View Full Version : Good read

25th January 2003, 20:51
Well this on the verge of breaking Joel's rules, but I think its a worth while read even if it does get locked:

An Article printed in the Windsor Star, it's a pretty good read, I don't know the author:

Nice to see that the anti-war protesters want peace. Then again, who doesn't? But not all of us want peace at any price. As columnist Peter Worthington has said, "peace is easy, just surrender."

Of course everyone wants peace, but more important than current peace is future security.

After the devastation of the First World War, Great Britain wanted peace more than anything else. So when Hitler began re-arming in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, Great Britain had to make a difficult choice between peace and conflict.

Unfortunately, under the "leadership" of Neville Chamberlain --and with the full support of the soft-thinking "intellectuals" of literature, academia and certain newspapers -- Britain chose peace over action. Standing almost alone against appeasement was Winston Churchill.

Great Britain was given a second chance in 1936 when Hitler, who was still relatively weak, invaded the Rhineland, which had been set up as a demilitarized zone to give France an early warning against attack.

Despite this blatant treaty violation, Great Britain again chose appeasement and current peace, at the risk of future security. It was the last time Hitler could have been easily stopped. It wasn't until Germany invaded France in 1940 that Churchill was given power, but by then it was too late. That first decision to take the easy way out was a mistake that cost millions of lives later.

So now we have history repeating. Once again we have rogue regimes in the world that are strengthening and will soon have the potential to inflict enormous casualties. Once again we have the anti-war people calling for peace rather than action. Once again we have people willing to sacrifice future security for the current illusion of peace.

Places like North Korea, Iran and Iraq and terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, are still weak enough that they can be stopped. But once they have multiple launching sights of nuclear or chemical weapons with long-range delivery capabilities, it will be too late. Once Iraq has the power to obliterate Israel, who will have the resolve to stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait again? Once North Korea has the capability of simultaneously landing long-range nuclear missiles on New York and, say, Detroit, how can they be stopped from taking their million-man army and crossing into South Korea? Will the U.S. be willing to risk New York to save South Korea?

And once al-Qaida has the ability to detonate nuclear suitcase bombs or unleash chemical weapons anywhere in the world, how will the spread of militant Islam have any chance of being contained.

If we want to save millions of lives later -- presumably even the protesters would be for that --the time to act is now. We all want peace. The peace protesters don't have a monopoly on righteousness. But peace doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peace comes at a price and someone has to be willing to pay that price. The time to eliminate the threat is now, while it still can be eliminated, just as the time to attack Hitler was in 1936, when he could still be easily defeated.

Fortunately for the well-meaning but naive peace protesters, George Bush will make the tough decision, but the protesters will still get to enjoy the security that Bush's decision brings. Including the right to be a holier-than-thou protester.

25th January 2003, 21:17
Unfortunately it often takes a good hard kick in the gonads to convince many people that a particular threat is real (France, 1940, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.).


26th January 2003, 03:42
Sorry GT98, but i must inform you that "GEO/POLITICAL BULLSHIT" is not welcome here anymore.
But before this thread gets closed i want to sneak my opinion in: the author cannot be serious comparing Hitler and Al-Qaeda. And Iraq invading Israel, don't make me laugh (or rater cry).

end of transmission :)

26th January 2003, 07:38
Umm, why can't we compare Hitler to Al-Qaeda?

Hitler believed that white Aryans deserved to be the only people in the world.

Al-Qaeda believes that militant Islamists deserve to be the only people in the world.

Hitler believed that Jews should be killed - as ruthlessly as possible.

Al-Qaeda believes that Jews should be killed - as ruthlessly as possible.

Hitler enjoyed nearly universal support from the German people, despite his obvious insanity.

Al-Qaeda enjoys nearly universal support from the Arab peoples, despite their obvious insanity.

Need I go on?

- Gurm

Dr Mordrid
26th January 2003, 08:27
Nope. You made the point perfectly, even if it was geo-politically incorrect :rolleyes:

Now for my question:

What makes political speech disposable while allowing speech about everything else? That it's too "controversial"? That people disagree, sometimes strongly, about various aspects of the topic?

Hell, we could probably get a pretty good arguement going here over a recipe, so would the next step in keeping things PC be the banning of food as a topic too? What's next; banning all conversations where opinions could widely diverge? How 'bout cars?

OOPS....don't say anything about Fords because someone might take offense :rolleyes:

Dr. Mordrid

26th January 2003, 08:54
Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
OOPS....don't say anything about Fords because someone might take offense :rolleyes:

Dr. Mordrid


Its all good anyway....I dish out stuff to :D

26th January 2003, 08:56
Editted to to personal attack....

26th January 2003, 10:39
You can't even read the article right...it said the power to obliterate Israel and invade Kuwait

Now, now...let's not get insulting...


