What do you think about this?
Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Prize
Moderator: The Moderator Team
27 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Prize
American President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize....
What do you think about this?
What do you think about this?
-
H2 - Registered User
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 am
How is this possible?
How can Bush and Blair be nominated for a peace prize when they were directly responsile for a WAR?? How can a war promote peace. I don't believe the Nobel Council would do such a thing.
-
rock_26iin - Level 1 Deity
- Posts: 6111
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:42 pm
- Location: L0ST !N $PACE
well, the nobel council has become a joke. whether you agree with the war in iraq or not, the nobel rize is being used for purely political purposes and it would be a disgrace to Bush and Blair to recieve the Nobel prize, especially the peace prize.
Of all the people, Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat recieved the prize. Mandela, who necklaced opposition members and Arafat, who has been funding suicide bombers that strap on nails and try to blow up Jewish children.
Of all the people, Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat recieved the prize. Mandela, who necklaced opposition members and Arafat, who has been funding suicide bombers that strap on nails and try to blow up Jewish children.
-
H2 - Registered User
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 am
On Bush
The reasons not to support Bush:
1. He is stupid.
2. He is really incompetent.
3. Look up stupid in the dictionary and you will see his picture there.
A Little History:
Bush Sr. went to the Gulf War because Kuwait was in trouble because Iraq was picking on it. Kuwait was the number one oil/petrol source for U.S. therefore they have to protect their investments. Bush Sr. goes in and reaches a stalemate from the stronger Arab countries because [of political reasons] and he has to back off. Outcome: He failed.
Dubya decides to pick on Iraq and pick up and finish what he father had started [when this time it hasn't done anything]. Instead of hunting for Al-Queda and solving problems with N. Korea [which has blatantly claimed to possess WMD] but Dubya cannot because anything wrong happens, there goes S. Korea [another hefty investment]. He has to do something like to "roshan" the family name again, otherwise everyone will figure out what a fraud he is! So, there you have it.
-Five7Jaan
1. He is stupid.
2. He is really incompetent.
3. Look up stupid in the dictionary and you will see his picture there.
A Little History:
Bush Sr. went to the Gulf War because Kuwait was in trouble because Iraq was picking on it. Kuwait was the number one oil/petrol source for U.S. therefore they have to protect their investments. Bush Sr. goes in and reaches a stalemate from the stronger Arab countries because [of political reasons] and he has to back off. Outcome: He failed.
Dubya decides to pick on Iraq and pick up and finish what he father had started [when this time it hasn't done anything]. Instead of hunting for Al-Queda and solving problems with N. Korea [which has blatantly claimed to possess WMD] but Dubya cannot because anything wrong happens, there goes S. Korea [another hefty investment]. He has to do something like to "roshan" the family name again, otherwise everyone will figure out what a fraud he is! So, there you have it.
-Five7Jaan
- Five7Jaan
- Registered User
Being stupid shouldn't really come in the way, for the prize is for peace and not for intelligence.
Bush and Blair shouldn't have been even nominated for the prize because they together sounded the death knell for a world body like United Nations and rendered it redundant. Now that UN sanctions are not necessary to commit an act of aggression, it could encourage powers like China, Russia and regional hegemons like Israel, to take unilateral actions against any country - the UN be damned.
Did someone express objection to Nelson Mandela getting the peace prize? IMO, he's the only credible leader left, maybe along with the Dalai Lama.
Bush and Blair shouldn't have been even nominated for the prize because they together sounded the death knell for a world body like United Nations and rendered it redundant. Now that UN sanctions are not necessary to commit an act of aggression, it could encourage powers like China, Russia and regional hegemons like Israel, to take unilateral actions against any country - the UN be damned.
Did someone express objection to Nelson Mandela getting the peace prize? IMO, he's the only credible leader left, maybe along with the Dalai Lama.
- JustaLittleUnwell
- Registered User
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:08 pm
What is wrong in going to Iraq for its resources? The Americans need oil too, you know. I don't like paying two and a half dollars everytime I fill my gas tank. I dont understand.. until the US acted, morons everywhere screamed about human rights and other bullshit violations in Iraq. Once the US went in, everyone started screaming about Bush and his personal agenda.
On an other note, the UN is a socialist organization which has no place in a capitalistic world. The UN was never credible and never will be. They named Libya the chair of human rights. If you feel that the UN is still a "power" that should be listened to, please, by all means, go ahead. But in a few years, when all the poor, good for nothing bums in your respective countries begin to receive payments from the government (from taxes that you pay from your hard earned money) and shout about social injustice, you will understand the true purpose of the UN.
