All he was saying, was "Give Peace a Chance !"

Originally posted by Otts
*sadly shakes head as he reads through comments about how war guarantees peace*

If you refer to my post, you have misunderstood me. It is patently absurd to say that war guarantees peace. Even "to ensure peace, prepare for war" is only correct in certain scenarios, as over-preparation can lead to instability.

War does not guarantee peace. This is obviously impossible. Deterrence, and if you are attacked anyway, war, SEEK (cannot guarantee) safety, which is one of the obvious benefits of peace, but is not peace in and of itself really.

I put it to you this way: Is there more safety when you have many police, or when you have none? The police exist, in essence, to fight fire with fire, do they not? If the police show up, a peaceful robbery can turn to gunplay and something awful might happen, but does that warrant the abolishion of all law enforcement?

For the public to be prepared to defend itself, and to have the willingness to actually carry through with the fight as opposed to surrendering to agressors, is an absolutely necessary safeguard against the lamentable condition of humanity at present.

It's all about ideals. It's about having trust that one day humanity will have evolved to the point that power struggles will be eliminated. It's about trusting that civilization is supposed to make us more enlightened, not less... and that violence is not necessarily a part of human nature that can't be overcome.

George Carlin once said, "Pacifism is a nice idea, but it can get you killed."
In all seriousness though, it is not wrong to have ambitions, but it is a grave mistake to become so consumed by dreams that you become ignorant to reality.

What you propose is that we risk our own destruction, or worse, virtual enslavement akin to what the grotesquely underpaid workers of the worlds poorest nations suffer, in blind hope that one day, perhaps millenia from now, we will come to a point where every human being on this planet would rather starve than steal, rather be poor than be dishonest, rather die than fight, and never hates anyone. EVERY HUMAN BEING would have to conform to such an ideal to create a world where violence was never necessary. Such evolution has never been observed to occur anywhere- all populations have their bad eggs. There is no evidence suggesting anything other than that there will always be someone who would steal, rape, and murder- Someone who would lead his nation to war under false pretense for his own gain.

It would be an act of ignorance and self destruction to forego the right and ability of defense. To forego belligerence is one thing, but defense, even preemptive defense, remains a necessity of the human condition now and for the foreseeable future, unless we reach a point of such immense capacity for the support of life and comfort that money becomes completely irrelevant and a communism in which all men are rich becomes possible. This, although the most likely route to a world without war, is still an absurd dream for the foreseeable future, especially considering population growth.

Life is full of conflict, and conflict is war. This is a hard reality which we must acknowledge when we seek peace, because a solution formulated in ignorance to the facts will fail. If you rubbed a magic lamp and wished for all fighting to instantly cease, and all grudges to be instantly forgiven, the peace would last 5 seconds, until somewhere, probably in Los Angeles, two cars pulled up to the same parking spot at the same time. In many ways great and small, and in many places, war would quickly be reborn because it is the natural conclusion of one of the most basic human instincts- to provide ones needs.

It's kind of disheartening to see that the more technologically advanced we become, the more we go back to our prehistoric instincts

That's simply not accurate. Not much has changed, but things are not getting worse. The advancement of law enforcement and civil order has been wonderful for us, and although all conflict is war, and the war will probably never end, most war in the past century has been set back to the economic realm. It's become less common for the bullets to fly between major nations. In many ways, advancement has created new opportunities for realistic improvement. It's a shame that you are so caught up in a Utopian dream that you can not appreciate it.

But what do we have to look forward to and strive towards if we don't have ideals? Is life supposed to be a constant survival by mutually-assured destruction and nothing more?

How about a reasonable amount of peace and prosperity within the bounds of what can realisitically be accomplished. For example, look at the way we deal with Africa. We treat them like colonies still- we just don't fly our flag on their soil. I've spoken before about the advantages of building local economies there and bringing stability to East Africa rather than just using them as a big coffee plantation. Economics is war- and trying to really build something good for those people to have a mutually beneficial relationship would be a great way to give peace a chance without being unrealistic.