26th January 2003, 11:26
Once Iraq has the power to obliterate Israel
now my dictionary tells me obliterate means sth. like "wipe out". to stay in your argumentation style: maybe you should get a dictionary yourself :)

26th January 2003, 11:29
My aren't we all very funny. Perhaps if a few of you acted your age a little more rather than behaving like children the mods wouldn't get so pissed off. I'm getting so bloody fed up with repeating myself about this forum and if this carries on as it has the last few months then I am closing down the Soap Box. Just because the Soap Box is for off topic discussion does not mean.. oh hang on deja vu, I just remembered you don't give a shit do you?

I've asked you all countless times to respect these forums and not use them for spewing forth your personal vitreol and pissing matches but obviously some people couldn't give a shit, well quite frankly neither can I to keep this forum open. Just keep up with your little digs and see where this forum ends up, I'd like to see how you handle moderating it.

26th January 2003, 13:20
I don't think the situation is that bad Ant. It is natural for Joel to get sick of this so I suggest a a rotating moderatorship :) Everyone would have a chance then to be in Joel's shoes. Maybe that would change some people's perspective.

26th January 2003, 13:30
efty, I think you missed Ant's point. Read it again.

26th January 2003, 13:51
efty, I think you missed Ant's point. Read it again.

I think he did too. And to allow some people around to mod this forum would be like allowing the fox to guard the hen house. ;)


26th January 2003, 16:43
I was just trying to lighten up the mood.

Dr Mordrid
26th January 2003, 16:43
My post was not intened to be funny; it was intended to be an absurd metaphor.

My point is that if political speech is something you find irritating then just don't read those threads, just like some channels on cable TV and the same reason I don't read most of the hardware/gaming threads and video threads posted by certain people. Not to mention that the fourm discription reads:

A forum where you can discuss any old rubbish. If that doesn't perfectly discribe socio/geo/political discussions I don't know what does. Of course it would help if those engaging in them;

1. refrained from obscene name calling (political characterizations do not necessarily apply)

2. have thick enough skins to handle the heat

3. don't run off crying "mommie" just because someone disagrees with them (1st corollary to #2)

Barring these I don't see a problem with the G-P threads. Of course once in a while things get heated, but such is the nature of socio-political discourse. Ever watch C-SPAN, Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes? :rolleyes:

Sure; come in once and a while and calm the boys down if absolutely necessary, but to tell them they can't talk about this & that because the ebb & flow is irritating or even controversial?

Dr. Mordrid

26th January 2003, 18:17
Could we possibly get better clarification of what can and cannot be posted here when it comes to something of Political nature? I know the two things best not to talk about is Religion and Politics ;)

26th January 2003, 19:37
"Personal Vitreol" is a nebulous term. I know we all know it when we see it in others, but often not in ourselves. And most of us are quite aware of who the worst offenders were. Those offenders having been banned or moved on to more welcoming digs, it falls upon us regulars to moderate ourselves, so to speak.

I don't mean we have to censor ourselves. WE CAN HAVE POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS, as long as we can manage to show each other a measure of respect and decorum. In the heat of debate one tends to let whatever is in one's head spill out onto the keyboard without much regard for the consequences. As Ant suggested, we all just have to act a little more grown-up, think about what we're saying before we say it, and for Pete's sake, Keep It Light!

We can manage that, can't we?


26th January 2003, 21:21
Looking back at the last several months of closed threads and the requests, in those threads, from the Mods, and Ant in some cases, it's obvious to me that will never happen.

27th January 2003, 01:01
It's not a matter of the subject, it's the matter of things rapidly deteriorating into slagging matches which I and the other mods are sick to death of having to sort out. It usually ends in folks who have previously gotten on well falling out and creates a bad atmosphere around the site. As I've said before if you can't discuss something without flipping when someone has an opposing point of view to your own you should not be entering into these discussions.

No one is saying there should be no discussions on politics or religion but invariably it is those two subjects that are the spark that ignites things. While most of the people in these threads can discuss things rationally there are always one or two people that go off the deep end and ruin it for everyone else.

27th January 2003, 04:12
Perhaps we ought to start a political forum. Flame suit required.

Dr Mordrid
27th January 2003, 05:16
Sounds like a winner. Not only a flame suit but ball armor required :D

Dr. Mordrid

27th January 2003, 06:21
Good one, Doc! :)

27th January 2003, 07:07
I've asked you all countless times to respect these forums and not use them for spewing forth your personal vitreol and pissing matches but obviously some people couldn't give a shit, well quite frankly neither can I to keep this forum open. Just keep up with your little digs and see where this forum ends up

How much of that do y'all not understand???? That would indicate to me that Ant is not up for opening a new forum just for political debates. Like I said there are plenty of them elsewhere on the internet.


Dr Mordrid
27th January 2003, 07:24
Calm down Joel....people are just joking around fer cryin' out loud....sheesh..... :rolleyes:

Dr. Mordrid

Brian R.
27th January 2003, 08:40
Some people need a vacation.