Iran's foreign minister explains international law to Senate Republicans

PA this early in the morning... You should take another coffee or maybe some tea.
Also, playing spelling nazi is quite juvenile and is most often associated with those who don't have the brain to make their case and instead have to rely on thread derailment and trolling. Beside, don't assume that everyone on an internet forum is an english speaker.

Neither Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo were american, so it's natural not to have a big following in a foreign country. With the resurgence of the right in Europe in response to the ME migrant invasion, a case could be made that both Mussolini and Hitler popularity, even if totally wrong, could be on the rise. If not them directly at least some of their ideas and politics.

 

Ghandi was only respected because he had no other tools to lift the British rule, if he had failed everyone would think he was a loser. Dehli Lama is a fraud, no intelligent person respects that PR machine.

Warriors are war mongers, if you are a warrior your life is war. We honor Emperors like Ceasar, and Augustus, Leaders like Alexander and Cyrus, all left bloody trails.

 

They lost.

 

Your post speaks volumes. In so many ways too. It really does.

PS, it's 1:30 in the afternoon here in the UK.

 

That comes as a shock! A shock! I tell you.

 

So why are you mentioning them to prove your point? War only favors the victors.

 

Stated its intentions with clarity.

 

I know you're from the UK... Just like the other two members who got banned just before you registered here and who for some reason seems to have espoused your views and reasonning 100%... I wonder why... No I'm not really...

 

Sigh.

Let's deal with facts shall we.

The argument you made in the original post was that (and I quote):

There is no suggestion or hint that only winning war mongers are respected - you imply all of them are. You state it as a fact, but it is simply your own somewhat perverse opinion, whereas I believe that war mongers are largely hated and loathed because they exhibit a will to power, a psychological disease, that causes immense suffering around them.

Anyway. My post in response to your original, was to point out that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were all war-mongers that (virtually) no one in the west respect, but rather despise.

But in the meantime you have shifted ground and now say that only winners of wars are "favoured."

This is a completely different argument.

But if you wish to stick to it then you now delete Napoleon from your list, because he was soundly defeated. Twice (the Battle of Leipzig leading to his exile on Elba, and the Battle of Waterloo that led to his exile on St. Helena and eventual death).

Having removed Napoleon you should substitute Ho Chi Minh who defeated the USA in Vietnam.

But all this misses the real point, which is that your opinion is in any event incorrect and based entirely on your own irrational psychological disposition.

The only real beneficiaries of war/war-mongers are the arms merchants and other businesses who become wealthy thanks to war and suffering. War is great for business - but terrible for almost everyone else. Especially those who have to fight it.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you should know there a time difference between the US and the UK....

Most people do.

 

And most people don't care...

 

Yes if ghandi had lost he would have been considered a loser. I think that is the definition of loser. Napoleon was a loser, Rommel was a loser, Hannibal was a loser. the list of losers even longer than the list of victors.

Your comment about the Dalhi lama is not an intelligent one, it is an ignorant one.


Warriors fight wars and deserve respect. War mongers advocate for war, usually to be fought by others and deserve excoriation.

the greatest warriors knew the horrors of war and advocated war as the last resort.

 

Then you've just excluded both Hitler and Musolini since both served their country during WW1. Hitler was even decorated twice for bravery. Benito Mussolini reached the rank of Corporal and was wounded in battle.

 

No, I haven't. neither were the greatest warriors although both rec'd deserved respect for their participation, but both became imperialistic war mongers losing all of that respect in the process. there is no contradiction.

 

Define greatest warrior... Most of those we call great warrior achieve their greatness after they themselves participated in direct combat. They are mostly known for their skill at commanding troops from behind, just like hitler, Mussolini and Tojo did. The only difference is that the last three lost.

 

All warriors participate in combat. The greatest are those identified and remembered by history.

Hitler screwed the pooch in commanding his armies. His initial successes were the direct result of his military commanders who created the strategy of blitzkrieg. when he decided to run the show, all of a sudden things went south.

Mussolini beat the ethopians, Other than that he wasn't too successful. Tojo was a great warrior who lost. Much like Hannibal and Rommel and Leonidas or the men at the Alamo and Cameron.


Losing does not necessarily render somebody a lousy warrior. .

 

Mussolini also beat the Libyan. He did it by ultimately putting nearly all of the Libyan population in concentration camp. Guess where is pal hitler got his idea for the Jewish "problem".

Hitler is as much responsible for the victories and the defeat. He is the one who rebuilt the German army and who appointed its commanders. Rommel for example was his old personal guard commander. He was a lousy politician, a liar, a cheat and is responsible for the holocaust, this is why he's despised. But not for starting a war in Europe, unless you're ready to hate all those that started wars in Europe before him. It will be quite a long list of people to hate.

Tojo played by the Japanese military rules book. Nothing he did was considered illegal or immoral in his society. He is respected in his country.

 

You've GOT to be trolling. That is about the most offensively arrogant thing I have ever heard an American say, (and that's quite a lot.)

Some Americans should realize that just because we shower our defense contractors with as much money as the entire rest of the world spends on their militaries doesn't mean that we can defeat said militaries. In fact, it seems we couldn't even defeat a remnant of one we'd already "defeated" even though we sacrificed 10,000 American lives and 6 Trillion dollars

Really, we have what the Ottomans would have regarded as a few hill bandits beheading our citizens, and you want to talk about going to war with Iran and then the whole world because a bunch of corporate lickspittles think they were elected Kings?

 

He is wrong.

Besides, Iran wants to do a deal with obama, its the easiest way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Of course the Iranian officials are going to support their buddy obama and oppose anything and anyone that might hinder their march to nuclear weapons.

 

Saddams Bathist regime is completely defeated.

 

Persian empire, from Afghanistan to Mediterranean. You will see it maximum 40 years later.
And a message for the US troops in the ME! Put your tails on your shoulders and go back to your home! It may be late if you do delay! We are not used to repeating our warning again and again!

 

Russia-China would militarily disagree that we're the only ones capable of enforcing the law. And I ask you: Would you risk our citizenry to find out?

 

who do you think the core of ISIS consists of?

 

Good thing the majority of the world is a lot smarter than people like you and doesn't care or respect what (Oxy)morons like you think.
Keep on trolling, poor soul.

 

Its called the Islamic Republic of Iran, because the Ayatollahs dream of an Islamic empire, not a Persian empire. And its not US troops slaughtering Shiites by the thousands, it is the Sunnis dreaming of an Islamic empire.

 

??? Sunnis dreaming of an Islamic empire. Fighting AGAINST Assads Baathist regime.