|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 16, 2008 11:42:58 GMT -5
Fool I never saw the news after the tsunami hit. Stop assuming. I saw a video in economics last year that showed an American reported constantly being asked for money by the same family each time they saw him. More over, the video showed the poo condition India was in and how the government takes forever to act on anything in the business area. Plus I've seen the history channel + history international and how bad india sucks. You can't please the needs of 1 billion+ people. If you know so much, go run from Prime Minister and try fixing it. The discussion was about if Gandhi was considered "one of the greatest people" and he is. You have to affect in a positive manner to achieve such a status, idiot. That's why you won't see Lenin or Hitler ever in there. No one respected their actions and all they created was destruction. No where did i say that you had to affect people with destruction and chaos to achieve a status of wide appraisal from all around the world. Gandhi did achieve that. He is constantly looked up to by civil rights leaders, and by his own people. And you're right about Indias population not being as great as it is now, but you can't be certain about the numbers. But i can assure you it was greater than 500 million, which is far greater than The US population now and back then. How? America had less people. MLK was a disciple off Gandhi. Gandhi gave motivation to people such as Steven Bico and Nelson Mendela, who fought a great Civil war in South Africa. Do you even know what you are talking about? If the indian people love gandhi so much, why don't they follow his pacifist motives more? Fail.[/quote] Some do, Some don't. Not everybody can be affected. [quote|Please mystic. I'm owning you about a guy from your own country.[/quote] ROFL? You're blabbering your mouth about crap you have no fundamental in. Usually every country tries to avoid war at at all costs. Some costs consisting of Deaths, Money/military needed, etc. Get this Stalin/war bullcrap out of your mind. War Heros are considered great people, but that doesn't negate the effect of Gandhi on the world with non-violence. He was fighting a war, but they didnt use weapons. Sorry to displease your boy-war fanaticism, Gladius. You fail to even take in the fact that stalin affected the world IN A NEGATIVE WAY. People dislike Stalin greatly. The US disliked Stalin and his motives. We even had a cold war to abolish of Stalin's motives in the USSR. Do you read a book at all? You wouldn't see a dream or a person standing up for her rights on a bus stand if Gandhi hadn't influenced them at all. Did you not read that quote i posted a little while ago about how much MLK's views were changed due to what he learned from Gandhi? Gandhi affected a country of many numbers. He doesn't have to affect the world, but the fact of what he done to achieve something was/is pretty motivational. Why do you think every History Class in the world learns something about Gandhi if he didn't have any affect of greatness? Just think about it. Why would they include a person, who to you 'affected a crap country', be mentioned so much in modern world history and in relations to MLK, Steven Bico, Nelson Mendela? Pretty Sure that we wouldn't see that so don't make assumptions, you silly dino. Plus Gandhi would not want to fight. Get the war poo out of your brain lmao. Rimshot.
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 16, 2008 11:57:20 GMT -5
Dude...its been 6 days since my last post. Why the **** would you revive this pointless thread?
Of course you can please the needs of a billion people. Give them food, water, and shelter. Currently large parts of india's population is lacking a combination of the three.
Dude Lenin was a god in soviet russia. They had/have statues of him, pictures of him, etc. Lenin freed the people from the tryanny of the czars. He united the people in a new form of government where everyone was equal (in theory). Judging from the fact that russia went on to become a world super power while india hasn't done jack poo, Lenin > Gandhi.
Did you just ask how america effects the world more than india does? Wow dude. Thats why I'm owning you in this debate.
Like I've said before, they mention gandhi in school because he was the first to do something. Moving on, um...no duh the US disliked stalin and his motives. That is the dumbest statement you've made. Communism is fairly opposite of capitalism. Moving on, it's more than Stalin fighting a few wars. WW2 was brought unto him, not the other way around. The fact is, Stalin has had a far more reaching effect on the world. Look at it this way. Soviet Russia for 40 years after Stalin > India 40 years after Gandhi. To argue otherwise would prove you're just ignorant.
