posted February 26, 2003 03:55 PM            

Get your facts straight first of all. America is not trying to colonize Iraq. It is about liberation. If you have concrete facts to counter that, then I would love to see them. Is this about oil? In a sense yes. Why? Because that crazy madman that we are trying to get out of Iraq, you know the one that GASSES and TORTURES children, would like to take over all the oil rich countries.

Is that a fact? YES! How do I know? Because it is documented as coming out of that lunatics mouth.

Ask yourself? Hmmmm, now is America and the allies being greedy over oil? In some arguments people point out that the oil is only for the rich. For those people I ask them to open up their minds and think about what oil is used for? Hmmmmm, just the rich? Just the wealthy yuppies that drive SUV's?

Sure, they need it too, but what about the Billions of people in this world that rely on oil for home heating, driving to their 9-5 job to makes ends meet, taking mass transportation to avoid driving, fueling industry, moving goods from one place to another to keep an economy going....do I need to go on?

So what if Saddam takes over all the oil? His plan (at least during the first war) was to take out his enemies, take over the oil rich land and TURN OFF THE OIL to all of us.

That would not only put a damper on the wealthy people driving SUV (and probably the only people that could afford those nice, but expensive hybrid cars), but would also throw the global economy into CHAOS and how many people would die from that?

So, before you answer, think not only about freeing the people of Iraq, but also where your financial support and food comes from. If there was no oil, how long could we survive? It would be total anarchy and that would create an even worse situation. The wealthy that so many hate will still be able to afford certain items, but the middle class and poor would suffer beyond belief.

People would DIE if we couldn't get heat in regions like the Midwest and East coast (hell we are already freezing as it is). People would DIE as a result of not getting proper medication as it can't get transported from A to B or if it did, it would be so expensive because of gas prices.

You missed the point completely about American Indians and blamed it all on colonization. You say you were disillusioned at the people on this list because we weren't truth seekers, when you yourself will not see past your own nose. You believe what you want, and think those of us that differ must be war mongers. How narrow is that?

I have no problems with your beliefs. I do have a problem with the way you insinuate that those that do not subscribe to your beliefs are not seeking the truth, as though we are children and you have some sage advice to bestow upon us, yet you do not have the information to back it up. What I ask for is to think of all the ramifications of the future with Saddam in power versus getting him out. I think history has already documented this mans potential and known threat.

NW,

If you are anti-Christian because of the establishment, then your beliefs were not real to begin with. So what that someone forced religion in a manner that you did not find becoming. People are corrupt and things like religion, corporations and governments are made up of People. For every bad human being that seeks to destroy, there are 10 that seek to rebuild. You can choose to hate a group because of what you perceive and that is your right, but it is sad way to live a life.

I once had an evolution professor that was not only Christian but also an elder in the Church. He taught the class as if he were a die hard evolutionist. When I asked him why he would do that if there was a chance it would change a Christian into an Athiest he answered "If this class is enough to change a persons beliefs, then those beliefs were not grounded in a solid foundation to begin with".

posted February 26, 2003 04:09 PM              

pidaua- do you really want to bring the Native American into this?

posted February 26, 2003 06:44 PM              

quote:

---

NW,

If you are anti-Christian because of the establishment, then your beliefs were not real to begin with.

---

too bloody right they weren't - i was endoctrinated like the rest of the population.

quote:

---

So what that someone forced religion in a manner that you did not find becoming. People are corrupt and things like religion, corporations and governments are made up of People. For every bad human being that seeks to destroy, there are 10 that seek to rebuild.

---

The contention ratio is more like 3 bad to 1 good, if you ask me...

quote:

---

You can choose to hate a group because of what you perceive and that is your right, but it is sad way to live a life.

---

I dont hate them, i just dislike them.

quote:

---

I once had an evolution professor that was not only Christian but also an elder in the Church. He taught the class as if he were a die hard evolutionist. When I asked him why he would do that if there was a chance it would change a Christian into an Athiest he answered "If this class is enough to change a persons beliefs, then those beliefs were not grounded in a solid foundation to begin with".