As for your distaste for MAD- No, mutually assured destruction is not natural- it's much better than the natural system. In the state of nature, where there is absolute freedom and absolutely no protection, there is nothing but micro-tyrany. The weak will always be preyed upon by the strong and have no defense in the natural state. Deterrence is an unnatural equalizer which has actually enhanced peace. Look at it for yourself. How many major wars have there been between major world powers since the advent of nuclear weapons? Despite their ominous presence, they actually prevent more deaths than they have caused. They aren't a good thing, but they are the lesser evil necessitated by the regretable realities of human existence.

Vagabond, your post is IMO a reasonable expression of the rationale used in the past and present, but is less satisfactory as a prediction for the future.

It is easy to assume that a sweeping global movement to abstain from killing is a pipe dream in the current global situation . . . . because the overwhelming mindset of the majority believes that war is necessary.

However I contend that this is not because it is practically impossible (as you imply) for the majority of people to act peacefully and give up killing, but rather because the majority have been educated and even brainwashed into believing that war is necessary.

Without this brainwashing via TV, video, radio, and newspaper, the supposedly innate and deep seated human instinct to kill would be far less apparent.

If propaganda tables were turned and the mass media pumped out entirely peaceful messages and promoted only peaceful behaviour (by this I mean no killing) then global opinion would change.

To put it bluntly, the 'need for war' is a self fulfilling prophecy.

The reality of global peace is also a self fulfilling prophecy.

Please allow those who feel the need to promote peace to do so.

Give Peace a chance. . . . . it has never been tested as a global possibility, let's try it!

BTW Peace means prosperity for all because Peace entails that more resources are available for living.

Text However I contend that this is not because it is practically impossible (as you imply) for the majority of people to act peacefully and give up killing, but rather because the majority have been educated and even brainwashed into believing that war is necessary.

ok Roy...i agree...youve got a fair point there.

Humans have been a warring species since the dawn of time, while it would be marvellous to live in a violence free peaceful society, it just isn't going to be achieved by being a pacifist.

All that you suggest would achieve, is to making the enemy stronger and they will trample us into the ground.
End result - only warmongering 'bad guys' left on the planet.
You think if you dance around them and sling daisy chains over their heads they're going to say 'oh well, see your right after all! let's all be happy!".. Err. sorry to burst your bubble but not going to happen.

It's probably a poor analogy, but the movie 'Demolition Man' is a fairly good example., that immediately springs to mind.
They have built a pacifist, wimpy society with no means of defending itself. Which is great (apart from they have no freedoms whatsoever), but it only takes 1 bad guy to come in and rip it all apart, while everyone runs around not knowing what to do, getting killed and saying 'Be Well'.

Sorry, but as long as humans are humans then it's not going to happen anytime soon, don't get me wrong - I'd love it too - but I don't intend to be some la-laing hippy that gets shot down into the mud preaching a load of stuff that no-one can even be bothered to listen too.

And I'm not actually a violent person, I avoid violence as much as possible. I've only ever been in 2 fights that I can think of in my entire life, and both times I acted in defence of myself and my partner.
I always try and seek a more peaceful means to solve problems rather than violence, but if it is required then so be it.!

While I also admire your hate for television, even though I do watch quite a lot myself I can actually see exactly where your coming from, it's seems hypocrytical to slam it while promoting the ideas of some fringe ideology websites.
They are no different than the media, they are just telling a different story. You prefer what you hear from them so you chose to subject yourself completely to their biased and sometimes insane views and live by them.
To be able to achieve a perfect balance you need to appreciate that the answer isn't usually one way or another but somewhere in between.

That also goes with achieving peace, while there are people in the world that don't want it then we will never have it. Laying down your arms just makes it easier for them to slaughter us. It's the real world, not a Disney movie. Unfortunatly, and ironically, peace cannot be achieved without some violence.

Who is bad and who is good depends on what side of the fence your sitting.
It's like the Nazi's and the SS perfect Aryan children. We beat the Nazi's and everyone says (rightly so) how disgusting what they did was, killing all the Jews and Gypsies. But after the war ended and they surrendered, the young babies and children of the SS that had been bred for a 'perfect race', some of them even kidnapped from Poland by the SS originally - so they were in fact actually Jewish themselves, were put into special homes and tortured, raped, killed, etc just like what the Nazi's did. But you never hear about that? They didn't deserve it they weren't even old enough to know what was going on.

