First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Solution to End all World Wars
11195 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Big bad ass Los A...
Offline
Posted 5/22/09
This is a stupid look at why wars happen. Everyone thinks wars start because of political upheaval? WRONG.
Wars happen because people need money; no wars no money. Governments don't decide when to wage wars, it's the
interest groups, private interest groups. The ones that create the weapons: tanks, anti-aircraft, airplanes, bullets, and so on.
It's all about money. WWII was started because of an obsession of Hitler, that is all there is to it. He wanted to have
enough room for his people to live. How much was enough? We will never know. Vietnam was fought for the land, for the
money that could be made controlling that large land. And they say it was the Communists spreading to the area.
Who were the Communists? Where were they? The Iraq war, both, weren't started because of 9/11, nope, it was a follow-up
to the previous one. This time Saddam was taken down, not because he was a dictator, the U.S doesn't give a shit that
a dictator was in power, they let him go back in the 90's. It was for control of the oil market.

Now this guy says women should be presidents. It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ is the president, if the money wants
war, it gets it. It's always been that, and it will always be that.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 5/22/09 , edited 5/22/09

makix wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:


makix wrote:



why thank you you just totally convinced me that im wrong *sarcasm*


BTW, acting retarded on the internet is one thing, but may I suggest that you hold your opinions from other public institutions and spheres.
I'm suggesting this to you for your own good.


EDIT: Have you heard of Queen Elizabeth I of England?


I'm talking about normal women, not women of royalty. Thas 300 years ago where people were more prone to killing (and btw even Queen Elizabeth knew there was pointless fighting over catholics and protestants, which was why she created the church of england, to stop further massacres of innocent people) . I'm talking about common motherly woman, with at least a decent education. How many women like that do you know would mercilessly send thousands of troops and billions of dollars on a war that has no end? (this is why LBJ is one of my favorite presidents, he was the only modern president willing to help out for the civil rights with full support and even though he couldn't do much about the vietnam war he felt so guilty sending troops he went to a church every night in private and he refused to go for his second term) We need presidents that shows their humane side, one that would be willing to discuss these world politics with a cup of tea. Negotiating without direct contact just creates more hostility on both sides and by that simple fact alone, thousands of lives and billions of dollars are wasted.


A leader being an un-militaristic leader has very little to do with gender; it has all to do with the society and the consistent foreign policy that a nation upholds.


A leader has little to do with society (well a leader not caring what the public thinks anyway since he wouldn't have to run for a 3rd term anyway *cough bush cough*) and the foreign policy is made by the leader. Sure not ALL women are going to create peace and not ALL men are going to want war, but GENERALLY, men are going to create more agressive decisions. War isn't declared in a matter of days but its the little steps in between that creates conflict between nations and escalates tensions. (even the war against afghanistan and iraq can be traced all the way back to the cold war, I forgot why though something about the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and Iran stopping exporting oil to the U.S blegh im done with the AP exam forgot everything :P)
4408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Cavite, Philippines
Offline
Posted 5/23/09
What a feminist. My question, does having a female leader make a difference from men? I think it's not with the gender of the leader but his/her capability of being one. What if Hillary Clinton have a PMS and wished to drop a nuke on Iraq? Even President Gloria Arroyo of the Philippines is not a good leader and is unable to solve the many problems of the country.
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 5/24/09
has he ever had a gf???
1244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/25/09
If this is your big solution you should really think about studying what the REAL causes of both world wars and the cold war really were

btw here's a hint- they had nothing to do with the leaders being male
Posted 5/25/09
Everyone : Stop being so selfish.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 5/25/09

LemonyPanda wrote:


makix wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:


makix wrote:



why thank you you just totally convinced me that im wrong *sarcasm*


BTW, acting retarded on the internet is one thing, but may I suggest that you hold your opinions from other public institutions and spheres.
I'm suggesting this to you for your own good.


EDIT: Have you heard of Queen Elizabeth I of England?


I'm talking about normal women, not women of royalty. Thas 300 years ago where people were more prone to killing (and btw even Queen Elizabeth knew there was pointless fighting over catholics and protestants, which was why she created the church of england, to stop further massacres of innocent people) . I'm talking about common motherly woman, with at least a decent education. How many women like that do you know would mercilessly send thousands of troops and billions of dollars on a war that has no end? (this is why LBJ is one of my favorite presidents, he was the only modern president willing to help out for the civil rights with full support and even though he couldn't do much about the vietnam war he felt so guilty sending troops he went to a church every night in private and he refused to go for his second term) We need presidents that shows their humane side, one that would be willing to discuss these world politics with a cup of tea. Negotiating without direct contact just creates more hostility on both sides and by that simple fact alone, thousands of lives and billions of dollars are wasted.