Of course he wouldn't want to fight. Stalin would pull out an AK and kill him nonetheless.
Swish.
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 16, 2008 12:18:31 GMT -5
Dude...its been 6 days since my last post. Why the **** would you revive this pointless thread? Didn't i explain my conquest in Africa? Uhmmm, pretty sure they are still living so they do have food/water/shelter. Just not large amounts. Yeah, LENIN. You were debating about Stalin, Stupid. Ever watch/red Animal Farm? I don't even think Lenin believed in Communism. And do you see Russias size in land? Not to mention their increasing military back then? Keep in mind, back in World war 1 + 2, India was under British control. Gandhi and Lenin both had an influence on their own countries. Oh, i must of gotten your wording mixed up. It seemed as you said "effected" as in America was effected instead of "affected". Learn grammar ROFL. My point was that you wouldn't see any civil rights movements as great as they were if it wasn't f or the influences of the person we are talking about. All you are doing is owning yourself. You get owned in every debate, including me. I mean, you're losing to clel ROFL! Point proven LOL. This like ends the debate in my favor. No poo? You were acting as if Stalin was some god and people did think he was a great man. Redefine 'Great' to yourself because you have it in opposite meanings. Duh. Point here? Stalin had a negative effect, Dumbass. Soviet Russia 40 years after Stalin was still in a Communist Government until the early 1990's India 40 years after Gandhi was free from British Rule and taxing. They are a free country now and that is the long lasting effect. Are you to be owned so ez? Don't make assumptions you silly Dino. That would introduce another war where we would defeat Russia with the Allied powers helping. Rejected. (basketball terms)
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 16, 2008 13:20:48 GMT -5
Why revive a dead thread though? You're just wasting my time now.
Exactly why india is in poo condition.
You mentioned Lenin in your previous post so I continued that theme. Stalin continued where Lenin left off, but probably took things to a much more extreme level than Lenin would have liked but w/e. Yes I read animal farm. The fact is, Russia's influece because of Lenin+Stalin > india's influece because of Gandhi.
Yeah because MLK would have never done anything he did without learning from Gandhi. Not. He learned some tactics or tips from Gandhi's example I'm sure, but the fight he fought was vastly different from the one gandhi fought. Gandhi had the support of the people against the government that didn't really belong there. MLK was leading a minority group to try and get their full rights despite the opinion of parts of the government and large parts of society. Completely different battle. MLK got some stuff from Gandhi, but don't pretend to think he copied what he did point blank and tried it over here. MLK mixed some gandhi in with his thinking/ways, but it wasn't a copy cat operation.
Like I said, schools mention gandhi because he was the first to do something. They don't go in much depth because india failed to do much with their independence unlike another country and got their independence and did some amazing things....if only I could remember what country...its the one who was the first true democracy...they invented toasters...who is it man I can't remember. Sarcasm aside, the point is history classes teach us about our independence movement because a lot of good things came out of it. They give a sentence or two to gandhi because he was the first to do something, but other than that he is otherwise not worth mentioning since his achievements didn't do much to india afterwards.
Stalin was hated by his own people because he killed them off or shipped em to siberia. The fact remains he vastly effected the world for decades even past his death. If that isn't great I don't know what is.
Point was they were naturally going to be conflicting, so your statement of 'the US didn't like stalin' was pretty dumb.
Look dude. Russia pre-communism was a large country barely hanging together by the rule of the czars. Lenin+stalin united a country of peasant farmers and turned them into an industrialized nation and eventually into a super power. His 5 year plans were brilliant and he made large communal farms where the grain would be distributed to all the people (that he deemed worthy but that's another story). He saw a country through a war that would see the end of hitler. His country eventually launched the first satellites into space. Need I go on? The point is, Russia got better over time because of lenin+stalin. India hasn't done crap with the independence they gained. It's still an overpopulated country with a large portion of their people in pathetic conditions. Russia is fully modernized and has all the benefits of modern day living. India has jack. You can fight the facts if you want. Russia got better because of stalin+lenin. India didn't get much better because of gandhi. Sure, the people were free of british rule. The rulers that replaced them haven't done much to make the country better. Btw don't quote me, especially when you're the one whos getting owned.