There are always bad people on both sides and good people on both side.
Not all the Nazi's were bad people, and not all of us were good. And it's no different now. While there is evil you have to fight it, wherever you like it or not.

It's a bit like laws - laws only affect good people who abide by them. They do not affect criminals who don't, saying it's illegal to have a gun for instance does not stop murders. If someone is prepared to murder someone then the relatively 'minor' detail of not having a gun is nothing to them is it?

Same with peace, as soon as a load of people start saying to drop all arms and hug everyone all the bad people out there start rubbing their hands with glee because they know it's going to be a pushover.

Good people will always be good and bad people will always be bad.

Refusing to fight them will result in their ultimate victory and there will be no good left on the planet.


[edit on 31-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

This is how it starts, peace will come by one day, perhaps when we dont have a choice. And that day will be a fine day for humanity :-)
I realy do think the hippies had more going for them than our generation...apart from the eccesive use of acid

:upeace, Love, and faith that they both exist

"peace and love for everyone, living on this world, where the suns of light walk upon, with neverending space to grow"

-Peter woods

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
It is easy to assume that a sweeping global movement to abstain from killing is a pipe dream in the current global situation . . . . because the overwhelming mindset of the majority believes that war is necessary.

I would not go so far as to say that at all actually. I believe that in a vacuum, the vast majority of people would say that war is NOT necessary and should be avoided at almost any cost short of our utter destruction.
The problem is that it doesn't take the majority to fight a war. Armies typically make up a relatively small percentage of the total population, and soldiers in many societies are the most desperate breed of citizen- effectively mercinaries within the confines of a single nation's service.
It would take an unprecedented form of moral evolution to create a world in which not one politician and not even 1% of the population would stand for a war.
War, especially small wars or non-military acts of conflict such as the economic oppression of other nations, can be perpetrated with virtually no support, even in a democracy, but especially in other forms of government.
And then if the nations all foreswear war, what shall stand in my way from raising a private militia and taking advantage of the absence of any appreciable military force or will to fight?
The vision of a world completely and unexceptionally without war is contingent upon the utter destruction of the concept of one's self. As I have said, until there is not one human being anywhere who would steal rather than die or fight rather than not have his way, there will be war.

However I contend that this is not because it is practically impossible (as you imply) for the majority of people to act peacefully and give up killing, but rather because the majority have been educated and even brainwashed into believing that war is necessary.

It seems that the majority of people already do act peacefully in general. How many violent crimes are there every year (bearing in mind that multiple offenses can be committed by a single person), and how many people are in the army, compared to the total population?
The selfish minority remains sufficient to perpetuate violence in our world however.

Also, we have not even begun to really discuss non-physical violence. I don't know about you, but when you contrive to keep people poor for your own gain, maintain them under your thumb, and refuse to go to trouble yourself in the least to better the lot you have created for them, I consider that an act of violence. As I have said, economics is war, and often enough it results in armed conflict because people will fight before they starve or before the submit to economic exploitation. How can there be peace until the needs of all men are met and there is no need to obtain at the expense of others? Shall we expect the human race to evolve entirely beyond the concept of self? Where has this ever been observed or demonstrated as remotely possible?

Without this brainwashing via TV, video, radio, and newspaper, the supposedly innate and deep seated human instinct to kill would be far less apparent.

I do not believe there is a killer instinct in most people. I do not believe that we are brainwashed to find killing acceptible. It is the concern for one's own well-being which overrides morality. Who will sit down in a blizard and wait for death without attempting to gain entry to shelter, because he has been told the shelter is full? What starving man will walk through a supermarket and not be compelled to steal? Who will be another man's slave through the chains of economics and suffer any and all abuse, and never retaliate against that violence with any other form of violence at his disposal? Necessity is the most important thing in life to most people, and it is utter foolishness to suggest that it shall ever be stricken from the human race as a whole.