A leader being an un-militaristic leader has very little to do with gender; it has all to do with the society and the consistent foreign policy that a nation upholds.


A leader has little to do with society (well a leader not caring what the public thinks anyway since he wouldn't have to run for a 3rd term anyway *cough bush cough*) and the foreign policy is made by the leader. Sure not ALL women are going to create peace and not ALL men are going to want war, but GENERALLY, men are going to create more agressive decisions. War isn't declared in a matter of days but its the little steps in between that creates conflict between nations and escalates tensions. (even the war against afghanistan and iraq can be traced all the way back to the cold war, I forgot why though something about the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and Iran stopping exporting oil to the U.S blegh im done with the AP exam forgot everything :P)


Read the first 8 sentences and I facepalmed really hard I have a dent in my head now. Thanks.
2066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 5/25/09
Nuke china

4295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Youtube!
Offline
Posted 5/25/09
I can't see it as a solution really, because wars have to be run through the cabinet or parliament ect ect before they can go ahead, unless you plan on making them ALL female?

Besides, war is still in human nature male or female even if women tend to be a little more patient (we make better snipers on UT w00t).

And did you ever consider PMS? Oh lawd.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 5/25/09

makix wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:


makix wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:


makix wrote:



why thank you you just totally convinced me that im wrong *sarcasm*


BTW, acting retarded on the internet is one thing, but may I suggest that you hold your opinions from other public institutions and spheres.
I'm suggesting this to you for your own good.


EDIT: Have you heard of Queen Elizabeth I of England?


I'm talking about normal women, not women of royalty. Thas 300 years ago where people were more prone to killing (and btw even Queen Elizabeth knew there was pointless fighting over catholics and protestants, which was why she created the church of england, to stop further massacres of innocent people) . I'm talking about common motherly woman, with at least a decent education. How many women like that do you know would mercilessly send thousands of troops and billions of dollars on a war that has no end? (this is why LBJ is one of my favorite presidents, he was the only modern president willing to help out for the civil rights with full support and even though he couldn't do much about the vietnam war he felt so guilty sending troops he went to a church every night in private and he refused to go for his second term) We need presidents that shows their humane side, one that would be willing to discuss these world politics with a cup of tea. Negotiating without direct contact just creates more hostility on both sides and by that simple fact alone, thousands of lives and billions of dollars are wasted.


A leader being an un-militaristic leader has very little to do with gender; it has all to do with the society and the consistent foreign policy that a nation upholds.


A leader has little to do with society (well a leader not caring what the public thinks anyway since he wouldn't have to run for a 3rd term anyway *cough bush cough*) and the foreign policy is made by the leader. Sure not ALL women are going to create peace and not ALL men are going to want war, but GENERALLY, men are going to create more agressive decisions. War isn't declared in a matter of days but its the little steps in between that creates conflict between nations and escalates tensions. (even the war against afghanistan and iraq can be traced all the way back to the cold war, I forgot why though something about the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and Iran stopping exporting oil to the U.S blegh im done with the AP exam forgot everything :P)


Read the first 8 sentences and I facepalmed really hard I have a dent in my head now. Thanks.


Again with your extreme persuasive skills and stunning evidence you once again changed my viewpoint. Thanks mystery E-debator
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 5/26/09
only female leaders = war every month.
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 5/27/09

h4x0rz wrote:

only female leaders = war every month.


ahahahaaah i get it

nice one
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/27/09
We could all have free love? As in ultimate sexual freedom? You know when we get angry we can just screw someone and then the solution would be solved. We'd be like bonobos and hippies. It'd work out if it weren't for moral issues.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/27/09 , edited 5/27/09

crunchypibb wrote:

We could all have free love? As in ultimate sexual freedom? You know when we get angry we can just screw someone and then the solution would be solved. We'd be like bonobos and hippies. It'd work out if it weren't for moral issues.


And STDs.
Posted 5/27/09 , edited 5/27/09
Remember everyone, this is the same dude that said, "Slavery wasn't really all that bad."

No one should take him seriously.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.