Bonehead conspiracy rantings are irritating, and I try and ignore them.

Dear Johan (OUG),

The following two links are interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/25/qanda.armstrade

And -

http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394

i think..i need say thanks
but..foxie-lexie..it just makes me angry
[and i dont.*need..more angery-demons..feeding my..anger
just so they can fuel..the beast..to..feast..off..my wasted energy
[or others..upset..by me..inadvertently..or even deliberately....[let it be]

shadow dosnt even say..'it's gods wil'..
which..is just as well..cause its not

my..feeling is its karma..[its what learning..they..gave unto others..in..previous lives]..the trick..for us now..is to not see the label[mark..of their lifes sins]

strangely enough..the faces the shoddily maestro..
now rejects helping..will more closely[sadly]..resemble his..next face

sadly others will look upon..*him..
and say..i wonder what he has done..of course i have now..done even..worse in..revealing this too him..[so i..shall earn an even more grotesque one..cause anything he NOW..does only..for face saving..is wasted]

regardless..those poor beings..deserve..a chance..to..know why
or maybe its kinder to simply..not see..nothing

[i see nothing]..not as perfect..as..its allowed to become
regardless..when good men..do nothing..they dont need know..the dangers they run..[even..if just making fun..of some other injured one]

sadly spirits too..need scape-goa
ts..simply because..justice must be seen to..be done
for everyone..

and hurting kids is unjust....[but how else..to end the karic comeback..[blow back]./.is as easy..as just being more like..you

[pure true love.
[love...everyone]
[the eternal life..will be fun..for everyone...

some just reach..eternal..earlier..
others later..but in time we..all come*..home.
even the shadow..come on mate..at least try to..save ya mates.

its..never..too late/
god too..loves..a repentant heart..
but even..his words wont cut it..for long.

Dear Johan (OUG),

I've written on this issue in the past that if more
and more nuclear weapons are built, and if more
sophisticated means of delivering them are devised,
and if more and more nations get control of these
vile devices, then we risk our own destruction.

Unfortunately the arms race introduced recurrent
instability into the balance of power, for each new
weapon or defence seems to offer one side or the other
a chance to gain or maintain some temporary advantage.
In practice, therefore, the reliance on nuclear deterrence
means a continuation of the arms race and the constant
threat of annihilation. Nuclear weapons do not guarantee
that war cannot happen, only that it will be calamitous
if it does. They don't so much defend as threaten, and
in threatening, they elicit still more threats in return,
as the world's growing stockpile of bombs and missiles
attests.

The obsessive focus on the threat of weapons as the way to
avoid war also blinds us to the central question - Is
anything that we value so important that it justifies
risking the destruction of the murder of hundreds of
millions of people and the jeopardizing of our very own
species?

Why can't we divert unprecedented energy and resources
to the real problems that face us, including poverty,
disease, over-population, and the devastation of our
natural environment. Instead of destroying we should be
looking at ways to enhance the life on our planet on which
billions of share our adventure.

Pacifism only works if no-one attacks you.

In the interim it assures any likely aggressors, and there are many who would like to balance their own economies with Australia's raw materials alone, that you have no will to defend yourself and your military assets and preparedness reflect that.

It must encourage attackers.

Ghandi said that his strategies would never have worked with Russia. He was able to take advantage of Britain's ethics, traditions and principles. Not all countries have been fortunate enough to inherit such traditions and institutions.

In a world where all nations face a common threat of direct
or indirect involvement in nuclear warfare, some reliable
method is needed to limit conflicts among sovereign states.
Before the twentieth century, there were few institutionalised
ways for hostile nations to achieve peaceful settlements.
When negotiations took place, they often occurred only after
a war - for the purpose of agreeing to a peace treaty that would
specify the spoils of the victor. Although the structure of
international peace-making is still rudimentary,
it now offers infinitely better prospects
for helping nations to avoid war.

Two vital elements for international peace-making are in place.
The first is the United Nations, which provides a forum for
world opinion and a mechanism for conflict resolution.

The second is a growing body of international law that specifies
the rights and obligations that nations have toward one another -
particularly with respect to aggression. Over the years, the UN
has intervened successfully in a number of wars and in several
situations that might have led to war.

A major difficulty with international peace-making, of course,
is that compliance with the resolutions of the UN and the
rulings of its World Court are voluntary, for no country is
willing to surrender its sovereignty to an international body.
The UN is most effective, in fact, when superpowers are able
to agree in a course of action and mobilize their blocs to
support it.

Even so, the organisation provides an influential forum for
world opinion, and while it does not always prevent war, it
surely helps make it less likely.