Um...I'm pretty sure since Stalin signed lists of people to kill weekly without blinking that he wouldn't give a damn about killing some scrub like gandi. Not sure what you're getting at with the whole 'start a war' thing since both of these guys are dead.
Stole the ball from you son.
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 17, 2008 19:39:41 GMT -5
Why revive a dead thread though? You're just wasting my time now. How is me not replying for a few days constitute the thread as "dead"? You can't exactly have 1 billion people all live in good wealth. Stalin had dictator ideals on Russia. Lenin had a positive affect on Russia yea. Gandhi had an affect on his own country, yea. Am i saying anyone is better? No. You're not even Russian so speak for your own being, Uncle Sam. Gandhi influenced him, that was the point. Didn't say he got everything from Gandhi. Lol @ sentence or two. Gtfo. They actually go in depth about Gandhi, not just "Gandhi was a great man. He led the Indian independence movement during the time of its end.", idiot. They mention Gandhi because he did something courageous and inspirational. That is the point I am trying to get across. He was a major factor in something a country tried to achieve for hundreds of years. Okay. Will you drop your "Stalin was more influential/greater than Gandhi" Debate? You're continuing to own yourself Where did i say "the US didn't like Stalin"? Of course they didn't like his ideals. Of course they didn't like communism. How long were they trying to dismiss of the USSR? Where are you going at with this? You seem to bring up Null points. LOL? You think Stalin's affect of communism was for the better of Russia? Hell no. Look what Stalin's affect has done to North Korea, Vietnam, etc. He killed people against their own will. He has done a poo load worse. He wasn't no influential figure to Russia. Lenin was, though he believed in Communism. But Lenin's ideals weren't as dictator fetched as how Stalin did it. Lenin even feared Stalin coming to power. Where does this tie into Gandhi? Both of these guys affected their country in different ways. Gandhi helped remove of a monarchy put on India. This effect has lasted for about 60 years now. How is that not doing poo? Shutup, you're making yourself look stupid. Are you to be owned so ez? I'll say it again because you're the one ranting about poo you have no clue about and thus getting owned. Umm, why are we debating who can beat each other up? Sounds childish on your part. *styles*
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 17, 2008 22:58:18 GMT -5
He killed people against their own will. This sentence alone proves I won. How much more durrrr can you get?
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 18, 2008 6:39:52 GMT -5
How? Stalin did Kill his own people for a number of reasons. May of been obvious but you're far from winning. Don't get your panties tied in a knot there, eh Gladius? ; )
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 18, 2008 8:26:45 GMT -5
Dude, look at the actual sentance.
"He killed people against their own will."
Maybe you don't get it yet. Sheesh dude.
|
|
kill
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by kill on Nov 19, 2008 3:30:40 GMT -5
WHAT THE F*CK... I think you'll find - he did NOT thank you very much. Next time don't put me in things I wasn't a part of.
|
|
|
Post by laura on Nov 19, 2008 7:25:35 GMT -5
close this useless thread , Who the **** care about ghandi or stalin
|
|
xaphan
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by xaphan on Nov 19, 2008 12:50:47 GMT -5
Shut up, people. India will fix there problems after they've helped us Europeans and North Americans install Windows Vista on our computers.
|
|
|
Post by laura on Nov 20, 2008 9:34:10 GMT -5
lol ¬.¬
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 20, 2008 12:04:31 GMT -5
Dude, look at the actual sentance. "He killed people against their own will." Maybe you don't get it yet. Sheesh dude. .....so they wanted to die? moron.
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 20, 2008 12:09:55 GMT -5
You still don't get it. Read your sentence over and over until you realize how dumb you sound.
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 20, 2008 13:57:38 GMT -5
Still not getting how that sounded dumb...It just meant he killed his own people. Are you that retarded or are you looking for cheap shots. Thats also funny how you disregarded the whole point of the argument. GTFO.
|
|