To put it bluntly, the 'need for war' is a self fulfilling prophecy.
The reality of global peace is also a self fulfilling prophecy.

I contend that the need for war is a logical conclusion of harsh circumstances, not a philosophical attitude which creates a forgone conclusion.
You can go through your whole life utterly convinced that there is no need for war, but in the moment when someone else is hurting your or your children by some means, whether starving you to death through his economic policies, or trying to murder you in cold blood, for probably 9 people out of 10, everything will change and that person will fight.

BTW Peace means prosperity for all because Peace entails that more resources are available for living.

This is quite simply not true. Show me the person who will send his crops to Africa at a financial loss, robbing himself of the ability to heat his home, or send his children to college? Peace or not, the needs of some people in some areas will go unfufilled unless people act against their own interests for the benefit of others on an incredibly broad scale, and at a certain point, even this fails due to population growth.

When faced with a choice between our life, or the life of a faceless stranger half way around the world, we will choose our own. When faced with the choice between our children's comfort and success, or that of the children of the stranger, we will choose our children. Perfect peace demands nothing short of humanity transcending the concept of the individual.


I continue to strongly believe that to formulate a plan for peace which does not accept the basic realities of our condition will not only fail, but likely be extremely counter-productive.
The aversion to war is there, is good, and should be furthered because it will enhance our ability to persue the mutually beneficial course when such a course is available, thus reducing instances of conflict.
In contrast, unconditional refusal to enter a conflict of any kind is bad, and should never be made a policy, because it will leave others no reason to settle on a mutually beneficial course in situations where one exists, and will bring conflict upon you.

I didn't realise when I originally wrote what happened to John Lennon, until someone pointed it out to me.
I'm sure you already know that he was murdered, shot 5 times..

On the morning of December 8, 1980, in New York City, deranged fan Mark David Chapman met Lennon as he left for the recording studio and got his copy of Double Fantasy autographed. Chapman remained in the vicinity of The Dakota for most of the day as a fireworks demonstration in nearby Central Park distracted the doorman and passers-by.

Later that evening, Lennon and Ono returned to their apartment from recording Ono's single "Walking On Thin Ice" for their next album. At 10.50pm, their limousine pulled up to the entrance of the Dakota. Ono got out of the car first, followed by Lennon. Beyond the main entrance was a door which would be opened and a small set of stairs leading into the apartment complex. As Ono went in, Lennon got out of the car and glanced at Chapman, proceeding on through the entrance to the Dakota.

As Lennon walked past him, Chapman called out "Mr. Lennon?" Just as Lennon turned, Chapman crouched into a "combat" stance and fired five hollowpoint bullets into John's back and shoulder. One of the bullets fatally pierced his aorta. Still, Lennon managed to stagger up six steps into the concierge booth where he collapsed, gasping "I'm shot, I'm shot."

Chapman dropped his .38 Charter Arms revolver, which was kicked away by Jose Perdomo who then asked "Do you know what you have done?", to which Chapman replied "I just shot John Lennon." Chapman then calmly took his coat off placed it at his feet, took out a book and started reading.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ironic really, don't you think?

ya idealy this is like perfect, the problem is without war there is no peace

kinda like you cant have sweat without sour

its true.

but in the meantime john lennon has some great songs to play, my favorite would have to be imagine, very simple to play on piano yet the chord progresson is nothing short of brilliant, and its all basic triads.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

I contend that the need for war is a logical conclusion of harsh circumstances, not a philosophical attitude which creates a forgone conclusion.

There is no 'need for war'

The harsh circumstances which you decribe are largely due to war and the vast cost of war. The planet already produces enough wealth to support the current population.

Peace or not, the needs of some people in some areas will go unfufilled unless people act against their own interests for the benefit of others on an incredibly broad scale

You assume that acting for the benefit of others means that one is acting against one's own interest. This assumes that one cannot identify one's own interest with that of others.

In fact it is possible to act unselfishly, and if one does so, then one's own needs coincide with the needs of others.

Your 'need for war' argument is based on an asumption of selfishness.

By acting unselfishly, a vast amount of energy and resources are saved through the avoidance of war, and this means more prosperity.

