The leader of a nation just urged publicly that all members of his religion should avoid making peace. A group of nations is set to discuss peace amongst themselves and this leader urged all members of his religion no to make peace. The leader of a breakaway province of another country, which is almost entirely financed and armed by the country of which the first leader is the leader of, also announced that his country was against peace. The leader of another country somewhere nearby is expected to also boycott any possible peace conference. The leaders of three other nearby countries have not yet announced if they will support or oppose peace.
if the leaders of the two main nation make a peace that can pass a vote among their people the opposition loses. if not they win
The leader who spoke is not a democratically elected leader. There are elections in his country, but only candidates who have been approved by the church are allowed to run for office. In addition, the elected leaders are given very little actual authority. They are mostly for show. I'm not sure which the other main nation would be, as there are so many nations involved. Nation states are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The was forseen, correctly, by a member of a certain religion who used that fact to help start a holy war against members of all other religions.
nations should not concern themselves with the internal affair of other nations. make peace with as many as you can. make your best offer. make sure they take a vote approving the peace.if the people agree peace is made. before long the war mongers are left alone and weak.i had a topic about peace between Israel and arabs that might help. do not forget opposite of war is peace not more war
I'm not saying that peace is better than war, or that war is better than peace and I certainly did not mention any specific groups of people who might believe that war is better than peace. Let's not get into specifics here and let's not judge people based upon their thoughts, statements, or actions! If their beliefs tell them to wage war on people of all other religions, who am I to say that's wrong?
i might have been mistaken but this can also relate to the peace conference proposed by US and the Quartet i don't think we should be talking like this. it is one thing to be polite and then it is this!!
i feel sad for you that can not say peace is better than war. i say it proudly i didn't say you did i was offering a solution for the nation looking for peace. i might have misunderstood the whole thing anyway i don't think i will be banned for hoping for peace but even what if i get banned, Yitzhak Rabin was killed for peace so what was the point of you talking about all other things why couldn't you just say that from the beginning
That viewpoint disrespects the viewpoint of the two world leaders mentioned in the first post. Who are you to say that peace is better than war? Why don't you show respect for their viewpoint?
I need to be careful here incase you report me. Peace is always better than war. You must be some kind of stupid nice person if ya can't figure that one out.
I don't think I'm stupid. But hey, who am I to say you're wrong? I'll tear up my Mensa membership card tonight and change my party affiliation on Monday. But how can you say that the two world leaders mentioned in the first post are wrong? Who are you to not respect their beliefs?
"Peace" is a funny thing. Sometimes it means "submission." Don't get me wrong. I am AGAINST this war in Iraq. But not so much because I want peace, but that we never should have invaded in the first place. Instead of peace we should have hit them from the air. Hit them. Hit them. Hit them. and left them in "...pieces." Instead of having our children come home like-wise fighting for a people who hate us and a President who won't send his own daughter's over there.
You have balls my friend. My guess is you don't make it through the weekend lmao I'm refraining form posting at all really, I know I can't control myself. I'll let me sig do the talking for me
from this point on when i refer to peace i mean an agreement between two parties at war with each other to stop the hostilities by exchange of some consideration to resolve the root cause. should have would have could, have the country supported the war. would you like to super size that freedom fries sir and we have learned nothing. we can fix the middle east issues to the point of stabilization pretty quickly. In my opinion we have two options for achieving this goal within two year. but it requires diplomacy . oh mind you that it seems we are discussing multiple situations around the world.
if the argument is valid and polite why not bring it up. if the argument is only valid why can't you politely present it.