Is it justified?
Monday, January 13, 2003 by @shu | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Is it justified? I mean the war against Iraq. Of course, the optimists may say, 'Look, it hasn't taken place as yet'. But it is clear to even the common observer that the Anglo-American governments are cranking up the war machine.
They are hell bent on taking unilateral action against a nation that is already destroyed by hunger and poverty, even after the UN weapons inspectors have found nothing. Doesn't this make their actions suspect?
Elsewhere, the N. government openly admits to having a nuclear weapons program, but no action is taken against them. The mere possibility of taking action too does not cross the mind of the very same leaders who threaten to blow Iraq into oblivion. Is it due to the fact that N. Korea possesses the capability to retaliate, or the fact that N. Korea does not have any oil reserves to quench the thirst of these oil guzzling, 'developed, first world' countries?
They are hell bent on taking unilateral action against a nation that is already destroyed by hunger and poverty, even after the UN weapons inspectors have found nothing. Doesn't this make their actions suspect?
Elsewhere, the N. government openly admits to having a nuclear weapons program, but no action is taken against them. The mere possibility of taking action too does not cross the mind of the very same leaders who threaten to blow Iraq into oblivion. Is it due to the fact that N. Korea possesses the capability to retaliate, or the fact that N. Korea does not have any oil reserves to quench the thirst of these oil guzzling, 'developed, first world' countries?
 |
|
Page 8 of 9 | |
|
|---|
@shu
Reply #142 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:17 PM
Reply #142 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:17 PM
1. Iraq is anti-American. It harbours fantasies of destroying the US. So does China, doesn't it? All its activities are US centric, aren't they? Doesn't even the CIA acknowledge that the Chinese are a threat? And so does N. Korea. The North is talking to all other nations except to the US and its allies. What does it speak about their intentions?
2. Iraq is TRYING to possess WMDs. China and N. Korea already possess them. Alongwith them, also the means to deliver them to the American mainland, ICBMs and stuff.
3. People living under the Iraqi regime suffer unspeakable hardships. Any moves against the regime doesn't go unpunished. But this suffering is shared by Chinese and the N. Koreans too. Their moves are censored, they have no or miniscule freedom. And who can forget the 1989 Tianmen Square massacre. About the same time as Iraqi atrocities.
4. Iraq warred on Kuwait and tried to conquer it. Whereas, Chinese still occupy Tibetian soil, have installed a puppet Lama, while the real Lama is in exile. It also threatens to forcefully merge many, now sovereign nations, with the mainland.
5. There is a fear that the Iraqi arsenal is at the disposal of the terrosrists. And the Iraqi have broken the UN laws, ceasefire pact. On other hand, it is a fact that Pakistani Ghauris and Ghazanis are nothing but a Pakistani paint job on Red M11's and N. Korean missiles. The Pakistani atomic bomb program also has its roots in the Republic of China. That is breaking all NPT treaties.
Now let us look at the differences.
1. China and N. Korea are militarily powerful nations. A skirmish with either would result in millions of casualties on either side.
Iraq on the other hand, has been brought to its knees by the 1991 Gulf War and 12 years of sanctions. It has lost the will to fight, all its propoganda is empty talk. It wouldn't last a week against the American might and it knows that.
2. Iraq provides little or no contribution to the American GDP. China, on the other hand, is major market for American goods. Also, it is a major source of cheap labour that many (err) Global companies would like to exploit.
If I were a military strategist, heck, why do I need to be one, I'd not even think twice about the choice I make. Hell, its plain and clear, the easisest choice, maximum results with minimum input.
2. Iraq is TRYING to possess WMDs. China and N. Korea already possess them. Alongwith them, also the means to deliver them to the American mainland, ICBMs and stuff.
3. People living under the Iraqi regime suffer unspeakable hardships. Any moves against the regime doesn't go unpunished. But this suffering is shared by Chinese and the N. Koreans too. Their moves are censored, they have no or miniscule freedom. And who can forget the 1989 Tianmen Square massacre. About the same time as Iraqi atrocities.
4. Iraq warred on Kuwait and tried to conquer it. Whereas, Chinese still occupy Tibetian soil, have installed a puppet Lama, while the real Lama is in exile. It also threatens to forcefully merge many, now sovereign nations, with the mainland.