Perfect peace demands nothing short of humanity transcending the concept of the individual.

I agree.

Transcending individuality is necessary and inevitable.

Perfect Peace is also necessary and inevitable.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
There is no 'need for war'

Well, in all fairness, there isn't, as long as you are willing to be hurt or destroyed by somebody who wants something that is yours. Of course that's still war, that's just a war you're going to lose.

The harsh circumstances which you decribe are largely due to war and the vast cost of war. The planet already produces enough wealth to support the current population.

This is simply rediculous. I can only assume that you are speaking in terms of one or two resources, without concern for economics.
Let us suppose for a moment that we can grow enough rice, corn or other staple crops to keep the whole population from starving to death. Who, prey tell, must give up what to make it possible? Somebody is going to have to feed the poor for free essentially. Some people will likely have to give up growing animal feed and thus reduce the availability of meat.

Then what about other resources? Do you actually contend that we can produce enough energy to provide everyone with heating in their homes, refrigeration for their food, transport of necessitities to every corner of the world? Then what about the extra energy for all the extra production needed to provide for everyone? We're talking about building and fueling an awful lot of farm equipment, mining materials for and constructing a lot of new hydroelectric plants, building new construction facilities and equipment for them, laying tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles of new asphalt, power lines, water treatment and delivery infrastructure, new lines of communication, etc etc etc.

What about medicines then? We can't even seem to treat the sick here in America, but I'm assuming you realize that there's going to be violence if we can't provide for the medical needs of peoples children.

It's simply not going to work. Even if people worked for free we'd be pushing the limits of our resources, but who is going to work for others for free? Who is going to put his kids on a diet of staple vegitables so that he can share with Africa, when he could just as easily use part of his land to grow animal feed and keep meet on the table for his kids? Who is going to work his butt off all day mining aggregate for roads to the end of creating a world where he has less so that others can have more? Go down to any asphalt plant in America- i can just about promise there's one in your area you don't even know about- and ask them why they work. Most of them are going to say something about a new house or a muscle car their are working on. How will you defeat self interest? Nothing really important changes for me if somebody far away is starving or mired in conflict. It's far less expensive for America to oppress them than to bear them up in most cases, so how will my self interest ever coincide with theirs?

Then you must remember that while all of this is being done in the interest of stopping war, war will still be getting in the way. How do you feed and build a nation where the power mongers keep trying to stop you? That's what happened in Somalia remember. The warlords kept trying to stop the flow of food.

You assume that acting for the benefit of others means that one is acting against one's own interest. This assumes that one cannot identify one's own interest with that of others.
In fact it is possible to act unselfishly, and if one does so, then one's own needs coincide with the needs of others.

You're providing no data or examples, just making a lot of really nice and peaceful sounding statements which are simply not true. Your utopian idea simply does not stand up to any test of logic where the real self interest of people is taken into account, as above.

Your 'need for war' argument is based on an asumption of selfishness.
By acting unselfishly, a vast amount of energy and resources are saved through the avoidance of war, and this means more prosperity.

Some, but not enough. America is responsible for HALF of the world's military spending. If war and the military are the only thing standing in the way of a utopia, why aren't other nations who spend much less on war and rarely actually go to war not virtually without any form of need?

And yes, the necessity of war is based on selfishness, known in some economic texts as "rational self interest". It's not my idea. I didn't invent it. People look out for themselves and their children though, that's our nature. Not dying and not being miserable are the two biggest natural priorities for a person. Until you change that, your utopia can never exist. Once you have changed that though, we can have your beautiful Utopia, where everybody works hard to make sure that everyone gets an equal share- where everyone eats a meager but more or less sufficient diet, where everyone walks everywhere they go, where there is no hope of bettering your lot through hard work and social/economic mobility, where nothing works the way it was meant to, because the plan wasn't based on reality.

I agree.
Transcending individuality is necessary and inevitable.
Perfect Peace is also necessary and inevitable.

It's never going to happen. Do you really think humanity is going to evolve in such a radical way that when I'm hungry, you feel hungry too? Evolution seeks survival and advancement. A species such as you suggest, during a food shortage, would become extinct. Rather than some starving and some eating enough to survive, they'd share so that everyone ate an insufficient diet, and they'd all starve to death.

Furthermore, if we try to foreswear violence BEFORE any such evolution takes place, we will become nearly extinct long before we ever reach that evolution, because those who want what we have will quickly kill us off in order to take it.

Vagabond,

I will respond to your post in detail later.

For now, I have a 'one liner' :

To the current technologically advanced but morally backward population, the internet is taken for granted but global Peace is impossible

To a morally advanced but technologically backward race, the internet would be impossible, and world Peace would be taken for granted.

Yes, I am calling you morally backward.

.

Well you don't seem to be living by your own standards as you're here on the internet, why don't you go to a third world part of the planet and help people instead of coming on here?

Sounds like communist talk to me, but you obviously like our capitalist culture, as you're on here enjoying the internet.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith


Ironic really, don't you think?

You didn't know John Lennon was shot?

What I find ironic is that John Lennon donated the royalties of one of his songs to the IRA.

-koji K.

Hmm...I hate to be the one voice crying out in the wilderness here, but here goes.

It was WAR that freed us from England

It was WAR that freed the slaves, and at the same, kept the United States from falling apart in the process.

It was WAR that halted the genocide of the Jews, whose worldwide population has only in the past three years reached pre-WWII levels.

The fact is, there is evil in the world and (for some crazy reason) it's our job as a country and a people, to cancel its check. It's as true now as it was in the day of King George, Jefferson Davis, The Kaiser, The Fuhrer, Ho Chi Mein, Pol Pot, and Saddam Huessan.

Sorry, it isn't peace that's ever freed or saved anyone...

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Toelint]

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by AgentSmith


Ironic really, don't you think?

You didn't know John Lennon was shot?

I know! I don't know everything though..

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Well you don't seem to be living by your own standards as you're here on the internet, why don't you go to a third world part of the planet and help people instead of coming on here?

I didn't say that technological and moral development are mutually exclusive.

I was simply saying that if you can't understand that Peace is possible then you are morally backward.

Sounds like communist talk to me

Regarding my political affiliations, I am a Clansman and a Royalist and despise all party politics as a toxic plebian charade invented by the roundheads.

you obviously like our capitalist culture, as you're on here enjoying the internet.

At present I am on the internet to correct your misunderstanding. This comes under the 'It's a dirty job but someone has to do it category' i.e it is not enjoyable.

To all of you who claim that War is necessary for Peace, it seems that your theory is about to be tested via the Mother of all Wars. . . . . . .

We will see how the survivors feel about it.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

You assume that acting for the benefit of others means that one is acting against one's own interest. This assumes that one cannot identify one's own interest with that of others.
In fact it is possible to act unselfishly, and if one does so, then one's own needs coincide with the needs of others.

You're providing no data or examples, just making a lot of really nice and peaceful sounding statements which are simply not true. Your utopian idea simply does not stand up to any test of logic where the real self interest of people is taken into account, as above.

In plain terms your argument is just that Peace is impossible because of selfishness.

You have not yet shown that selflessness is impossible.

Nor can you

Furthermore, if we try to foreswear violence BEFORE any such evolution takes place, we will become nearly extinct long before we ever reach that evolution, because those who want what we have will quickly kill us off in order to take it.

You appear to be harbouring a lot of fear.

Peace requires faith, not fear.

Without faith in humanity you cannot achieve peace.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
To the current technologically advanced but morally backward population, the internet is taken for granted but global Peace is impossible

What makes us morally backward exactly? We obviously have our bad eggs, but in general we understand right from wrong and all things being equal would prefer to do the right thing.
The harsh conditions of reality (which you seem oblivious to, perhaps due to a sheltered upbringing) necessitate resistance to threats, many of which stem from the deeds of an evil minority of humanity, but some of which ultimately stem not from evil at all, but from necessity.

To a morally advanced but technologically backward race, the internet would be impossible, and world Peace would be taken for granted.

I stronly disagree. I believe that to a morally advanced but technologically backward race that the internet would be impossible and so would world peace. Regardless of their moral advancement, they would find themselves unable to eliminate the struggle for survival which creates conflict.

The fallacy of your example is in the fact that you compare peace to technology, but unlike technology, peace can not be discovered through the study of science. There is no "law of peace" for some physicist to discover in a lab, base a machine on, and start mass producing peace on an assembly line. Quite to the contrary, the conditions of the world generate conflict, making the development of peace through study in a manner analogous to the devleopment of technology simply impossible.

Last but not least, you can call me whatever you like. I may be morally backward, but not to such an extent that I will become enraged by the arrangement of pixels on my computer screen.
Since however you find it convenient to examine eachothers flaws and discover why we each hold the position we do, may I point out that your position is most common among those most hopelessly out of touch with reality.
Pitty you haven't been to some of the places I've been- and we're talking about places in one of the richest countries in the world- where a person makes more money in an hour than some people do in a week.
Go to a place where somebody has to steal your friggin shoes or he wont have any, or steal your lunch money so that he can eat. Give peace a chance there. Fighting in a place like that is no more wrong than fighting off any other hungry predator. I don't particularly sympathize with the people I had to watch out for back then, but I can see why they were the way they were.

I keep telling you and I'll say it again, peace is the very last thing that we're ever going to accomplish- we can't even begin to worry about it until there is no more need, no more hardship, no more want, no more conflict of any kind over anything, OR alternately, if when we find the previous requirements impossible, we'd have to find a way of making people not care about themselves at all.

This planet has seen untold millenia of life and evolution, and to the best of my knowledge not one species of animal has made even the slightest step towards evolving beyond the concept of a food chain, or beyond competition for survival. But you're going to come along and show us that everything is hunky-dory and nobody is ever going to have to struggle to get by ever again?


[edit on 2-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
In plain terms your argument is just that Peace is impossible because of selfishness.
You have not yet shown that selflessness is impossible.
Nor can you

Nor have you demonstrated anything either. You have only dogma. The difference between our two positions is that history supports my view and that my case argues for the continuation of a logical system which can be observed all around us.
Yours simply speculates that somehow everybody is going to stop worrying about their own needs because of their love for this touchy-feely concept of peace, which really offers us nothing.

You can not eliminate conflict without eliminating need. Unless people miraculously cease to have needs, there will be conflict. My position makes sense. Yours does nothing but whine and complain about the natural way of the world.

Calling me afraid or anything else will not vindicate your illogical position.

Originally posted by Toelint
Hmm...I hate to be the one voice crying out in the wilderness here, but here goes.

It was WAR that freed us from England

It was WAR that freed the slaves, and at the same, kept the United States from falling apart in the process.

It was WAR that halted the genocide of the Jews, whose worldwide population has only in the past three years reached pre-WWII levels.

The fact is, there is evil in the world and (for some crazy reason) it's our job as a country and a people, to cancel its check. It's as true now as it was in the day of King George, Jefferson Davis, The Kaiser, The Fuhrer, Ho Chi Mein, Pol Pot, and Saddam Huessan.

Sorry, it isn't peace that's ever freed or saved anyone...

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Toelint]

Its also WAR that has taken the lives of millions and millions of innocent people. And maybe even your life oneday. Maybe you should think about that, your saying war is a conclusion, im saying its not. Some poeple need to grow up. If you think war solves more problems than it causes then your simply wrong. I live in britain, just because war prevented me from being a nob ed nazi doesnt meen I agree with war. I am very very greatful for those who lost their lives for my freedom, but this isnt about them, its about our earths PRIMITIVE attitude towards problems, we havn't changed much since apes, apart from people able to read and the odd space journey, but still, if we're to be 'intelligent beings' then in my opinion we have to get rid of all those who believe in war in the government, and to think of other ways to protect ourselves. Surely the most intelligent dudes in the world can sort that one out???
I may be wrong...

We all need to grow up, we're acting like children by killing, abusing and violence, its an overblown version of bulying.

I dont care if any of you dissagree, or quote me(lol) im jus shoutin' my opinion. I enjoy that much more than arguing.
woodsy
Peace