War and Peace - Bush and Gandhi?
468799
Hatred ever kills, love never dies; such is the vast difference between the two. \nWhat is obtained by love is retained for all time. What is obtained by hatred proves \na burden in reality for it increases hatred.\n\nNonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. \nIt is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.\n\nAnd you compare the two?
999513
yes Ghandi was a man of india and a savior to his people but he is also a man who beat his wife so some said of him. Ghandi also brought peace to his people and removed the chains of england during his time and he was a real man and a real slave in africa at the time.
637807
1. When at least one side adopts a stance of non-violence, or a non-violent reformer emerges, such as Gandhi did for India.\n\n2. I agree with the above answerer - the USA must get the heck out of all Mid-Eastern affairs.  Israel has a decent economy and a great army.  let them support themselves.
1076650
Gandhi's philosophy expostulated in his own words on various topics viz. Truth, Peace, Fearlessness, Love, Nonviolence, Vegetarianism, ... amongst 96 others, is available under the title: "The Mind of Mahatma andhi." \n\n"Mind of Mahatma" is an encyclopedia of thoughts of one of the most revered souls of the 20th Century.  For Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi –Mahatma Gandhi for millions of Indians - his life and thoughts were two sides of the same coin and hence the book unfolds a life which was dedicated for human liberation. It was a life that encompassed the compassion of Gautam Buddha and the passion of Christ for service to humankind. Perhaps this prompted Albert Einstein to say that the forthcoming generations would not even believe that such a man walked on this planet. In his life of truth and Nonviolence, he could melt the differences between individuals, countries and continents. The book, in fact, re-establishes the relevance of the Mahatma in modern times. Several scholars have described this book, which has been translated in many languages, as the new "Bible" or the new "Gita". \n\nThis 496 page book is about the Mahatma's thoughts on truth, nonviolence, fearlessness, democracy, simplicity, Sarvodaya, trusteeship, celibacy, self-reliance and about himself. The book is divided into 15 chapters and 96 subjects. \n\n"I have nothing new to say...the principles of truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills", Mahatma wrote. These words derived their strength from the life of Mahatma who epitomized these values. Mahatma's words came alive with the wisdom he found in confronting personal and social problems. Now, for many, they are not just words, but the power of life. Mahatma's struggle was not against any individual but against the system of oppression.
789265
I don't "hate" Bush, I just think he's a bit thick . . . I felt he went about the Afghan and Iraq wars the wrong way.  It has just stirred up even more hatred towards the West - the Muslims who bombed London on 7/7/05 used Britains' involvement in these wars as an excuse, and this has led to a lot of bad feeling from Brits about the whole conflict and Blair getting involved with Bush's war.\n\nBut honestly, given the choice I side far more with America that I ever could with the Muslim Terrorists.  \n\nYes I grew up with Muslims in school etc (we all did over here) but I can't say I ever had any Muslim friends or have any sympathy for the radical cause.  I spent far more of my time around Hindus, many of whose parents had been driven out of North India by Muslim violence, plus I've had some really bad experiences with Muslims throughout my life, I feel far more trusting of Hindus than I ever will of a Muslim due to these experiences. \n\nSo I'm not one of those Brits who says "I have Muslims friends and they are great" or has any sympathy for their cause.  \n\nI was disgusted at 9/11 and canot accept any excuse for it.  I was even more horrified when it hit our own shores on 7/7 and the latest arrests of Muslims trying to blow up British people.  It makes me very angry.\n\nSo if I had to choose either Muslims or Bush I'd choose Bush, I just don't really like him  and I really wish he hadn't drawn the UK into his war as its not done us any good at all.  The money wasted on that war should have been put to better use (health care, housing etc) in the UK.
