Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Improving world peace

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by pixelpowder, Mar 9, 2004.

?

Would You Pay To Use B-Net? <read below to find out what this would get you>

  1. No -They Promised Free Play And Thats The Way It Should Stay

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Yes - $5-10 (A Month)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Yes - $10-20 (A Month)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Yes - $20+ (for a ladder season)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. pixelpowder

    pixelpowder IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    George Bush, Bin Laden and improving world peace

    Which of the two hypothetical events below would have the most beneficial impact on world peace if they were to occur in 2004 :

    - the capture of Ossama Bin Laden
    - George Bush losing the US presidential election
     
  2. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whoah. This should be a good one.

    Well, George Bush certainly is responsible for more deaths and has attacked more countries...
     
  3. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    But bin Laden has orchestrated more attacks. And is Bush responsible for more deaths? That'd be an interesting question. Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 plus several embassy bombings as well as some other stuff, I think. Bush has the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
     
  4. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So far just the reported civilian deaths in Iraq are over 8400. Over 3000 for the Afghani civilian count.
     
  5. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Source?

    And I don't mean to sound callous, but you have to compare what the civilian deaths would be like had there been no war. Since this is a relativisitic topic (world before Bush as president vs. world after Bush as president) you need a relativistic viewpoint. For example if 10,000 people were dying a year from a dictator, and a war to free the people cost 20,000 civilian lives right away and then no more for the next half century, then an argument can be made that lives were actually saved. I have no clue what the case is for Iraq. I doubt Saddam published the numbers of people he had killed each year, and I know it's much lower than 10,000, that was just an example.
     
  6. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

    http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

    http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/

    I don't think responsibility for a death is determined by whether or not the person would have died anyway. And we're also talking about world peace, not Iraq peace. If (and it's a big if) this Iraq circus somehow stabilizes and nobody dies violently for the next 50 years, right now today it's still disrupting world peace in a pretty clear way.
     
  7. Indemaijinj

    Indemaijinj IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Now don't get me wrong, I do not want to add to the already bloated "Down with Bush" choir.

    Nonetheless I do not believe that Osama Bin Laden's capture or death will bring us much peace.


    Osama Bin Laden is not the king in a game of chess. His elimination will not necessarily mean the end of Al Qaeda and the end of Al Qaeda won't necessarily mean the end of terrorism.
    Islamic terrorism is a world movement, not an isolated rebellion or containable guerrilla fraction. Al Qaeda is merely one of it's faces.

    I guess something along these lines will happen in the near future:
    Osama Bin Laden is finally captured along with some of his sons. They are put to trial, either in an international court or in the US. The particulars doesn't really matter (though the international court solutions would please the europeans). He is then either condemned to death or a(n actual) life sentence. Again the particulars does not matter. Either he will be lauded as a martyr or the terrorists will fume at his "humiliation" (death and humiliation seem equally "bad").
    A new spree of terrorist attacks will be conducted in his besmirched "honor".
     
  8. dantose

    dantose IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    you bring up a good point. while bin laden is clearly the worse person, he had been some what marginalized. If the wars going on are assumed to be ultimately bad for world peace then a case could definately be made for bush.

    personally, I didn't vote for bush and don't plan on voting for him this time around but I think the war in Iraq was ultimately something that saved lives. I'm not making any statement about the reasons bush decided to go there only stating that there were legitimate reasons to free Iraq.
     
  9. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    A very interesting question. Mad props, Pixelpower.

    Strictly speaking in terms of entire world peace, and not just my little corner of it, I'd have to go with the Bush option, because I don't think Bin Laden is going to be on the Main Line anytime before the jackbooted thugs 'ensuring peace' through martial law and suspenion of civil liberties. Of course, neither one is going to happen.

    This isn't to say that Bush is a threat to World peace, another invasion may change my mind, but rather Bush's actions (or rather the actions of his handlers; Karl Rove, I'm looking at you) affect more people globally than Bin Laden.

    I'm still voting for anarchy.
     
  10. PublicEnemy

    PublicEnemy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    There is no world peace
    you can talk about a world peace if there is not a single war going on in the world;so, "improving world peace" is nonsense ;rather say "less wars" and don't talk about a "world peace"
    A capture of ben laden or Bush failing the elections would have unknown consequences;you can't predict the reactions of the 'friends' of ben laden if ever he was to be caught,and you don't know how the next president of the white house will act,including Bush;starting a war can be a way to stop wars,and making peace can give time to enemies to start a war;you should know that all things are relative

    I don't believe in a world peace;there have never been a world peace since the beginning of humanity
    A world peace can only occur if we all die
     
  11. Amra

    Amra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    472
    Kind of an odd poll but I voted.

    And what PublicEnemy said. ^^
     
  12. PublicEnemy

    PublicEnemy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    and so?
    what's wrong?
     
  13. mysnistaken

    mysnistaken Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yup i'm going with PublicEnemy on this one too...humans just can't have peace...and i'm also agreeing with Indemaijinj on the idea that the capture of bin Laden won't end terrorism...a "There will never be Peace" option would be nice...
     
  14. Amra

    Amra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    472

    Nothing's wrong. I am just saying the poll is odd. And I am agreeing with what you wrote.

    :scratch:
     
  15. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    World peace or no world peace, I'd still like Bush to take a long walk off a short pier just because he's a complete dumbass and has no business running the world's most powerful country. *zips up flame-proof suit and threateningly brandishes a TAT*
     
  16. SomeCanadianGuy

    SomeCanadianGuy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    But you wouldn't want there to be world peace because you'd be out of a job. Then you'd have to find something else to do....
     
  17. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It'll never happen. But if it did...

    I'd go be a pirate! YAH!!!
     
  18. SomeCanadianGuy

    SomeCanadianGuy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    You think we can start doing with pirate hats what was done with Santa hats at Christmas? That way we can all be pirates right here in the OTF! And that way we'd all have REALULTIMATEPOWER!!! That would so totally r0xx0r meh b0xx0rs man! :D
     
  19. Carnage-DVS

    Carnage-DVS IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    And I'll be your trusty parrot. ARRRR!
     

Share This Page