil. I would like to point out that Kuwait also has oil, but at the end of the last gulf war did the west seize that oil from Kuwait? Or did the west invest billions into re-capping the oil wells destroyed by the fleeing invaders from Iraq and re-building programmes, effectively dusting the Kuwaities down and then giving back to them the petro-dollars that were rightfully thiers. The concept that this is about oil is confusion between cause and effect. If America was that desperate over its energy security then would invade Venisualla, rather than undertake a far riskier operation in the Gulf.

    Actions by the Franco-Prussian alliance in the UN are not only devisive, but are liable to render the UN as impotent as its predecessor, the Leage Of Nations. The loss of such a platform for the will of the international community would force the kinds of unlitaterel actions that were the pre-cursors of the last world war. Sending mixed messages to Bagdad at such a time can only serve to reinforce the regimes belief that they can slip through the loophole of our divisions. In terms of winning the war The US needs the UN like a man going hunting needs an accordian. But to win the peace, to effect regime change and to bring Iraq back into the international community the UN will be vital. The machinations of the Franco-Prussian alliance can only have the effect of making it more difficult for us to win such a peace for the people of Iraq and deal with other rouge state proliferators.

    I would ask those marching on Saturday in favour of appeasment to realise that the consquences of "peace in our time" may lead, as appeasment always has, to a conflict more destructive than one that could be undertaken now.
    \"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.\"
    Sir Winston Churchill.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    482
    In short, there will never be a thing called world peace. hmm, however there might be one time but it wont last very long. some for my pessicism but thats what i believe
    - Trying is the first step towards failure. the moral is never try.
    - It\'s like something out of that twilighty show about that zone.
    ----Homer J Simpson----

  3. #3
    "Only the dead see the end of war"
    -Plato

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    324
    Well... <sarcasm>I'm glad to see the standard of discussion here has not deteriorated further during my absence.</sarcasm>
    \"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.\"
    Sir Winston Churchill.

  5. #5
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Originally posted here by ntsa
    Well... <sarcasm>I'm glad to see the standard of discussion here has not deteriorated further during my absence.</sarcasm>
    There's a lively discussion on this topic in General Chit Chat

    http://www.antionline.com/showthread...0&pagenumber=1
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    167
    There's a lively discussion on this topic in General Chit Chat
    It's not worth discussing politics here on anti-online. Last time I got involved in a discussion involving war and politics, I was negged to hell and back.

  7. #7
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    With all of the negativity I've recieved from starting that thread you'd think ONE person, just ONE freakin' person would be able to at least in some small way answer my question...but, sadly, that is not the case.

    They'd rather U.S. bash, Israel bash and stick their fingers in their ears while childishly yelling "LALALALALALA" as they run around the room, they just don't see the big picture. (And it's not about oil.)

    You know I could rant about this for a while but I'll leave this one alone now, I've ruffled enough of my euaropean brethren's feathers..... (I'm not implying that they are any type of phaesant, either. It's an expression.


    Although if the shoe fits..... sorry, I couldn't resist.

    peace to everyone here on AO and I hope you aren't harmed by your countries inaction, or timidness.
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429
    KorpDeath...
    You needed xmaddness to provide some valid arguements in the other thread, now you need ntsa to post something valid.

    You talk about how well-informed you are as much as you want, I haven't seen you post one simple decent thing about this matter. I've seen you miss-spell names, I've seen you being wrong on simple facts, I've seen you insult other countries (nothing wrong with that if it exceeds the level of 'that faggot Blix'), I've seen you act like the average high-school bully, I've seen 'someone' throw around antipoints,... I'd be more than happy to provide ntsa with my points of view, as I did with xmaddness.
    They both make valid points (even Powell made some valid points last Friday), but you? I'm done with you. Your 'points of view' didn't piss me off, even your ignorant war-talk doesn't piss me off anymore. You're the one that needs to do some reading instead of...whatever it is you do. You're the reason illiterate people despise Americans like you. And I can't blame them.