If you think I am wrong, please tell me how and where. I am open to discussion...
On an other note, the UN is a socialist organization which has no place in a capitalistic world. The UN was never credible and never will be. They named Libya the chair of human rights. If you feel that the UN is still a "power" that should be listened to, please, by all means, go ahead. But in a few years, when all the poor, good for nothing bums in your respective countries begin to receive payments from the government (from taxes that you pay from your hard earned money) and shout about social injustice, you will understand the true purpose of the UN.
If you think I am wrong, please tell me how and where. I am open to discussion...
-
H2 - Registered User
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 am
H2 wrote:What is wrong in going to Iraq for its resources? The Americans need oil too, you know. I don't like paying two and a half dollars everytime I fill my gas tank. I dont understand.. until the US acted, morons everywhere screamed about human rights and other bullshit violations in Iraq. Once the US went in, everyone started screaming about Bush and his personal agenda.
Doesnt Iraq have the right to use its resources in any way they choose?
one Q, was the war coz of Oil or WMDs??
what do u call a war that was unnecessary, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians/ loss of their properties??
Innocent children have died or have been rendered orphans with no medical care and the UN sanctions havent been lifted so far.. would u like it if u were an Iraqi?
As for the UN, they have been rendered impotent by the U.S n its allies n has now lost all the purpose for what it was created!
nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem
-
azazel - Level 1 Deity
- Posts: 5437
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:26 pm
- Location: Chaosphere
azazel wrote:H2 wrote:What is wrong in going to Iraq for its resources? The Americans need oil too, you know. I don't like paying two and a half dollars everytime I fill my gas tank. I dont understand.. until the US acted, morons everywhere screamed about human rights and other bullshit violations in Iraq. Once the US went in, everyone started screaming about Bush and his personal agenda.
Doesnt Iraq have the right to use its resources in any way they choose?
one Q, was the war coz of Oil or WMDs??
what do u call a war that was unnecessary, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians/ loss of their properties??
Innocent children have died or have been rendered orphans with no medical care and the UN sanctions havent been lifted so far.. would u like it if u were an Iraqi?
As for the UN, they have been rendered impotent by the U.S n its allies n has now lost all the purpose for what it was created!
As you said... Why can't the Iraqis use their oil or WMDs however they choose? Well, it is called survival of the fittest. The US is the world's superpower. It must do what is necessary to keep its interests safe and its citizens content. Othewise, what is the use of being a superpower? I am not an imperialist. I just believe that when you have the power to get what you want, take advantage of it because that power won't be there for ever...
-
H2 - Registered User
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 am
They dont even deserve a nomination..!! 
I feel Bush would have good chances of winning if he is nominated for the most evil , selfish and power hungry politician on earth..!!
I feel Bush would have good chances of winning if he is nominated for the most evil , selfish and power hungry politician on earth..!!
- Elate Extrema
- Registered User
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:34 pm
H2 wrote:As you said... Why can't the Iraqis use their oil or WMDs however they choose? Well, it is called survival of the fittest. The US is the world's superpower. It must do what is necessary to keep its interests safe and its citizens content. Othewise, what is the use of being a superpower? I am not an imperialist. I just believe that when you have the power to get what you want, take advantage of it because that power won't be there for ever...
Iraq only has oil, or whatever's left of it.. WMDs?? where r they?? didnt the U.S go into Iraq to recover the WMDs?? Give Mr.Bush a microscope n mebbe he will dig some out!! Besides being a superpower, its also a big bully.. what do u mean keeping its interests n citizens safe?? by going on a rampage in whichever country they choose?? what about the rights of the citizens of Iraq? they're not human enuff? don't they matter???
power? what the U.S has done is not about power.. its abt abuse of it
just coz u have the power doesnt give u the right to do whatever u want.. what if they decide that India for instance has WMDs that they will use against the States without ne proof whatsoever, what can we do?? allow them to invade, just like they did in Iraq.. jeeeez man.. it could b any nation in the world, nxt..
nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem
-
azazel - Level 1 Deity
- Posts: 5437
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:26 pm
- Location: Chaosphere
Elate Extrema wrote:They dont even deserve a nomination..!!
I feel Bush would have good chances of winning if he is nominated for the most evil , selfish and power hungry politician on earth..!!