5. There is a fear that the Iraqi arsenal is at the disposal of the terrosrists. And the Iraqi have broken the UN laws, ceasefire pact. On other hand, it is a fact that Pakistani Ghauris and Ghazanis are nothing but a Pakistani paint job on Red M11's and N. Korean missiles. The Pakistani atomic bomb program also has its roots in the Republic of China. That is breaking all NPT treaties.
Now let us look at the differences.
1. China and N. Korea are militarily powerful nations. A skirmish with either would result in millions of casualties on either side.
Iraq on the other hand, has been brought to its knees by the 1991 Gulf War and 12 years of sanctions. It has lost the will to fight, all its propoganda is empty talk. It wouldn't last a week against the American might and it knows that.
2. Iraq provides little or no contribution to the American GDP. China, on the other hand, is major market for American goods. Also, it is a major source of cheap labour that many (err) Global companies would like to exploit.
If I were a military strategist, heck, why do I need to be one, I'd not even think twice about the choice I make. Hell, its plain and clear, the easisest choice, maximum results with minimum input.
WOM
Reply #145 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:03 PM
Reply #145 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:03 PM
Ashu, I think it's about time you dropped this.You'll change no minds. Your starting to rant, repeat and it's becoming boring.
@shu
Reply #146 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:15 PM
Reply #146 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:15 PM
You are right Sir Wom. No more inputs from my side. I just request that my name not be mentioned in this thread again. I have already paid for my views with the rejection of my WPs. Maybe they weren't 'uploadable'. 
WOM
Reply #148 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:21 PM
Reply #148 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:21 PM
The moderators are not that petty, so don't blame it on them. OK? You were not the only one to get rejected today.
Jafo
Reply #149 Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:55 AM
Reply #149 Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:55 AM
@shu....I'd just like to add that in no way is any form of discrimination or prejudice taken when determining what will or will not be accepted in the wall [or any other] section.
The sole criteria for determining eligibility is 'quality' control, however much people may balk at the thought, or our capacity to determine such.
Rest assured that the Moderators on this site are from diverse countries with differing political and social ideals and are far more cosmopolitan than they are often accused of 'not being'.
The 'problem' with political, or religious 'discussion' is that invariably it can lead to argument rather than debate, which is specifically why FrogBoy suggested that Wincustomize.com was not the best location to partake in this form of discussion.....we have more than enough grief and argument about things specific to skinning as it is without taking on the global woes of the rest of the world.
So I guess I have to agree with Brad [FrogBoy] that it would be better to not inflame animus et al here with all of this, and just stick to issues more 'skinning' in nature...
The sole criteria for determining eligibility is 'quality' control, however much people may balk at the thought, or our capacity to determine such.
Rest assured that the Moderators on this site are from diverse countries with differing political and social ideals and are far more cosmopolitan than they are often accused of 'not being'.
The 'problem' with political, or religious 'discussion' is that invariably it can lead to argument rather than debate, which is specifically why FrogBoy suggested that Wincustomize.com was not the best location to partake in this form of discussion.....we have more than enough grief and argument about things specific to skinning as it is without taking on the global woes of the rest of the world.
So I guess I have to agree with Brad [FrogBoy] that it would be better to not inflame animus et al here with all of this, and just stick to issues more 'skinning' in nature...
IPlural
Reply #150 Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:33 AM
Reply #150 Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:33 AM
Ok I drunk my jug of shine, and I that thar ma polar-bar now whar's thet Eskimo Woman you want me to rasel?
@shu
Reply #152 Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:56 AM
Reply #152 Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:56 AM
Jafo, I meant it in a cause-effect sort of way. I never intended to blame anybody for the rejection. I apologise if my statement caused hurt to anybody. I didn't mean to do it. And you of all people, Jafo, should know that I take rejections in the right spirit, I even ask you tips to make the submission better the next time. Please my last comment may be ignored or deleted, it was mere jest.
I aplogise once again to Frogboy (Brad is it?) if my statement caused any hurt to him, and to you Jafo and other moderators too. I do not suspect the process; I have no reason too.
