It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has there ever been a time in recoderd history where there has not been a war civil or otherwise?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
i havent done any reasear to see if the has been but froe what i can gather ther has not why are humas so hostile if wee could eliminate greed and racial hatred and all get along this world would be a lovely place to be the way its going now i want to stop earth and get off.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


World peace of course , Before man was here


but...



I want off this planet too!


Its like this humans are earths cancer.

Cancer needs resources to grow and thrive.

Humans fight each other for these resources

Humans fight for control of the masses to bend them to there wills

Humans also like to be free and not salves, so naturally they fight back.

There has never been a time of world peace because of these factors.

Sure we can get along without killing each other and working together,

but that takes compassion , empthy , and unity for a better goal for all of us .

But that also means spreading of resources which means less for the greedy , and less control .

The power hungry can't have that . so there must be wars and fights , it creates

jobs

seperation

hate

to help for future wars . It doesn't have to be this way , but they mold it this way to keep us live taxed stock in check.


"Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Since it was established by Caesar Augustus it is sometimes called Pax Augusta. Its span was about 207 years (27 BC to 180 AD).[1]"

en.wikipedia.org...


I would say lack or records then anything else


edit on 1-1-2012 by yourboycal2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2012 by yourboycal2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


War is profit. Humans are benign beings. But after centuries of manipulation we are taught otherwise. Nobody wants war, only the elite that dont see or fight in wars. Even the elite would hate war to their core. But they never experience it so they just see the profit.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
It's difficult to say, because peoples in the pre-colonial world did not see themselves as countries with borders, but rather as independent tribes and nations.

I'd say a kind of compassionate empire or monarch was probably best.

Marxism promised a global unification of the workers and proletariat.
But they killed more people and created more man-made famines than any other system in history.
At least even monarchy was bound by certain traditions, but under Marxism tradition was bourgeois, and even "the truth" was discarded as a bourgeois concept.

I'd say civil war in modern established countries is different to border wars.
In the 1980s many SA young whites were conscripted to fight the Marxists and Cubans in Angola, however when the army started patrolling the local townships, some began to refuse under the maxim: "No conscription for civil war!"

That was maybe a good choice, because essentially it's increasingly noted that the white state was involved in a war between various liberation movements.

I think nationalism can be a good thing, especially where many ethnic groups are forced to share a country that is a colonial construct.
Often what is labelled a "civil war" is a struggle by minorities to secure their own historic territory from the majorities in a country created by British colonialism.

I guess it's the old policy of divide and rule.
edit on 1-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I know you mean in human history, but in Australia there has never been an 'actual' civil war or revolution etc. There was the so called Frontier wars but it was nothing more than a collection of unrelated massacres in an attempt to stave off increasing colonisation.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by yourboycal2
 


Maybe before life in general.

It's not like animals don't ruthlessly kill each other on a regular basis, I would hate to think we haven't at least made a small step up from violent chaos.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


No.

Even before humans were here, various species would fight for territory and resources on large scales.

Modern examples of this can be seen between lions and hyenas in Africa, where they occasionally organize into groups and will fight each other for weeks. Another example can be found in interactions between tigers and wolves in Asia, where they have such animosity towards each other they seek out each other's dens and massacre all of the young without eating them. Primates also go to war, especially with each other, baboon troops numbering in the hundreds have been observed having some pretty epic battles in Africa.

Though on a much smaller scale, ants have "wars" and enslave other ants and insects. Many hive insects have developed members, a soldier caste, whose sole purpose in life is to do nothing but fight and kill.

Violence is a constant in nature

Peace on the other hand is an anomaly.




top topics



 
1

log in

join