Arent all politicians selfish and power hungry? Can you name any politician who isnt selfish or power hungry? I dont think so... Now, what do you mean when you call Bush evil? EVIL: Morally bad or wrong; wicked Websters Dictionary. Now was Saddam Hussein or Bush morally bad or wrong? Think about this... Saddam killed about 5 million of his own people. He tortured way more people. All you feminists - he had rape rooms and had hired professional rapists to obtain whatever he pleased. We all know that deep inside, we are all happy that Saddam isnt in power anymore. Now if Saddam did obtain/use Nuclear or Biological weapons that the UN itself said were unaccounted for against a US or western interest.. that would truly be a tragedy.. Now if you guys dont even care about the US, I can understand - you have loyalties to your own countries. But what if Saddam attacked India? He has every reason to.. Indians are killing Kashmiris in their homeland and they are raping his "sisters"..( We all know this is bull, but it is propoganda) What then? If this is the first time you guys have seen this reasoning, try to analyze my thinking and please provide me with feedback...
-
H2 - Registered User
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 am
H2 wrote:Saddam killed about 5 million of his own people. He tortured way more people. All you feminists - he had rape rooms and had hired professional rapists to obtain whatever he pleased. We all know that deep inside, we are all happy that Saddam isnt in power anymore. Now if Saddam did obtain/use Nuclear or Biological weapons that the UN itself said were unaccounted for against a US or western interest.. that would truly be a tragedy.. Now if you guys dont even care about the US, I can understand - you have loyalties to your own countries. But what if Saddam attacked India? He has every reason to.. Indians are killing Kashmiris in their homeland and they are raping his "sisters"..( We all know this is bull, but it is propoganda) What then? If this is the first time you guys have seen this reasoning, try to analyze my thinking and please provide me with feedback...
Where r u getting ur info dude, FBI???
'IF' Saddam obtain/use WMDs' , thats a big IF! U.S didnt find ne , did they?
Saddam attacking India?? with that BS for a reason?? i assure u that India does know how to deal with aggression against us, dont we ppl?? Not that it makes ne sense, Saddam attackin India..
nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem
-
azazel - Level 1 Deity
- Posts: 5437
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:26 pm
- Location: Chaosphere
azazel wrote:
Where r u getting ur info dude, FBI???
'IF' Saddam obtain/use WMDs' , thats a big IF! U.S didnt find ne , did they?
Saddam attacking India?? with that BS for a reason?? i assure u that India does know how to deal with aggression against us, dont we ppl?? Not that it makes ne sense, Saddam attackin India..
One question....
Are you NOT glad that Saddam is not in power? Everyone knows that saddam had WMDs that he use in the Iran-Iraq War and internally against the Kurds. I reiterate myself: would you want India to deal with Iraqi agression the way it dealt with Pakistan after the attack upon the Parliament in December 2002? The way it dealt with Pakistan after Kargil? Or the way it is dealing with the Pakistanis now? (This is besides the point..)
Anyway, that IF you are talking about.... The Americans havent found the weapons because of politics. If the Americans went into Iraq without giving Saddam time to hide his weapons, then they would have found them. It is really a matter of time.
Aditionally, Saddam has reasons to attack India...He has every reason to.. Indians are killing Kashmiris in their homeland and they are raping his "sisters"..( We all know this is bull, but it is propoganda) What then?
^As I mentioned in my previous post.^
The Israelis attacked the nuclear reactor that Saddam was trying to build in order to acquire nukes. the whole world began braying about how it was wrong and terrible and etc... but everyone was thankful deep inside that the possibility of a rogue nation getting nukes was lower..
-
H2 - Registered User
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 am
Enough! Stop this nonesense. H2 u are not making any sense, ur arguements donot have any logic whatsoever and your posts donot make any sense. Donot argue just for the sake of arguing.
Whether saddam was a angel or evil dictator is iraq's internal problem Bush or his baap doesnt have any right to interfere in Iraqis internal affairs unless there is a peoples revolt.
What WMD's are u talking about? The nukes which saddam was believed to be hiding and which were not found even after a year after war? the chemical weapons which The great US has supplied Iraq to be used against Iranians? or the Bilogical weapons which the UN weapons inspectors found and destroyed way before the war began? what WMD's are you talking about? Are you privy to any CIA reports or MI5/6's reports? Did Mossad give you the information? CIA had a loss of face when it accepted that it didnt have credible information to propose warand it relied on unconfirmed MI5's intelligence. So what weapons are we talking about here?
The reason for war is not WMD's. Its Oil. Not just Iraq's oil, but the vast amount of un-explored CAR regions and the caspian sea. The war is to gain access to Caspian sea through friendly countries. The war is to reduce dependence on increasingly extremist Saudi. The war is to stop the plummet of dollar (saddam has changed his foreign exchange from Dollars to euros in late 2001, resulting in devaluation of dollar).
And you better not talk about oppression of females in Iraq. Iraq is the only secularist Islaamic nation in the world , not considering Malaysia and Indonesia. Its the only nation where women have the freedom to do anything they wish, well almost. They are not required to veil themselves and women in saddams iraq had more rights than Indian women. Just a example, unlike Indian women in Iraqi women can claim share of parents property equally with sons. They have better education and very hig Per capita till sanctions were imposed. Now with saddam gone and a Islaamic constituition being proposed there is a danger of women losing their freedom.
Saddam was trained by none other than CIA, saddam was funded and protected by CIA in the early 60's. He was given weapons by USA to fight against Iran. All this changed only when saddam occupied Kuwait (a piece of land was a disputed land and Kuwait was illegally exploring Oil which irked saddam).
Yes, everyone is happy that saddam is gone, but in the process more civilians were killed or became homeless than those who were killed during Saddams regime. The price paid to remove saddam was not worth it. There are other mean to achieve the same results without going to war. WMD's was a poor excuse. And the good that US had done to Iraqis by throwing out saddam pales out compared to the harm it has done. As an example, the DU rounds used in GWI is the main reason for 100's of deaths after war and premature births and high mortality rate in newly borns. Also many newly borns were physically handicapped thanks to the radiation of DU. GWII has seen more DU being used. Even A-10 cannons used DU laced shells. The effects will be seen in the next few years.
Talking of saddam attacking India, there is no chance of it. Saddam was the only , I repeat *THE ONLY* supporter of Indian stand on kashmir in the OIC. He always backed India. he is the only reason why India used to enjoy continuous oil supply at a cheap price. If not for him India would have been choked by Saudi and its thugs under paki pressure.
And about the propaganda, seems you are the only one who is spreading it, you have already posted it twice without context.
Even if saddam decides to attack India, he doesnot have resources to do so. Iraq is no US to deploy anywhere in the world, nor does Iraq has ICBM's. Except few neanderthal age scuds, there are no other viable delivery means and even if he had donot under estimate the Indian war machine. Only a fool will underestimate Indian military.
Whether saddam was a angel or evil dictator is iraq's internal problem Bush or his baap doesnt have any right to interfere in Iraqis internal affairs unless there is a peoples revolt.
What WMD's are u talking about? The nukes which saddam was believed to be hiding and which were not found even after a year after war? the chemical weapons which The great US has supplied Iraq to be used against Iranians? or the Bilogical weapons which the UN weapons inspectors found and destroyed way before the war began? what WMD's are you talking about? Are you privy to any CIA reports or MI5/6's reports? Did Mossad give you the information? CIA had a loss of face when it accepted that it didnt have credible information to propose warand it relied on unconfirmed MI5's intelligence. So what weapons are we talking about here?
The reason for war is not WMD's. Its Oil. Not just Iraq's oil, but the vast amount of un-explored CAR regions and the caspian sea. The war is to gain access to Caspian sea through friendly countries. The war is to reduce dependence on increasingly extremist Saudi. The war is to stop the plummet of dollar (saddam has changed his foreign exchange from Dollars to euros in late 2001, resulting in devaluation of dollar).
And you better not talk about oppression of females in Iraq. Iraq is the only secularist Islaamic nation in the world , not considering Malaysia and Indonesia. Its the only nation where women have the freedom to do anything they wish, well almost. They are not required to veil themselves and women in saddams iraq had more rights than Indian women. Just a example, unlike Indian women in Iraqi women can claim share of parents property equally with sons. They have better education and very hig Per capita till sanctions were imposed. Now with saddam gone and a Islaamic constituition being proposed there is a danger of women losing their freedom.
Saddam was trained by none other than CIA, saddam was funded and protected by CIA in the early 60's. He was given weapons by USA to fight against Iran. All this changed only when saddam occupied Kuwait (a piece of land was a disputed land and Kuwait was illegally exploring Oil which irked saddam).
