Announcement

**KrazyHorse** · February 21, 2003, 07:55

Ignorance is Strength

**The Mad Monk** · February 21, 2003, 07:56

I suppose the real question is, when is 'world peace' no longer worth the price in human suffering?

**KrazyHorse** · February 21, 2003, 07:56

Originally posted by Boddington's
Yes.

Because it is obvious the US aren't the biggest threat to world peace.

Yes. Quite. Of course. What a delightful argument.

**KrazyHorse** · February 21, 2003, 07:57

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I suppose the real question is, when is 'world peace' no longer worth the price in human suffering?

Freedom is Slavery

**MikeH** · February 21, 2003, 08:00

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I suppose the real question is, when is 'world peace' no longer worth the price in human suffering?

You mean, when is the price in human suffering caused by war less than the price in human suffering caused by not going to war.

**Urban Ranger** · February 21, 2003, 09:18

Originally posted by Boddington's
Yes.

Because it is obvious the US aren't the biggest threat to world peace.

Count the number of wars initiated by various countries after WWII. Which country comes up most?

**addiv** · February 21, 2003, 09:50

But did those wars threaten World Peace ?
I don't think so. Still, I agree with the opinion that the U.S. is the biggest threat to world peace (more than Iraq and DPRK). But what is the alternative? Being conquered by the middle east in the end probably. So it's good the US does something about dangerous countries.

**Urban Ranger** · February 21, 2003, 10:01

If those wars didn't threaten World Peace, how would other countries be a threat? This is clearly silly.

**addiv** · February 21, 2003, 10:07

Those other countries aren't a threat to world peace either

**DinoDoc** · February 21, 2003, 11:01

USA!

**DinoDoc** · February 21, 2003, 11:03

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Count the number of wars initiated by various countries after WWII.

Real wars or just armed disputes?

**The Mad Monk** · February 22, 2003, 04:32

Originally posted by MikeH

You mean, when is the price in human suffering caused by war less than the price in human suffering caused by not going to war.

Exactly.

**MRT144** · February 22, 2003, 04:42

aparently saddam is going to kill 500,000 of his own people in the first few days of a war now? wait, thats the US

**The Mad Monk** · February 22, 2003, 04:49

No, I thought we were going to kill 4,000,000.

Wait -- that's the Phillipines.

We still have to fit in that 1,000,000,000 over in China...

**MRT144** · February 22, 2003, 04:53

yeah, yeah, the figures really dont matter until they come in i suppose...but i dont think killing iraqis directly is somehow better than the status quo.

Announcement

United States greatest threat to world peace behind Iraq, North Korea came third

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment