Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Who has been a bigger threat to world peace?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

username1214455

World peace will never be. People are the problem. Too selfish.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 81

HucktheForde

Original post by MatureStudent36

And when did the Russians get involved in Manchuria?

Roflllll u need to read more boy

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 82

MatureStudent36

Original post by HucktheForde

Roflllll u need to read more boy

Posted from TSR Mobile

Was it before or after they defeated germany? I'll give you a hint, after marshal Zukhov had conquered Berlin he went East.

So, the russian army who could only fight on one front at a time with financial, military and equipment support from the U.S., who were in turn fighting on several fronts.

Reply 83

al_94

Israel and their Zionist allies in NATO

Reply 84

Josb

Morons - especially with short dicks.

Reply 85

username1044970

Neo-conservatives, Muslim extremists and Wahhabis, North Korea, many, MANY warlords in Africa, etc.

It's impossible to point to a single group and blame them for all of the problems.

Reply 86

Rakas21

Original post by Jibola240

It wasn't done for no reason, the Japanese refused to end the war, so the bombing was a last desperate measure. Also USA may be been the ones to drop the bombs but it was in collaboration with their allies, so it's unfair to pin this on just them.

I often wonder if the people of today could have fought and won a world war. Certainly in Britain we have too many more concerned about the rules of war than achieving victory.

Japan declared war and suffered the consequences of their actions.

Reply 87

username1533709

Original post by radicalboujie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html
After the 1991 revolution of getting rid of the dictator siad barre, unrest still occurred. Violent tribalist war lords were being funded by America to keep the country "secular" while in fact they were carrying out slaughters, mass rapes of women, and if you weren't of their tribe you suffered even more hence the state Somalis is still in now.
This is what happens after US intervention failed. (and if your somali you know what tribalism means and what it causes)
Posted from TSR Mobile

So the european colonial powers who divided up Somalia along their own interests rather than tribal or ethnic lines have no play in this ?

Reply 88

NHM713

Original post by pocahontas lol

Slavery.

And yes folks, it's still happening today.

Shame nobody took any interest in my slavery thread, it explain all the models through the ages to this current one.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 89

pocahontas lol

Original post by NHM713

Shame nobody took any interest in my slavery thread, it explain all the models through the ages to this current one.

Link?

And well...this may be a student website

but it isn't hardly an academic website where those kinds of topics are popular. You're better off discussing like...obesity. :s-smilie:

lol

Reply 90

NHM713

Original post by pocahontas lol

Link?

And well...this may be a student website

but it isn't hardly an academic website where those kinds of topics are popular. You're better off discussing like...obesity. :s-smilie:

lol

Lol!

This is the link to the thread. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3113519

This is the video, which is also in the thread.
[video="youtube;Xbp6umQT58A"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A[/video]

Reply 91

Jibola240

Original post by Rakas21

Certainly in Britain we have too many more concerned about the rules of war than achieving victory.

Japan declared war and suffered the consequences of their actions.

Exactly

Reply 92

HucktheForde

Original post by MatureStudent36

The soviets have been fighting the japs since 1932, boy. The fight wasn't continuous because Japan did not invade soviet aggressively unlike Germany.. 1945 was the final invasion that settles the score. you really do need to read more :rofl:

and you are just about right. America is indeed 'supporting' and 'supporting' only before pearl habour. The US supported and funded the soviets so they can do the real fighting. And even when that happens the states cannot take both out at once but have to focus on germany first, then japan.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 93

Mad Vlad

Original post by NHM713

After watching a video, which posed the same question, I wanted to know what members of the TSR community thought was the answer.

Religion.

Reply 94

Smash Bandicoot

World peace is unattainable, only temporary silence.

Reply 95

TheBBQ

Abrahamic religions, and the countries that follow them.

Reply 96

I. Dzhugashvili

Original post by DiddyDec

Religious Leaders. In fact religion as a whole.

Right, because it is priests, rabbis, and imams directing the bombs and buying off the politicians?

Or .... the other way around?

Reply 97

I. Dzhugashvili

Original post by MatureStudent36

So, the russian army who could only fight on one front at a time with financial, military and equipment support from the U.S., who were in turn fighting on several fronts.

The United States did not supply the USSR with most of its weaponry. The USSR's rapid industrialisation programme, with its great human toll, managed that. The complication was a good portion of the factories were on land rapidly seized by the Nazis in 1941. In any case, it was the Soviets fighting head on while the US and Britain sat on their arses in England and fought skirmishes in North Africa. The invasion of Italy was only in 1943 and Normandy in 1944. It seemed they were curious to see who might win the Eastern Front!

After all, both Churchill and Truman at different times suggested that the West permit Stalin and Hitler duke it out!

The Soviets anyway lost 27 million. I think the US was close to one million. The Pacific Theatre had some concentrated, fierce naval and air battles but was not the slaughterhouse that the European Theatre was.

And you should know all this.