ϻ�bnhs wakat national high school annex wakat, barobo, surigao del sur narrative report on yes for peace bayanihan para sa kapayapaan 2013 the more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war. Yes for peace bayanihan para sa kapayapaan 2013, is a campaign that aims to encourage at least 10 million peace loving filipinos, 10 years and older to speak as one to provide a democratic people’s mandate for the comprehensive peace process particularly the permanent cessation of hostilities between the government and all rebel groups in 2013. The earnest implementation of agreed upon programs and projects for the attainment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace within the term of the current administration. Wakat national high school annex administers the yes for peace campaign to their students. The students were told to write an essay, create a poster and slogan and present a role play that shows the thought of the campaign. Every year level pours out all their creativity and imagination in their drawings.

How to Start a Scholarship Essay About Leadership

As they display their output, different ideas and different interpretations were drawn that really suits to their advocacy. Some asked why peace is elusive? and some are just merely expressing their thoughts. Different ideas were heard, different opinions were shared as they write their essays, but still the main topic of each output is to achieve peace which serve as the common factor of the students.

Greenpeace flagship the mv rainbow warrior blocks the marchwood military port in southampton today while activists paint an anti war message on the stern of a military supply vessel as part of the global campaign to prevent a military attack on iraq. The 1981 bombing of the iraqi nuclear facility at osirak, by israel is a good example: the bombing certainly delayed the programme, but it also drove it underground, with the result that whilst osirak had been monitored by the iaea, subsequent activities were not. Many members ofthe international community were very surprised by how far the iraqi programme had developed in the 9 years following the bombing of osirak. The iraqi regime simply became even more determined to develop theirnuclear programme following the strikes and committed even more humanand economic resources to it. Alarmingly some members of the international community seem keen to follow the same path with iran. One of the reasons we opposed the war in iraq was because we believed it set a dangerous and illegal precedent for the use of force. The united nations charter prohibits the threat or use of force between states, except in two situations: when authorized by the security council to maintain peace and security and as a form of self defense against armed attack.

Importantly the charter strictly limits the use of force in self defense to actual occurrences of armed attack. Some have argued, that preemptive action against an imminent attack is also permissible, but this remains a controversial interpretation with no consensus. Unfortunately recent expansive interpretations have taken the debatable preemption argument even farther, claiming a right of military action against possible attacks that have not yet materialized, effectively justifying preventive war.

Use of force is also considered justified under the charter if authorized by security council but importantly only when efforts to address the matter by measures falling short of force have either failed or would have been futile. This is widely considered to mean when there is widespread violence or a humanitarian emergency. Evenmore alarmingly, nuclear weapons states nws are increasingly talking of preventative use of nuclear as well as conventional weapons. Historically the nws have treated nuclear weapons as a weapon only to be used as alast resort, if at all. It has generally been accepted that they wouldonly be used in response to a weapons of mass destruction wmd attack from another state, or to an attack from a country strongly allied toanother nws. Us nuclear posture review, 8 january 2002 several months later the uk added a new chapter to its strategic defence review that extended the role of nuclear weapons beyond nation states: the uk's nuclear weapons have a continuing use as a means of deterring major strategic military threats, and they have a continuing role in guaranteeing the ultimate security of the uk.

But we also want it to be clear, particularly to the leaders of states of concern and terrorist organisations, that all our forces play a part in deterrence, and that we have a broad range of responses available. 'the strategic defencereview: a new chapter', ministry of defence, cm 5566 vol i, july 2002 and in january 2006 french president jacques chirac followed this lead by very publicly stating that: …nuclear deterrence is not intended to deter fanatical terrorists. Yet, the leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response onour part. It could also be of a different kind… whilst russia has not publicly changed its past public position it is believed to have adopted a similar policy. What makes this all the more concerning is that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was actually declared illegal by the international court of justice in 1996.

Fairy Writing Paper

If don 039 t like it, c this instead war is a conflict between countries thru the use of arms. While the war right now is not clear as to whom or what country the united states is going to have war with/ the u.s. Keeps saying that it’s a war against terrorism, but terrorism is everywhere, does the mean that it’s against all countries that sponsor terrorists and their activities? war is incorrect there are many ways on solving problems without losing people’s lives. Religious differences, land disputes and greed are all common motivations for confrontation. When referring to the world renowned quote preached by thomas jefferson in the declaration of independence where he eloquently states we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imprints a vivid picture as to why one would engage in war. So why is it then that the question how does war promote peace? leaves this man scratching his head? perhaps not all wars are the same in the fact that they all have the same objective.

War truly is one of the vilest things on the planet but as beastly as it seems, but in some situations it could serve as an essential tool in the cultivation tranquility. To this day, middle eastern problems have yet to cease and war has failed to result in saved if people would respect others for whom or what they are, and not what they believe in. Peace symbol: ☮ is a quality describing a society or a relationship that is operating harmoniously. This is commonly understood as the absence of hostility, or the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, safety in matters of social or economic welfare, the acknowledgment of equality and fairness in political relationships and, in world matters, peacetime a state of being absent of any war or conflict. Reflection on the nature of peace is also bound up with considerations of the causes for its absence or loss. Most recently, we joined with people all over the world in months of global action to promote a non violent solution to the conflict in iraq. We believed the war was more about oil than about effectively dealing with weapons of mass destruction.

It would result in devastating human and environmental consequences, and set a dangerous not to mention illegal precedent. Though the occupying forces were quick to secure iraqi oil fields, they neglected to safeguard dangerous nuclear material. Weapons of mass destruction, the alleged reason for the war in the first place, were never found. Uranium and other nuclear material stored under un control in iraq until the fall of saddam hussein have been stolen and local residents are reportedly displaying symptoms of radiation poisoning. Six weeks after the occupying forces took control of the country, the us finally conceded that the un nuclear watchdog, the international atomic energy agency iaea , could return to assess what has been stolen at part of one site, tuwaitha.

Yet the iaea has been refused access to the nearby population or to other sites it wants to visit, in contravention of un resolutions. We went to iraq in june 2003 with a small, specialist team to examine the local environment and to assess the extent of any nuclear contamination. The team took samples of soil and water for laboratory analysis and conducted on site monitoring with specialist radiation detection equipment. While the extent of the greenpeace radiological survey will not be comprehensive, it will provide some idea of the true level of risk to the people of the area and to the environment.