---

correct - and i'm still working on formulating those beleifs cuz guess what, the universe is dynamic and beleifs have to change to adapt to their conditions. Unfortunately humans seem brilliant at not adapting fast enough - especially when they're so "insulated" from the life we were naturally "designed" for.

posted February 26, 2003 08:24 PM            

About WWII..you are correct to draw parallels but you are short of an accurate analogy. Hitler was an ambitious, ruthless murderer; discreet about his motives until it was too late to stop him from expanding his borders without war. Saddam is an ambitious, ruthless murderer; not discreet at all about his motives and so the US effectively wiped out his military might in the first Gulf War when he tried to expand his borders. It's not that I don't think he is dangerous, I just don't think he poses a threat to the US. (Israel is another story...)
To draw the parallels between Saddam and Hitler much beyond those is not really valid because Saddam doesn't have anywhere NEAR the military might that Hitler amassed. Infact, the US has yet to bring any solid evidence Saddam possessing weapons that could threaten the US. (they rely on outdated, plagaraised material! -http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/06_dossier.html )

Now, I will draw another parallel. GWbUSH is an ambitious, ruthless murderer. He just kills under a false premise of legitimacy, IMO. (See Einstein quote previous)
In Fact, much of the Bush wealth comes from supporting the Nazi regime during WWII. Betcha didn't know that one.. Prescott bush (Granddaddy b) made money laundering Nazi $, even after the US entered WWII.
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html -

quote:

---

It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920's, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush's bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed allied soldiers. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity.

---

Point being, the analogy would better be drawn between Hitler and Bush. Pre-emptive strike is just the new buzz word for a war of aggression, a violation of international law the we supposedly adhere to but will be indirect violation of as soon as we attack Iraq. Ever heard of the Nuremburg Tribunal? We signed on in 1950 -
snip...

quote:

---

Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

---

Another parallel could be drawn between bush and Hitler if you look at domestic policy. Patriot Act was the first major erosion we've seen in our Bill of Rights and a federal gov't source leaked the draft for Patriot Act II that we are likely to see pushed through once war starts. It further erodes our freedoms. Not unlike the way Hitler slowly took freedoms away from the Germans. One former Nazi said to his son after WWII, 'the Third Reich wasn't defeated in the war, they simply changed locations..'
I know these things may sound radical to many (alena, I don't want to single you out, I'm really just talking to everyone in general here..) but sticking one's head in the sand or writing such things off as paranoid conspiracy theories doesn't make them go away. Much of the ruling elite would rather the average Joe not come accross such information but documentation is out there if you are willing to dig for it.

Oh, and I'm not a pacifist. I've never once said that I am. Just because I am against war doesn't make me a pacifist. To equate one with the other shows something of a lack of imagination which is a divine gift to humanity that has been sadly lacking in social and political policy for too long.

posted February 26, 2003 08:25 PM            

I don't blame you for being misinformed, it's a perfectly common thing in this country, so steeped in pro-war propaganda from all the major corporate media outlets. Ironic that there are so many who grew up hating and feeling sorry for the masses of people living in communist countries because we saw them as living in ignorance, due to a government that controls the media. Now we've gone and created a very similar situation here.. Media controlled by corporate interests that are directly influencing political activity.

And, we have the technology to significantly eliminate much of our dependence on oil, only the oil barons are doing everything possible to stifle practical application of such technology because it would severly curb their profits.

Colonization...the extention of US hegemony is very real and we would do well to wake up to this fact. Ever hear of The Project for the New American Century? It's members include our own VP and other bigwigs. Check out their statement of principals and then try to tell me you don't see any possibility that this war is to extend American influence and control... http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Yeah, I know I sound rightous. It's because my higher sELF has told me that war is not the answer, will never be the answer, and has not gotten the world any closer to peace but only perpetuated more war.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

I won't stand on the fence when it comes to war. I am firmly against it and will always be so.
It has to do with this observation-

quote:

---

The system that developed to maximize power-over is as dependent on all the varieties of oppression as my Toyota's engine is on pistons, carburator, spark plugs, and starter. Male domination, racism, economic exploitation, war, centralized control, heterosexism, religious persecution, human dominance over nature and animals, all drive the machine that is taking us somewhere nobody wants to go.
-Starhawk, "Truth or Dare, Encounters with Power, Authority and Mystery"

---

posted February 27, 2003 04:39 PM            

Once again your narrow-minded brainwashed attitude is beginning to betray you. For you to cite some left wing liberal rag is comparable to one citing the Militia news. Again you do not state any facts other than those that have been tossed around in your bleeding heart circles that perpetuate the myth that the media is nothing more than a right wing mouthpiece and those that do not subscribe to your beliefs must be poor, mislead war mongers.

