Question:
Eeee! This is very, very exciting. So, for the first poll...who do you think is the world's greatest conqueror?

Post up why you think one conqueror is greater than the other. Military success, land conquered, policies enstated, legacy left, better clothes, whatever.

Feel free to post others you think deserve to be on the list (I left out Cyrus the Great, Hitler, Catherine the Great, the Shunzhi Emperor, for example.)

Choices:
Genghis Khan.
Alexander the Great.
Tamerlane.
Atilla the Hun.
Napoleon.

 

quote:

Originally posted by Canvas:
...as an example of how out of touch you are with what I'm saying....I'd like to point-out that BBC was the mainstream media I linked to...

cya there

I don't even know what that is in reference to.

...as an example of how out of touch you are with what I'm saying....I'd like to point-out that BBC was the mainstream media I linked to...

cya there

Here is the l;ocation of our new board to discuss the merits of the Iraq invasion:

http://boards.youthnoise.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=7422996...&r=39610405#39610405

quote:

However, we don't have any proof that he did.

The whole world knows he gassed his own people. Even your socialists Canadian newspapers admit it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

Dude, did you seirously not know about this or are you just pretending to not know about to play devil's advocate?

quote:

Yes, yes I can. Hell even the mainstream media are talking about it.

Yeah, AntiWar.com is real mainstream media.

quote:

t's a clash of ideology - Sunni and Shia - within a country, leading to violence. I

No, its a clash between Iraqis and Insurgents. By the very nature of the word insurgent you can not call it a civil war. So since the Socialist Canadian media calls it a civil war it must be one, right?

quote:

100 people a day is no joke, I might add.

Oh, I see. When the numbers reach 100 people a day (proof?), it is classified as a Civil War?

quote:

I'm simply drawing parallels between the US - Iraq war and the Israel - Lebanon war.

Since when? No one has said that Israel is one of the greatest conquers of all time. Why do you continually change the subject?

quote:

But to conquer means total control, not the chaos we have. Conquering means submission; but aren't they killing US soldiers everyday?

So does Saddam still control the government? If not, then who? Perhaps the government we installed. By your own logic we are conquers. Who do you mean by they? Foreign insurgents (correct)? or Iraqi civilians (incorrect)?

Apologies to Euterpe.

Joey and Bushsupporter, I think we'd have to continue the argument somewhere else; this isn't the place. Link me to the apporopriate place if you feel up to it and let's try to keep open minds and have a little fun while we're at it. None of this bitterness. Blah. Down with bitterness.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
Unless you are a complete idiot, you know there were rape rooms, genocide, and murder happening all of the time in Iraq befor we went.

I do not know whether this is true or not. It probably is, but then again, every country has rape rooms, murder, and all-out torture. Your beloved United States is no exception. Can you link me to a "reliable" source that can confirm this? The Bush administration doesn't count; if they lied about biological/chemical weapons then there's no reason to believe a thing they say.

quote:

originally posted by Bushsupporter:
Tell me what you would have supported in order to stop that. I don't want anymore "America had done worse" trash. Tell me what you would have done to end the killing.

First, it's not trash. And second of all, I would have gone with the Iraqi people, instead of KILLING the Iraqi people. Some say more than a million Iraqis are dead - others say it was 150 000 last year. Which do you find yourself believing? Which do you find yourseld wanting to believe? Hey, you know, they freed them. Totally. By that logic Osama Bin Laden FREED the people in the World Trade Centre. Oh, wait, it doesn't count: Osama's a terrorist, and the US has an army. Oh, wait though, the US civilians WEREN'T being tortured. So yeah. I got your logic. Tortured people with unpronouncable names in foreign country. Inside each is an American waiting toget out. Check. Gotcha.

To put it simply: You did nothing. The US did nothing but start a Civil War in Iraq. Do you know that 100 die a day? 100. That's a little less than the number of people I have on Facebook. That means that in one week, every person I have ever met would be obliviated.

It's freedom, isn't it?

Most Iraqis agree: They want the Saddam days back because they're better than today. So, congratulations. The US population and its government are as popular as pedophilia.

But hey, Bushy, you forgot to answer my question: How do you know what I've done? How do you know that my sources are worthless? More importantly, what have you done?

quote:

originally posted by notsojoey
However, you clearly don't care about Saddam gassing tens of thousands of his own people since you thought Iraqis were better off before the war.

I do, and for various reasons. However, we don't have any proof that he did. He wasn't loved; but , for Iraqis, Saddam > US Troops. Iraqis have said it. They'd know what they want, right? Right?

quote:

originally posted by notsojoey

You can not call Iraq a civil war.

Yes, yes I can. Hell even the mainstream media are talking about it. 100 people a day is no joke, I might add. It's a clash of ideology - Sunni and Shia - within a country, leading to violence. It's considered a Civil War. And the US avoids the term to avoid embarrassment and you know it.

quote:

originally posted by notsojoey
Didn't win the war? What happened to Saddam's government and the Taliban? Are they still in power in their respective countries? If you don't call overthrowing a countries government and subsequent occupation of that land conquering I feel you Canadian school system has failed you greatly. You are trying to muddle facts with your Bush-bashing arguments.

I am not muddling facts. I'm simply drawing parallels between the US - Iraq war and the Israel - Lebanon war. Like how Israel failed to achieve what it set out to do (see last paragraph), and thus did not win the war, the US failed to destroy the weapons it set out - because the weapons never existed. Overthrowing a government is the first step. But to conquer means total control, not the chaos we have. Conquering means submission; but aren't they killing US soldiers everyday?

quote:

Originally posted by Euterpe:
Because they're not CNN? Oh do explain.

No, because the first link your provided does not back up your claim that 3 in four Iraqi children are malnourished.

quote:

And no, I care about rape and genocide wherever and however it happens.

However, you clearly don't care about Saddam gassing tens of thousands of his own people since you thought Iraqis were better off before the war.

quote:

Basically, Bush killed 3000 American soldiers to start a civil war. But until Iraq becomes the 51st state, it's not been conquered.

quote:

I said Iraqis were better-off with Saddam

You can not call Iraq a civil war. Would you call it a civil war if Mexico was sending in mercanaries into Texas to seize San Antonio? No, you would call it an invasion. So how can you call Muslim Extremists from foreign countries sending soldiers into Iraq a civil war?

quote:

I'll add this: a conqueror is someone who conquers. Bush didn't conquer. Bush didn't even win the war, because to win you have to accomplish what you set out to do. Bush never destroyed the Iraqi missile technology, because it never existed.

Didn't win the war? What happened to Saddam's government and the Taliban? Are they still in power in their respective countries? If you don't call overthrowing a countries government and subsequent occupation of that land conquering I feel you Canadian school system has failed you greatly. You are trying to muddle facts with your Bush-bashing arguments.

quote:

How do you know that my sources are worthless?

Your death toll numbers are not correct. Neither is you malnutrition claim - which you have subsequently corrected. You over play the infant mortatlity rate which is on par for a country like Iraq.

Unless you are a complete idiot, you know there were rape rooms, genocide, and murder happening all of the time in Iraq befor we went.

Tell me what you would have supported in order to stop that. I don't want anymore "America had done worse" trash. Tell me what you would have done to end the killing.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

What are you talking about?

Your solution to the genocide and rape in Iraq was to look the other way. Mine was to get involved.

Holy jellyfish lining up at Mario's Pizza parlor, now you're just being illogical. How do you know what I've done? How do you know that my sources are worthless? More importantly, what have you done? Because if all you've done is light candles at vigils and go on a rally, you might as well have poured orange juice on a flower for all the orphan Iraqi kid cares.

quote:

What are you talking about?

Your solution to the genocide and rape in Iraq was to look the other way. Mine was to get involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

That link doesn't say that.

you are wrong about the death toll

Hmm, thought I edited that. It's still a large number, though. But my bad, thanks for the correction.

quote:

Your facts are misleading and misinformed. It is sad really that you have bought into the "Saddam was an OK guy" routine. If you truely believe that Iraqis were better off then, I don't know what else to do. You are too far gone.

Quick English lesson: the word "better" means that something is an improved state than it was previously. I didn't say Saddam was the best. Or GOOD. I said he was better. You're arguing about things I never said. I said Iraqis were better-off with Saddam - also known as pre-Civil War. Mark the word better, and refer to the first sentence to understand what it means.

Too far gone where? So you're saying the US Army are a bunch of smiling folks who are really there to help the Iraqis? No, m'dear: you are too far gone. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Good American intentions or not, there's a Civil War. So, yes. America, FUCK YEAH!

quote:

Apparently not in the case of Iraq.

What are you talking about? Did I ever say "To hell with Iraqi families"?

quote:

Today,three in four children are malnourished

That link doesn't say that.

you are wrong about the death toll

Your facts are misleading and misinformed. It is sad really that you have bought into the "Saddam was an OK guy" routine. If you truely believe that Iraqis were better off then, I don't know what else to do. You are too far gone.

quote:

I care about rape and genocide wherever and however it happens.

Apparently not in the case of Iraq.

Sorry for double-posting, can't edit.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
So I see Canvas is also denying that President George W Bush invaded and overthrew the repressive governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by Canvas:
I should probably point-out that, with that in mind, it doesn't count as a victory because of the non-existant Nuclear technology the war started over anyways.

I'll add this: a conqueror is someone who conquers. Bush didn't conquer. Bush didn't even win the war, because to win you have to accomplish what you set out to do. Bush never destroyed the Iraqi missile technology, because it never existed. Basically, Bush killed 3000 American soldiers to start a civil war. But until Iraq becomes the 51st state, it's not been conquered.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
your media probably doesn't talk about Napoleon and Alexander the Great.

Yeah, Canadian media is so third-world.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

Iraqis were better-off before the war.

What a moron. I guess you only care about rape and genocide when it happens to black Africans. Very good.

That's mature. And no, I care about rape and genocide wherever and however it happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
By the way, most of your links are uncredible.

1. They're links, instead of "I read somewheres."
2. Because they're not CNN? Oh do explain.

So I see Canvas is also denying that President George W Bush invaded and overthrew the repressive governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interesting, do any of you actually read previous posts or do you just start responding when you see key words like Bush and Iraq? Freemarket and I are in the process of debating whether or not President Bush should be in the category of conquerer, not the merits of the War in Iraq.

Why aren't you making a moral argument against all of the other conquers that have been discussed? It is probably because you only know what the media tells you, and your media probably doesn't talk about Napoleon and Alexander the Great.

Canvas is simply trying to distort this issue about conquers in an attempt to made up facts (in 3 or 4 children are malnourished, which is not said anywhere in the source) or alarmist rarities to serve his ultimate goal of trying to convince people that President Bush is a terrible person. Let's try to stick to the topic. If you want to debate the merits of the war in Iraq go to a board that has already been started (there are probably over 20 of them).

By Canvas' logic any person that has done anything bad can not be a great conquerer. Thus, Canvas probably believes this debate should be ended so he can declare Dennis Kucinich the greatest conquerer of all time.

quote:

Iraqis were better-off before the war.

What a moron. I guess you only care about rape and genocide when it happens to black Africans. Very good.

By the way, most of your links are uncredible.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
My bad, I'm interested in your thoughts on how President George W. Bush did not invade and overthrow the repressive governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the future, be more observant before you begin your high and mighty intellectual-more-smarter than you posts. Thoughts?

You should heed your own advice.

Let's look at Iraq - and, before all that - let's forget they never bloody called for the US - or anyone - to help them.

Today,three in four children are malnourished, with the percentages increasing eveyrwhere. Okay, fine, so the kids are hungry, who cares? Except, that, well Iraq’s mortality rate for children under five rose from 5 percent in 1990 to 12.5 percent in one year, and continues to increase. Ah, so what, the parents can make more little children. Except that the war - and that's the war, not the aftermath - has caused anything from 946 000 deaths to 1 120 000 deaths alone. That's just the war. The average daily death in Iraq is 100 people. 4 000 000 struggle for food. The list goes on and on and on. Just keep on strolling. Don't forget to read one of the reported murders committed by the US Army. That's just one. They "accidentally" killed some civilians the other day. The great United States of America can't tell between a little girl holding a teddy bear and Big Ugly Osama with a bomb. I'll bet you that Santa's probably been leaving toys for Osama under his Christmas tree all these years. (Hint from some US soldiers: you can rape Iraqi girls - and hell let's do the children and men too). Who cares? They even made a film about it (well, two). Bush was being himself about it anyways. Oh, heard of Manadel al-Jamadi?

Yes, I know this doesn't translate to all US soldiers. But you get reports of this stuff every day in the independent and Arabic media. But it gets better.

Everything was wrong with this war, from Bush's false reasons (should we lead to his impeachment?) to the New York Times issuing a statement that some of their articles were exaggerated to the US media's knack of going pro-war, making Americans go pro-war as well. Oh, yeah: Iraq wasn't linked to Al-Qaeda after all.

They never screamed it from the rooftops, but they have said that Iraq was also for the oil. Why, the US deputy defense secretary has said so himself.

The war in Iraq is costing, exactly: I dare you to write down a number fast enought. The situation, really, could not be worse.

The US FREED the Iraqis, man! The US caused civil war. Surely that's better than Saddam?

Iraqis were better-off before the war.

Should I do the Afghanistan thing as well? You can start by watching Taxi to the Dark Side, or I could point-out the evils of that war as well. Or we could argue about this one. Your call.

Edit: I should probably point-out that, with that in mind, it doesn't count as a victory because of the non-existant Nuclear technology the war started over anyways. Also, this isn't the thread for a discussion - but point me to the right place if you're going to rebuttle.

My bad, I'm interested in your thoughts on how President George W. Bush did not invade and overthrow the repressive governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
If you would take the time to read the post that started this thread you will find no criteria for candidates. In fact, Eutrepe includes Hilter as a possible alternative who died during World War II while his wartime efforts were still going on.

In the future, be more observant before you begin your high and mighty intellectual-more-smarter than you posts. Thoughts?