510095
No!\n\n"Sonia Gandhi is an Italian born Catholic who has only been a citizen of India for fifteen years and has never held any public office. She has done very little study of the older traditions of the country. Nevertheless, she is calling the shots for the oldest political party in India, the Congress Party, and is being projected as a possible Prime Minister candidate. \n\nOne wonders if the old freedom fighters of the party, who sacrificed so much to end foreign rule in the land, ever thought that their own party would be so short of native born candidates that it would require a foreign born person to lead the country within fifty years of independence. Would one ever see an Indian-born Hindu projected as an Italian Prime Minister because of marital ties? \n\nRecently Sonia apologized to the Muslims for the destruction of the Babri Masjid that occurred during Congress rule in 1992. In this regard Sonia should criticize her own husband, Rajiv Gandhi, who himself allowed the locks of the Babri Masjid to be opened in 1989 for Hindus to worship (not for Muslims!) \n\nMoreover, if Sonia is sincere in her apology she should promise to rebuild the Babri Masjid if her party comes to power. If she is not promising to rebuild the site, how can she claim that it was wrong to take it down? Of course as a non-Hindu and not born in India this might be easier for her to do. It is very difficult for a Hindu to go down in history as restoring the monument of a foreign invader on the birthplace of the nation's greatest hero, Lord Ram. \n\nOne also wonders, if as a Christian, Sonia will apologize to Hindus for Christian discrimination against Hindus through the centuries of Portuguese, French and British rule in the country. Massive efforts were made to convert Hindus to Christianity, which included denigration of Hindu beliefs and practices, and in a number of instances defacing or destruction of Hindu temples and idols. \n\nWhat rights have Christians, with a history of religious intolerance and genocide, to criticize Hindus in matters of religious tolerance, who have never invaded any country or used the force of arms to convert any one? \n\nIf Sonia is so open-minded about religion, let her say that Hinduism is as good as Christianity and that it is wrong and intolerant for Christians, including Catholics, to seek to convert Hindus. One must remember that the Catholic church recently excommunicated a priest in Sri Lanka merely for writing that other religions could be as good as Christianity! \n\nOne cannot forget that Catholic missionary activities, targeting Hindus for conversion, still prevail throughout the country. In South India, Catholic priests dress up like Hindu swamis in order to deceive the local people into thinking that they are holy men like Hindu Yogis. Such a local appearance was found to be safer for promoting conversion activities. Is Sonia Gandhi a political version of the same? She sports her tilak and wears a sari like a Hindu woman, using a Hindu name and appearance to gain votes, but she has not spoken out in defense of Hindus on any cause. \n\nSonia recently apologized to the Sikhs for the violence agaisnt them that occurred after her mother-in-law was assassinated in 1984. She should blame her own party and her own husband for the anti-Sikh violence that they perpetrated and the lack of punishment for it that they allowed. Rajiv Gandhi did nothing in his five years of rule after the incident. Sonia should also blame Indira Gandhi for her wrong policies that alienated the Sikhs and caused them to turn against her. \n\nIf Sonia does not do these things we can only look upon her projecting a hypocritical appearance, of ignoring missionary agendas, and as insensitive to Hindu religious sentiments. \n\nOf course, India is a tolerant and a secular country. An American or British political party could never project a foreign born non-Christian as their leader, particularly if the religion involved denigrated
926735
Gandhiji's teachings are very influential on my life. Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa are two of my most admired heros (and yes I'm aware they came from two different religions...yet they seemed remarkable the same with regards to social justice and religious tolerance) as is Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. I know many of my friends are also somewhat influenced by Gandhiji, some more than others. The way I conduct my life is largely influenced by the teachings and perspectives that those I admire most have shared with the world.
264889
George Herbert Walker Bush.
212272
I think India is playing games with George Bush.\n\nSee link below:
283038
President Bush came to India in order to make a settlement with the Indian government which his comrades were un-able to accomplish.That was : to introduce India as a legitimate partner in the Nuclear field.\nHe wanted the support of India and in order to do so he "recognized" their potencial against terrorism and China in Asia.\nIn short : " he wanted allies " cause Pakistan is run by a buntch of ducks!!
348121
haha "the Clinton days were better!!!"  hahahah\nI guess the pres gettin some action is seen as more positive than a war.  Anyway, I want to know who Pres Bush has peronally killed or given orders to kill... anybody? *crickets*  Yeah that's right, that's what I thought.  On the other hand Saddam gave orders for thousands and thousands to be killed (ok allegedly, friggin PC nazis).  \nso to answer the question, the aspect I hate is blind ignorant bashings that are fueled by Kool Aid drinkers and the  liberal mass media, who will not admit that THEY are the mass media and the real sheep here.
150661
Both, but Bush has the potential to do much greater harm over time. His embargo on Iraq accounted (according to UN Relief) for the death of about 500 thousand children over nearly 10 years. If he goes on, the toll on the arab countries might entitle the Bush family for an award for genocide against all arab nations, I say award because I doubt he'll ever be tried to crimes (like last week's bombing of a Pakistani village over the Iraq border murdered a few peasant families) but who cares about these things, anyway.
930710
Two people- Bush and Blair
825934
you are right... anyone committed to peace, neither holds a gun or sells them to others.  gandhi was a perfect example of that.
302825
There will not be peace in this world as long as there are two people left together to disagree.Such is the nature of the species.George Bush or no one else can alter human nature.
132929
Wonderful thing Clinton did wasn't it.  Yet people scorn Bush for the economy he was left with.    I think it sould be repealed.... in other words done away with.  But what do I know, I'm a hard working American, seeing every job around go overseas.  Call Dell, and see what type of support you can get when talking to an Indian!
867473
Bush could not have declared war - only Congress can declare war. He could have asked them to declare war, but that's really not been how America has done things for the past 50 years. If the president asks Congress for funding and authority to use force, and they grant it, then that's our declaration of war.\n\nAs for the ousting of the Taliban and Saddam, yes, it was unquestionably the correct thing to do. The reasons they were right are the reasons the President and his administration gave years ago when they sought Congressional and UN approval, those remain valid today.