I do believe it is about liberation. Did the media tell me so? No, I am not easy to brain wash, but I do look at the facts. I do spend time reading actual books to study the past and current history. I talk to others, people from the region that this war or potential war would affect. But, since your mind will not comprehend that thought pattern I asked you to look at the other reason........oil

What would we do without it?

Did you see the documentary on Saddam on A&E? Watch it then get back to me. The cliff notes version: Almost 1000 people have died per month since 1979 since Saddam has been in power or had a powerful effect on the government. The war he launched to take over Iran caused 1 Million soldiers to die and almost as many to go unemployed in Iraq when the cease fire took place.

When Saddam was informed that they best thing he could do to stop the war and bloodshed was to step down he had the advisor arrested, cut into little pieces and returned to his widow in a body bag.

Queenie,

Bring it on. I am an American Indian and come from a long line that still practices the old ways. Just because I am conservative and I don't live on a reservation does not make it so that I do not understand where I came from.

So yeah, if we want to get into a debate over it, then be my guest. It's not like I haven't had full bloods go up against me in the past over my opinions and political leanings.

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

"Once we moved like the Wind"

posted February 27, 2003 05:36 PM              

The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all of the background checks, interviews, and testing were done there were three finalists — two men and one woman. For the final test, the CIA agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun.
“We must know that you will follow your instructions, no matter what the circumstances. Inside this room you will find your wife sitting in a chair. You have to kill her.” The first man said.“You can’t be serious. I could never shoot my wife,”

The agent replies, “Then you’re not the right man for this job."

The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about five minutes. Then the agent came out with tears in his eyes. “I tried, but I can’t kill my wife.” The agent replies, “You don’t have what it takes. Take your wife and go home.”

Finally, it was the woman’s turn. Only she was told to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one shot after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman. She wiped the sweat from her brow and said, “You guys didn’t tell me the gun was loaded with blanks. So I had to beat him to death with the chair.”

posted February 27, 2003 05:55 PM            

Fair enough. We formally agree to disagree then.
I like your way of debating. You clearly don't agree with me, nor I with you but I don't feel like you are attacking me, unlike some others around here..
I know I come across too bluntly and sometimes condescending but I don't try to be that way, sometimes it's really hard for me to be any other way.. It's probably my sun, mercury, mars in Sagittarius that does it... I'm working on it.

Just one thing though. The reason I care about what GW's grandfather (and father, for that matter..) did is because I realize how profoundly our parental influence affects our everyday behavior and belief system. Especially for the sign of Cancer, underwhich GW was born, those natives are inclined to carry on family traditions. Now if those family traditions include supporting murderous regimes, then I sure as heck want to know about it.
Makes sense to me....

posted February 28, 2003 12:40 PM              

I am sincerely happy in noticing that some people, like me, also don't think that there is a personal problem between them when they have different opinions.
The art of the life is exactly in " agree to disagree "!
This is democracy, to have healthy discussion, without personal attacks... any different thing, like try to impose the own opinion with personal attacks becomes dictatorship...

I stopped participating in this thread when some people began to say " your country "... and as I am the only person that lives out of the United States and that doesn't defend this war, obviously the message was for me....

I won't return to this thread, but I repeat that I am happy in seeing a discussion of high level...

posted February 28, 2003 05:12 PM            

quote:

---

Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?

   A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?

   A: 50%

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?

   A: Saudi Arabia

4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?

   A: Iraq

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?

   A: $900+ billion

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?

   A: 50%

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials
   of life to everyone in the world, according the UN?

   A: 10% (That's about $40 billion, the
   the amount initially requested to
   fund our retaliatory attack on
   Afghanistan.)

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?

   A: 86 million

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?

   A: Since the early 1980's.

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their
    own?

    A: No, the materials and technology
    were supplied by the US government,
    along with Britain and private
    corporations.