    America is a great country... if it weren't for people like you. Luckily enough, most people are aware of the fact that you are not at all an example of what America stands for.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    324
    I thank the member who, in a refreshing burst of honesty and via red APs, confessed to being "either poorly informed or deliberately ignorant". Perhaps if you truly are as mentally challenged as your point of view would suggest it would be better to leave such difficult decisions to those who we elect to make them.

    War is never a popular option, but neither is the business of running a country a popularity contest. The political courage to do what is right, regardless of popularity, exemplifies the qualities of leadership and strength of character that I for one had never hoped nor expected to find in a (purportedley) socialist government.

    (Note for the American bretheren: The socialist government to which I refer is the encumbant British executive.)

    L'Union Fait La Force Neg? I think that makes your position rather clear I'd be interested in the logic of your arguments however. Anti-war opinion, from what I can gather, seems to fall into the following categories:

    1...Appeasment argument
    No war under any circumstances. Predominatly the position of tree huggers.

    2..."It's a long way away..." argument
    No credible threat from the nexus of world terrorism and rouge states with weapons of mass destruction. Predeminatly the position of people who have lived under a rock since september 10th 2001.

    3...Evil empire argument
    America and Britain are attempting to annexe Iraq in order to ethnicly cleanse the population and steal the oil (without the world press noticing presumably Predominatly the position of consipracy theorists and Osama Bin Laden.

    4..."Smoking Gun" argument
    Additional time for inspectors to find the "smoking gun" before war. Predominatly the position of people who don't realise that a smoking gun has just been fired at someone.

    5...The Blix argument
    Limited additional time for inspectors to assertain Iraqi delivery on new promises of co-operation following the Blix report to the UNSECCO. The position of the UK government.

    As someone who I consider to be at the very least my intellectual equal I'm guessing you're a 5 neg
    \"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.\"
    Sir Winston Churchill.

  10. #10
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    Originally posted here by Negative
    KorpDeath...
    You needed xmaddness to provide some valid arguements in the other thread, now you need ntsa to post something valid.

    You talk about how well-informed you are as much as you want, I haven't seen you post one simple decent thing about this matter. I've seen you miss-spell names, I've seen you being wrong on simple facts, I've seen you insult other countries (nothing wrong with that if it exceeds the level of 'that faggot Blix'), I've seen you act like the average high-school bully, I've seen 'someone' throw around antipoints,... I'd be more than happy to provide ntsa with my points of view, as I did with xmaddness.
    They both make valid points (even Powell made some valid points last Friday), but you? I'm done with you. Your 'points of view' didn't piss me off, even your ignorant war-talk doesn't piss me off anymore. You're the one that needs to do some reading instead of...whatever it is you do. You're the reason illiterate people despise Americans like you. And I can't blame them.

    America is a great country... if it weren't for people like you. Luckily enough, most people are aware of the fact that you are not at all an example of what America stands for.
    Isn't that special.. I ask a question, that's what is was Neg, a question. I wanted some insight as to why the U.N. was acting the way it was. Since I had no insight into this particular issue. So you say I have no valid arguments, well that's because I wasn't arguing anything I was looking for some VALID information.....Not a bunch of pre pubescent pukes ashouting "No war for Oil." okay

    Now you've got my point of view.

    You never and still haven't addressed my QUESTION Negative. My Freakin' question.

    I HAD A QUESTION.. (did you hear that!! maybe caps will make it look different to you.)

    And what I got for asking that question was all about what a horrible country I live in. Fantastic. I look for some specific info.

    I misspell (note correct spelling of the word) names on purpose because I lost my patience....

    And as far as illiterate people dispising my country, fine, they can't read what I write anyway.

    If you can't answer one simple little question, it's you who needs to read more. Or maybe read what's written not want YOU want it to say.

    I'm not an ignorant war monger. I'm a pacifist by nature, but when I say there's going to be consequences for something you'd better belive I will follow through with what I've said.

    Enough is enough. Do you really think I want our innocent boys and girls to get killed?.....not hardly. The ignorance in this whole "debate" (note it's in quotes) is yours, my friend, yours.

    You were saying?
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •