Hans Blix had proves beyond doubt
D Stephen Heersink
Council Resolution 1441 amounts to an indictment; he's reported
saying, "Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance--not even
today--of the disarmament which was demanded of it."
One of the conditions of armistice in the 1991 Iraqi-Kuwati War was
that Hussein disarm completely so that he would not be a threat to his
neighbors nor rise up again against his own people. He's never taken
these conditions seriously, and now puts the rest of the world in
jeopardy.
Let's be frank. A big reason for the disarmament is to stablize the
region in order to secure the orderly disposition of its oil
resources. If Hussein becomes a threat again, especially if he
acquires nuclear weapons, he can hold his neighbors hostage (like he
tried in Kuwait), and assume despotic contol of most the world's oil
supply.
In such a lofty position, he could blackmail nations, raise oil to
levels previously unthought, and could pass on his weapons and
knowledge and properties of them to third parties. He could form
alliances with him against all his enemies, including the U.S., and
help other rogue states like North Korea.
It would be nice if things were otherwise. If countries, left to their
peaceful means, provided for their citizens' basic needs and took
their interests into account, we would have no need for war. But as
the Balkans proved, and too many instances in North Korea and the
continent of Africa continue to illustrate, despots left to their own
designs become masters of genocide, mass starvation, and terror at the
hands of their own governments.
These are not governments of, by, and for the people; they are regimes
solely of, by, and for the despots that control them. Unfortunately,
there are too many such despots, but few that sit enthroned upon some
of the world's largest oil reserves. And to further their own despotic
egos, nothing would please these tyrants, including Hussein, into
further meglomania.
As gay men and women, we have experience only the "lite" version of
such despotic regimes. While President Bush may prosecute the war
against Iraq for oil-reserves and stability, and to help diminish the
spread of Wabbhistic Islam, we too must make this our war. Religion
has never looked kindly on gays and lesbians, but no religion has been
more severe against gays and lesbians than Isalm.
The rise of radical Islamic regimes is not only a potential threat to
our oil needs, but perhaps more important, a real threat to gays and
lesbians very existence. Radical Islam's treatment of women is
abhorent to every civilized person, making of them little less than
chattel. But gays when discovered are amputated or murdered.
As gays and lesbians, we need to be reminded that Islam is the world's
fastest growing religion with a level of intolerance unmatched by
anything yet known. During the spiff with Iraq, we found out that our
"friend" Saudi Arabia is financing the very demise of Western Culture
as far as we have advanced it. We still have a way to go in the West,
but we're at least 13 centuries ahead of radical Islam.
Yes, if war comes, it will be about oil. It will also be about the
liberation of those under despotic regimes. But equally, if not most
important, it will reverse the archaic headway that radical Islam is
famous for imposing. In this sense, we are fighting for our existence.
While the West may only yet "tolerate" us, radical Islam would
extinguish us. Such a threat needs to be checked, even if that should
find us on the brink of war.
--
This is message #4495.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://groups.queernet.org> for details.
-
Help keep QueerNet and OPG lists on the air and advertising-free --
see <http://groups.queernet.org#donate> to donate.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Ezekiel Krahlin
<<
We still have a way to go in the West,
but we're at least 13 centuries ahead
of radical Islam.
>>
When it comes to homosexuality, however, I'd lower the difference to, say, maybe a half century.
Further: it is a foolhardy proposal to use Islam's anti-gay dogma as an excuse to start WWIII. We pride ourselves in our intelligence and creativity...and diplomacy, for that matter. We can resolve the issues of religious dogma--including Islam's--withOUT bombing nations to kingdom come (with Amerikan citizens soon to follow suit).
I am AGAINST the U.S. going to war without the support of her allies. I have complete confidence in Western Civilization, to squelch Islamic fundamentalism, along with other forms of dogma...withOUT going to war, ever. Non-cooperation with our allies, may lead to a U.N. declaration that Amerika is a threat to the very existence of our planet...and break her up like we did to Germany after WWII. (For it is not just the threat of war with Islam, but our massive pollution, nuclear armament, and sabotage of fledgling democracies.)
SinQueerly yours,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://www.gay-bible.org/
--
This is message #4499.
rb...@earthlink.net
Unfortunatly, by what you have written, I do not think you, as many
others I have found, have a good idea of several issues:
1) The UN - the UN has NO authority to do anything except with the
consent of the member nations.
If you go back to the time of the first decades of the 20th century, and
the forming of the League of Nations, the US was NEVER a member of it,
and effectively doomed it to failure. The only authority it had was with
the nations that were members, and their agreeing to the decisions it
passed. When Germany and Japan both eventually decided they did not like
what it was saying, they both ended their relationship in it, to pursue
their paths of war, which lead to WWII.
When the UN was formed in the ashes of WWII, the whole idea was a body
that could overcome the defects of the League, and help to prevent the
reasons for that war to happen. UNFORTUNATELY, the UN is, again, as much
a problem as the original League - for the EXACT same reasons.
IF the UN passed a resolution, which is next to impossible, since the US
has permanent status to veto any and all resolutions that it does not
like, since it was one of the founding nations of the organization, the
US could very well tell the UN to go to hell, and get out of this
country, and it would have to do so.
The ONLY reason the UN is still in NY is that the US has found it in its
own best interests to keep it here rather than have it end up in
Brussels as a number have wanted to do over the last decades.
Remember there are 5 permanent members of the council, who have total
veto power of any issue - the others being England, France, Russia, and
China. This was the result of the outcome of WWII, and these were the
allies during the war.
2) Germany - Germany, like Austria for a few years, was partitioned due
to the victors each wanting control after what had happened after WWI,
and the later rearming. Austria agreed not many years later to become
neutral, and so was given total sovernty back over all of the country.
BUT Germany was a VERY different situation, since it had started both
WORLD wars, and had been viewed in a very different light by all the
countries involved. The BIG reason that it was partitioned and until
recent years, had remained so - to keep control and prevent a
rehappening of the situation from happening again. BUT with all that has
happened in the last decades, Germany is looked on VERY different from
all aspects and countries, so the issue of reunification was not a
problem when it happened.
Unfortunately, Germany is in a situation now similar to that which
existed for it internally during the 1920s, with economic issues as well
as others, rearing their heads. So what will happen to it and Europe in
general these days will just have to be seen.
Local wars have NEVER been a reason for doing anything like was done to
Germany.
Japan ended up, because of how WWII went in the Pacific, under US rule.
Britain and other nations, such as China, could not handle Japan as the
US could from its own issues from the war so the US handled everything.
3) The idea of the UN partitioning the US - totally impossible as the UN
doing such an activity, since the UN could, of itself, be impossible to
do such an act. The US is the main support of the UN both economically
as well as militarily.
What would be possible is the idea of a united europe deciding, as a
body, that they did not want to deal with the US and what it has been
doing - they could attack and fight the US as a body, the same as if one
or more individual nations were to decide to do so.
The US fighting against Iraq is no different than the US has done in
other spots in the world, the most recent and biggest was the whole
issue of Vietnam.
BUT the same has existed from time beginning of any nation(s) fighting
any other nation(s). Just look at any time in history, and you will find
in all of man's history, of over 6,000 years, only around 100 years
through out when man was NOT in some war somewhere. Britain against
France, France against Germany, Germany against Italy, Russia against
Japan, Japan against China, India against Pakistan, Israel against Arab,
Russia against Afganistan, and so forth.
This does not even look at Africa or South America, and the wars that
have happened there. How about US versus England in the founding days.
US versus Mexico, US versus Spain, and so on. In fact in the Spanish
American war, the US won not just the Philipines but Cuba, which later
was given its freedom.
So the US by far has never been a primary factor in individual wars in
the past, just one of many who has warred over the years with others. It
is a young country compared to many others, so that is one reason. Also,
due to its location, it has been spared much of the conflicts seen in
other parts of the world, where old nations were next to others.
4) Islam - if you look at the past centuries, you will find the Islam
has been an issue of one kind of other for many centuries. At one point,
Islam nearly completely conquored all of Europe - only some keep defeats
stopped that from happening, and this was LONG before a US was ever
around.
So the whole issue of religion of one kind or another has been a factor
over the milleniums in many issues, war just being one of them.
More than even the US dependancy on foreign oil, Europe and Japan are
TOTALLY dependant on middle eastern oil - so turmoil that would cut
their supplies off could very easily cause Europe to go into the middle
east to make sure it has a free flow of oil.
Remember, Europe, as a United Europe is now forming its own combined
military might, independent of the US, as has been the case with NATO,
which has been US dominated. A combined European military could be a
much greater threat to nations, especially in areas that it deams
necessary for its own running, than that of the US is at present.
Also, Asia is looking VERY much at combining into a United Asia as
Europe is completing these days. And that would be a MUCH larger force
to deal with than either the US or United Europe would be.
The whole view of how things exist today can very radically change in a
very short time period. 9/11 showed that as nobody ever expected.
Nothing that was ever assumed previous can just be assumed to continue
as was in the past.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the world is changing - for better or
worse, that will have to wait until the chess game takes better shape
these days.
Ralph
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 dsh...@intergate.com (D Stephen Heersink) typed:
>
> <<
> We still have a way to go in the West,
> but we're at least 13 centuries ahead
> of radical Islam.
> >>
>
> When it comes to homosexuality, however, I'd lower the difference to, say, maybe a half century.
>
> Further: it is a foolhardy proposal to use Islam's anti-gay dogma as an excuse to start WWIII. We pride ourselves in our intelligence and creativity...and diplomacy, for that matter. We can resolve the issues of religious dogma--including Islam's--withOUT bombing nations to kingdom come (with Amerikan citizens soon to follow suit).
>
> I am AGAINST the U.S. going to war without the support of her allies. I have complete confidence in Western Civilization, to squelch Islamic fundamentalism, along with other forms of dogma...withOUT going to war, ever. Non-cooperation with our allies, may lead to a U.N. declaration that Amerika is a threat to the very existence of our planet...and break her up like we did to Germany after WWII. (For it is not just the threat of war with Islam, but our massive pollution, nuclear armament, and sab
>
> SinQueerly yours,
> Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>
> ---
> Lavender-Velvet Revolution
> http://www.gay-bible.org/
>
> --
> This is message #4499.
> **********
>
> To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
> To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
> (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
> up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
>
> For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
> a topic that interests you, see <http://groups.queernet.org> for details.
> -
> Help keep QueerNet and OPG lists on the air and advertising-free --
> see <http://groups.queernet.org#donate> to donate.
--
This is message #4500.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<<
Unfortunatly, by what you have written, I do not think you, as many others I have found, have a good idea of several issues:
>>
Incorrect; I have an EXCELLENT idea of the issues.
<<
1) The UN - the UN has NO authority to do anything except with the consent of the member nations.
>>
Unfortunately, you take my reference to the U.N. a bit too literally. Whatever global compact occurs--whether via the U.N. or other venue--I can see how easily the U.S. can become a danger to the world; thus forcing other nations to form economic/political blocks equal to, or stronger then, the U.S. Then, we Amerikans must abide by global sanctions that may greatly displeasure our present dictatorship. But they won't be able to do anything about it, except perhaps whimper.
This same global force will ALSO mandate protection and equality for sexual minorities in Amerika. It's a good thing.
<<
If you go back to the time of the first decades of the 20th century, and the forming of the League of Nations, the US was NEVER a member of it,
and effectively doomed it to failure.
>>
Whatever. But that's NOT going to stop other western nations from uniting AGAINST Amerika...with or without the U.N., thank you. The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations...which may very well be replaced by this global force I see forming.
So you can lecture all you want about the U.N....but you really AREN'T addressing the larger issue of the United States being a great danger to the destruction of our planet...every bit as much as the Taliban, or any other anti-Amerikan terrorists.
<<
Germany is looked on VERY different from all aspects and countries, so the issue of reunification was not a
problem when it happened.
>>
Did I say Germany has not vastly improved their condition since WWII? No. In fact, they are doing a MUCH BETTER job of serving its citizens with compassion and responsibility, than the U.S. Likewise for many OTHER western nations.
<<
Local wars have NEVER been a reason for doing anything like was done to Germany.
>>
Local? Who's talking "local"? The German horror led to WWII...and this Amerikan horror will easily lead to WWIII, if not stopped by the UNITED EFFORTS of its "allies"...whether under the auspices of the UN, or some newer agency that may spring up in answer to major global crisis.
<<
The US is the main support of the UN both economically
as well as militarily.
>>
Actually, the U.S. has now become the greatest DESTROYER of the UN. The times they are a-changin'.
Oh! Well, that was my point, too...though I did use the U.N. as an example. I see a whole sea-change in the world's reliance on the U.S. It is time for our allies to take upon themselves, the shared responsibility for the world's well-being, rather than rely on one nation alone, to "do it all".
Let the U.S. become a lesser power, that other democracies may show their true grit, and have a chance to be heroes, too.
SinQueerly yours,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://www.gay-bible.org/
--
This is message #4501.