Yes, everyone is happy that saddam is gone, but in the process more civilians were killed or became homeless than those who were killed during Saddams regime. The price paid to remove saddam was not worth it. There are other mean to achieve the same results without going to war. WMD's was a poor excuse. And the good that US had done to Iraqis by throwing out saddam pales out compared to the harm it has done. As an example, the DU rounds used in GWI is the main reason for 100's of deaths after war and premature births and high mortality rate in newly borns. Also many newly borns were physically handicapped thanks to the radiation of DU. GWII has seen more DU being used. Even A-10 cannons used DU laced shells. The effects will be seen in the next few years.
Talking of saddam attacking India, there is no chance of it. Saddam was the only , I repeat *THE ONLY* supporter of Indian stand on kashmir in the OIC. He always backed India. he is the only reason why India used to enjoy continuous oil supply at a cheap price. If not for him India would have been choked by Saudi and its thugs under paki pressure.
And about the propaganda, seems you are the only one who is spreading it, you have already posted it twice without context.
Even if saddam decides to attack India, he doesnot have resources to do so. Iraq is no US to deploy anywhere in the world, nor does Iraq has ICBM's. Except few neanderthal age scuds, there are no other viable delivery means and even if he had donot under estimate the Indian war machine. Only a fool will underestimate Indian military.
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
H2 wrote: I just believe that when you have the power to get what you want, take advantage of it because that power won't be there for ever...
No offence, but this is the dumbest logic that I ever heard in my life.
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
since there is no edit facility (mods please notice):
This logic is what drives most criminal brains. You have computer knowledge so use it to hack into systems, you have muscle strengthm so use it to rape hapless women, you have intelligence so use it to cheat other people and make money, if you are powerfull opress the not so virtuous. duh!
Thats why we have LAW, do any of this in real life u'll find urself behind bars. Unfortunately at the international level there is no law to govern bullies like US. the UN body is impotent. Its a jungle out there.
This logic is what drives most criminal brains. You have computer knowledge so use it to hack into systems, you have muscle strengthm so use it to rape hapless women, you have intelligence so use it to cheat other people and make money, if you are powerfull opress the not so virtuous. duh!
Thats why we have LAW, do any of this in real life u'll find urself behind bars. Unfortunately at the international level there is no law to govern bullies like US. the UN body is impotent. Its a jungle out there.
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
How can War promote peace?
WWII promoted peace; the civil war promoted peace; many wars have supported peace. War is not all about destruction. It is about the hope for long time stability.
Besides, the Americans have spent more money on this war than they could hope to gain out of having Iraq's oil. It isn't just about oil; it's about a rabid tendency to 'help' others. All in good intention.
WWII promoted peace; the civil war promoted peace; many wars have supported peace. War is not all about destruction. It is about the hope for long time stability.
Besides, the Americans have spent more money on this war than they could hope to gain out of having Iraq's oil. It isn't just about oil; it's about a rabid tendency to 'help' others. All in good intention.
- krkode
- Registered User
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:30 am
Mayavi Morpheus wrote:since there is no edit facility (mods please notice):
This logic is what drives most criminal brains. You have computer knowledge so use it to hack into systems, you have muscle strengthm so use it to rape hapless women, you have intelligence so use it to cheat other people and make money, if you are powerfull opress the not so virtuous. duh!
Thats why we have LAW, do any of this in real life u'll find urself behind bars. Unfortunately at the international level there is no law to govern bullies like US. the UN body is impotent. Its a jungle out there.
I think that you are an intelligen person after reading your previous posts on other forums. Do not try to apply the UN as an international police force because the UN is not capable of taking independent action to stop a violation of international law. Also in many cases, the UN doesnt want to take action. Most countries do not recognize the UN as a police power. The US isn't a police power. If you lived there, you would understand how much Americans want to keep to themselves and let others handle their own internal problems. Organizations like the UN and its affiliates beg the US to go and intervene in these conflicts.
Frankly, i think that the UN's time is over and it should be disbanded and kicked the hell out of New York.
-
H2 - Registered User
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 am
krkode wrote:It isn't just about oil; it's about a rabid tendency to 'help' others. All in good intention.
This is just begging the question. America clearly stated that the reason 4 attack was bcoz of WMDs(of which none were found) so how can it be of help. If they really wanted to help them then they would have thought of a less violent way to do so. Then again the Madrid train blasts were due to ppl agitated by the war. In conclusion they have done more bad than good.