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare
    against Iran?

    A: No

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish
    town of Halabja in 1988?

    A: 5,000

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?

    A: 0

14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?

    A: 17million.

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th
    terrorist
    attack?

    A: No

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf
    War?

    A: 35,000

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the
    western
    forces during the Gulf War ?

    A: 0

18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S.
    tanks
    with ploughs mounted on the front?

    A: 6,000

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?

    A: 40 tons

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?

    A: 700%

21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had
    destroyed in 1991?

    A: 80%

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for
    anything
    other than deterrence and self defense?

    A: No

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10
    years ago?

    A: No

24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3?

    A: 10,000

25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?

    A: Over 50%

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?

    A: 11 years

27. Q: Were the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?

    A: No

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?

    A: 20 million

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?

    A: 12 years

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000
    births)?

    A: 38

31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?

    A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?

    A: 1.5 million

33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to
    sanctions
    since 1997?

    A: 750,000

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?

    A: No

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?

    A: 300

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?

    A: 5

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?

    A: Yes

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed
    to a level unprecedented in modern history."

    A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?

    A: 90%

40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in ?

    A: Yes

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?

    A: Over 65

42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?

    A: 30+

43. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?

    A: 8

44. Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?

    A: 0

45. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?

    A: Over 10,000

46. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?

    A: The US

47. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?

    A: Over 400

48. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?

    A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
    

---

posted February 28, 2003 05:52 PM            

Here's Charley Reese-

quote:

---

The "Don't Know" Crowd

The Bush administration adamantly insists that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but despite 12 years of inspections, bombings and spying, it doesn't have a clue as to where they are.

It frequently warns us of terror attacks, but always says it doesn't know where, when or how. Nor have there been any terror attacks in the United States in the past 18 months.

Is it any wonder that millions of people around the world and in the United States don't support President George Bush's personal crusade to topple Saddam Hussein? Keep in mind that after the Sept. 11 attack, which Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with, virtually the entire world united in sympathy with us. Never has one president destroyed so much support by so many people in so short a time.

The fact is, the people in the Bush administration who want to go to war with Iraq wanted to go to war with Iraq before Sept. 11. As a matter of fact, they wanted to go to war with Iraq before George Bush was even elected president. That's a matter of record. This war against Iraq has nothing to do with disarming Iraq and nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with the United States creating a situation in which it and Israel will dominate the Middle East and its oil resources.

The thing to remember about these alleged weapons of mass destruction is that nobody in the Bush administration or with the United Nations has ever laid eyes on them. What exists is a discrepancy between two numbers in reports — both supplied by the Iraqi government. One report stated that so many chemical bombs were used; another report had a different number. And the Iraqis are certainly right in that nobody can prove a negative; you can't produce for inspection what you don't have.

I personally don't know if these weapons exist in Iraq or not. I do know they exist in many other countries. I do know that in the Gulf War, Iraq did not use any chemical or biological weapons, even when it was being routed from Kuwait and "bombed back into the preindustrial age," to use an American phrase. I do know that in the 12 years since, Iraq has not used any chemical or biological weapons, even though it has been subjected to the harshest economic sanctions in modern history and to practically regular bombing. I do know that in the past 12 years, Iraq has not threatened, much less attacked, any of its neighbors, while during that the same period of time we have attacked Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. I do know that every one of the "neighbors" George Bush claims Iraq is a threat to has said repeatedly that it does not feel threatened by Iraq.

I do know that the only leader threatening the world with nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attack is George W. Bush. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it is not the role of an American citizen to be a sheep. It has become apparent that those of us who supported Bush made a mistake. I'm beginning to believe that a philanderer and a liar is less dangerous than an upright but ignorant man who thinks God has appointed him to rule the world.

The best way to support our troops is to try to prevent the Bush administration from sacrificing their lives for the hidden agenda of the crazy neoconservatives in his administration. Young Americans should not die because a bunch of chicken hawks have a cockamamie idea that they can bring liberal democracy to the Middle East by making war. That's like trying to sell pork barbecue in Mecca. What the president is intent on doing is committing a crime against humanity. If he goes through with it, he'll have to change his ritualistic "God bless America" to "God forgive us."