I aplogise once again to Frogboy (Brad is it?) if my statement caused any hurt to him, and to you Jafo and other moderators too. I do not suspect the process; I have no reason too.
@shu
Reply #153 Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:00 AM
Reply #153 Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:00 AM
And you too Sir WOM (if you notice, I am back to calling you Sir.) I respect your judgement and value your advice. I think I owe you an apology too. And an explanation that it was just an off the cuff jest. I hope that there are no hard feelings.
Jafo
Reply #154 Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:49 AM
Reply #154 Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:49 AM
No problem, @shu...I just thought it more apropos to explain rather than remove, as 'wall moderation' is often a 'touchy' subject [mild understatement], but as you know, necessary...
WOM
Reply #155 Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:52 AM
Reply #155 Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:52 AM
No problem @shu. Remember we can only see whats in front of us and not your body language. So everyone makes up their mind from what we see and thats all.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #156 Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:05 AM
Reply #156 Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:05 AM
I'd like the world to be full of nice flowers and cute fluffy bunnies. For everyone to have all the chocolate they want and be warm and snug.
Oh, I forgot, this planet is Earth...
Fuzzy Logic goes out and slashes wrists
Oh, I forgot, this planet is Earth...
Fuzzy Logic goes out and slashes wrists
paxx
Reply #157 Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:10 AM
Reply #157 Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:10 AM
OK, topic dropped.
I'm sure everybody is very convinced in his rights on every side. Even Iraq invading Koweit though they were right (Koweit was initially part of Iraq before the British made it a seperate nation (back when they were both British colonies)), although everybody else thinks they were wrong.
It's SUPPOSED to be why UN exists, to determine who is right or wrong. But oh well...
I'm sure everybody is very convinced in his rights on every side. Even Iraq invading Koweit though they were right (Koweit was initially part of Iraq before the British made it a seperate nation (back when they were both British colonies)), although everybody else thinks they were wrong.
It's SUPPOSED to be why UN exists, to determine who is right or wrong. But oh well...
@shu
Reply #158 Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:44 AM
Reply #158 Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:44 AM
Maybe, paxx, we can start talking about it again after the deadlock ends. I hope, nay, I pray, that it ends peacefully.
But if it ends in war, one side of this debate will have to admit its mistake, its whole take on the issue. I just wish with all my heart that I be on that side, or it would be that all the destruction was for nothing.
And Sir WOM and Jafo (I dunno, never could associate you with a title, its what, four/five months since I became a member?), I will keep in mind that what I write may not necessarily convey what I mean. The next time, I will try to choose words much more carefully.
But if it ends in war, one side of this debate will have to admit its mistake, its whole take on the issue. I just wish with all my heart that I be on that side, or it would be that all the destruction was for nothing.
And Sir WOM and Jafo (I dunno, never could associate you with a title, its what, four/five months since I became a member?), I will keep in mind that what I write may not necessarily convey what I mean. The next time, I will try to choose words much more carefully.
Jafo
Reply #159 Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM
Reply #159 Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM
@shu...the 'J' in 'JAFO' stands for 'just'...not as in 'upright and proper', but as in 'merely'...so a 'sir' would be a bit pointless....
The Rated PG
Reply #160 Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:06 PM
U.N. Inspectors Find Chemical Warheads
25 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.N. inspectors found 11 chemical warheads in "excellent" condition Thursday at an ammunition storage area, where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported.
A 12th warhead also was found that requires further evaluation, according to the statement by Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad.
The team used portable X-ray equipment to conduct a preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing, Ueki's statement said.
"The warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980's," the statement said.
The warheads were found during a visit by inspectors to bunkers built in the late 1990s at the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area in southern Iraq.
Reply #160 Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:06 PM
U.N. Inspectors Find Chemical Warheads
25 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.N. inspectors found 11 chemical warheads in "excellent" condition Thursday at an ammunition storage area, where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported.
A 12th warhead also was found that requires further evaluation, according to the statement by Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad.
The team used portable X-ray equipment to conduct a preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing, Ueki's statement said.
"The warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980's," the statement said.
The warheads were found during a visit by inspectors to bunkers built in the late 1990s at the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area in southern Iraq.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 8 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #141 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:47 PM