-
rock_26iin - Level 1 Deity
- Posts: 6111
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:42 pm
- Location: L0ST !N $PACE
Oh no rock, Madrid blasts would have taken place even if Iraq was not attacked. We are talking about terrorists here, their only motive is to spread their belief and kill kufrs. Spain bombings were not a direct result of war on Iraq. It is just like the WMD reason that Bush gave.
H2:
I dont understand what you are trying to say here. Whatever it may be, I am not a UN supporter. If you read the my statement, I said UN is impotent. Neither do I support US as an international police force. US can only win military wars over small countries and not against organised, motivated militaries and diplomatically US can bully other countries as it is rich and other countries need its support.
Neither WWII nor Civil war promoted peace. WWII was the bloodiest war in huan history started by the germans and peace naturally follows after war. WWII was imposed on the world by a hate monger in the name of superiority of Germans you cannot compare that too GWII. War never promotes peace. Dont think that I am a peace activist. I am a war monger myself. Military toys in action gives me orgasms, but then I dont like innocent people getting killed.
America spent around 70 billion $ for war. And loaned anotehr 20 Billion dollars to iraq's fututure govt for iraq's reconstruction (which is unethical and illogical). So dont think that America is spending money, they've already started ramping up Oil production in Iraqi wells. Free Oil!
Moreover victory in Iraqi war is a stratergic win, you cant put a value to it. The stratergic gains are longterm and immense and beyond our imagination.
H2:
If you lived there, you would understand how much Americans want to keep to themselves and let others handle their own internal problems
I dont understand what you are trying to say here. Whatever it may be, I am not a UN supporter. If you read the my statement, I said UN is impotent. Neither do I support US as an international police force. US can only win military wars over small countries and not against organised, motivated militaries and diplomatically US can bully other countries as it is rich and other countries need its support.
How can War promote peace?
WWII promoted peace; the civil war promoted peace; many wars have supported peace. War is not all about destruction. It is about the hope for long time stability.
Besides, the Americans have spent more money on this war than they could hope to gain out of having Iraq's oil. It isn't just about oil; it's about a rabid tendency to 'help' others. All in good intention.
Neither WWII nor Civil war promoted peace. WWII was the bloodiest war in huan history started by the germans and peace naturally follows after war. WWII was imposed on the world by a hate monger in the name of superiority of Germans you cannot compare that too GWII. War never promotes peace. Dont think that I am a peace activist. I am a war monger myself. Military toys in action gives me orgasms, but then I dont like innocent people getting killed.
America spent around 70 billion $ for war. And loaned anotehr 20 Billion dollars to iraq's fututure govt for iraq's reconstruction (which is unethical and illogical). So dont think that America is spending money, they've already started ramping up Oil production in Iraqi wells. Free Oil!
Moreover victory in Iraqi war is a stratergic win, you cant put a value to it. The stratergic gains are longterm and immense and beyond our imagination.
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
Neither WWII nor Civil war promoted peace. WWII was the bloodiest war in huan history started by the germans and peace naturally follows after war. WWII was imposed on the world by a hate monger in the name of superiority of Germans you cannot compare that too GWII. War never promotes peace. Dont think that I am a peace activist. I am a war monger myself. Military toys in action gives me orgasms, but then I dont like innocent people getting killed.
WWII wasn't started by the hate monger you speak of. It was started by the people who chose to defend themselves.
It takes one to begin murdering, but it takes two to have a war.
In essence, WWII was a war fought to promote peace in the long term. If nobody resisted, there would have been no war. Just death. And us speaking German today.
- krkode
- Registered User
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:30 am
27 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Special Interest Groups
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
ADVERTISEMENT
SHOUTBOX!
{{ todo.summary }}... expand »
{{ todo.text }}
« collapse
First | Prev |
1 2 3
{{current_page-1}} {{current_page}} {{current_page+1}}
{{last_page-2}} {{last_page-1}} {{last_page}}
| Next | Last
{{todos[0].name}}
{{todos[0].text}}
ADVERTISEMENT
About Hyderabad
The Hyderabad Community
Improve fullhyd.com
More
Copyright © 2023 LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. fullhyd and fullhyderabad are registered trademarks of LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. The textual, graphic, audio and audiovisual material in this site is protected by copyright law. You may not copy, distribute or use this material except as necessary for your personal, non-commercial use. Any trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.