---------------------------------------------© 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

---

posted February 28, 2003 05:59 PM            

Charley Reese- snip...

quote:

---

The fact is, Saddam is a run-of-the-mill dictator, worse than some, better than some. In the war against Iran, a nation with three times the population of Iraq, the Iraqis used chemical weapons. So did the Iranians. In World War I, the United States, the British, the French and the Germans used chemical weapons. In World War II, we used nuclear weapons. In Waco, Texas, in 1993, the Federal Bureau of Investigation used chemical weapons against American civilians.

It's quite true that, like any other dictator, Saddam treats his political opponents harshly, but it's also true that if you stay out of politics, you could live as freely in Baghdad as you can in New York City. Unlike a communist-style dictator, Saddam doesn't give a damn what Iraqis think or do unless it involves a threat to his hold on power. There are two categories of dictators: totalitarians who want to control every aspect of a person's life, and gangsters who just want to stay in power. Saddam is in the gangster category. Iraqi women, for example, are entitled to free education, just the same as men, and are free to choose any vocation they wish. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had one of the largest middle classes in the Middle East, one of the best education systems and one of the best health care systems. We, not Saddam, have destroyed all three with the war and economic sanctions.

---

Really this should be read in it's full context but I know I'm already going to get flack from someone saying that I'm ranting again or whatever so I will just leave the link for the rest of the article.. http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030226/index.php

posted February 28, 2003 07:17 PM              

You've figuratively shot yourself in the foot with the over-evidencing of hyper-liberal perspectives. You might want to spend some time on something other than researching the web for links to post, the beating a dead horse makes your points become overlooked & you sound like a zealot more than anything else

Bottom line, our elected officials are pursuing the interests of the state.

The state is what gave them their power and if they would like to retain that power the need to keep the state in tact.

I agree with you that our government lies to us, every gov't lies to their people, if they don't, then the government will collapse... remember your Machiavelli?

But all in all you can't tell me that the Bush administration is strictly drumming up this war to serve their own personal interests solely.

If they WERE serving their own personal interests Bush would drop the issue and recall the troops, the latest gallup pool has stated he has lost the majority of support for re-election. Less than 50% of Americans would re-elect him if they vote today.

The reason for his decline of popularity is because of this war, but he still stands against Iraq, for the betterment of the state, the betterment of America.

The truth about Europe going against the US has finally come up... it has nothing to do with Saddam or terrorism, they didn't even consider that,
it's Europeans are afraid of American power un-checked so they are being pigheaded and abusing their shred of power to stick it in the US's eye... but's that's democracy so I guess we have to convince them.

You know the reason that America has a dominant military........

GLOBAL STABILITY, #$%^##$%(*&!

If it weren't for the deterent factor of US military might it would be a free-for-all 19th century world where everyone attacks everyone...
then your precious anti-war movement would be in a real pickle huh?

All in all I respect the continuity of your argument, you don't give up... but you lack vision in my opinion. You see only the narrow scope of the international relations.

How can the world evolve to enlightenment & eliminate the possibility of WAR, FOREVER, with threats like Saddam and N. Korea... do you really believe they aren't threats to the world... if not now, in ten years when they amassed even more weapons to use as influence?

Plus I can't believe you want to leave Saddam in power...? For someone who's advocating human rights... you're sounding a bit hypocritical or simply selective to human rights issues where the US could be looked at as the bad guy.

This may have come out a bit raunchy, I don't have time to edit and refine my argument... maybe later tonight when I have time at home.

posted February 28, 2003 08:06 PM            

I do not deny that I lean strongly to the left in my political views but the last two posts I put up were the opinions of a conservative, right-winger who happens to agree that Saddam does not pose enough of a threat to the US for us to wage a war of aggression against his country.

Maybe I am beating a dead horse but I see it as putting information out there that hopefully someone will have the patience to read with an open mind and then make an informed decision. Something I'm not sure you've done.

quote:

---

you lack vision in my opinion. You see only the narrow scope of the international relations.

---

My opinions stem from my belief that we need to make all our decisions only after taking into account how it will affect the next seven generations.

A study of history shows that war only serves to perpetuate more war. We must end the cycle if humanity is to evolve into something higher. Yes threats to peace should be addresssed but there are other ways than brute force!