What is your solution to prevent THE WAR!

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



Once they see they too can face death and destruction at home, all their adventures will come to an end.
I think we should ask first those who will be bombed what is their opinion about that,if they want to die just because someone think there must be death to achieve peace.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



Once they see they too can face death and destruction at home, all their adventures will come to an end.
I think we should ask first those who will be bombed what is their opinion about that,if they want to die just because someone think there must be death to achieve peace.



Inaction in the face of an enemy utilizing many means to control and kill you is not a sure plan.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



why would they want to sign peace treaties and even if they did why would the others trust them to honour the treaty
Depend of the scale of war,if the war will be extended then they will be forced to sign and respect a peace treaty.

They could as well refrain from launching a first attack. No need for a peace treaty.



Once they see they too can face death and destruction at home, all their adventures will come to an end.
I think we should ask first those who will be bombed what is their opinion about that,if they want to die just because someone think there must be death to achieve peace.

Since we are talking about a scenario where the West launches the first attack, do you expect them to ask those they intend to bomb first whether they would like to die for the reasons, whatever they are, for the West to launch the attack? If not, I am not sure why anyone should ask the Westerners who will die in a retaliatory attack.

West doesn't attack anyone who has the capability to retaliate and hurt them on their home turf. So once every possible target of the West achieves that capability, there would be peace


ETA: I care less about peace and more about justice. The plan I stated was in defence of justice, It also achieves peace in the short term, your objective. So I mentioned it. If the only choices are continued injustice and the annihilation of the globe, I would prefer the latter and so do many.
edit on 18-1-2012 by Observor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by thejlxc

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



Once they see they too can face death and destruction at home, all their adventures will come to an end.
I think we should ask first those who will be bombed what is their opinion about that,if they want to die just because someone think there must be death to achieve peace.



Inaction in the face of an enemy utilizing many means to control and kill you is not a sure plan.



Our ancestors (meaning Europe & USA) chose inaction for centuries (since the crusades, not counting the smaller conflicts with the Middle East and European countries), are you part of a plan which is inevitable to fail? Or is it the illusion of finite resources and land which is more easy to see nowadays than back then which makes you believe you have to kill everyone else to be sure there is enough for you and your (grand) children?

I think somebody needs a lesson in sharing and recognizing a humans intrinsic worth and value. Follow that road of killing others for one's own gain and maybe the USA might one day be the only nation left in the world after WW4, having killed all others. Americans could populate the entire world after that but what then? The Earth doesn't get any bigger, they'll just start killing eachother off again, not because of ideology or anything because that's largely the same everyone being from the same culture but more likely because they don't know any other way of resolving their differences.

Sure, they didn't have nukes back then but the only difference between an army killing everyone and a nuke is mostly about the time it takes. Point being, I doubt the enemy is out to get anyone. It's more those who say there is an enemy and he's out to get you so we have to kill them first whom I doubt.
edit on 18/1/2012 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



I care less about peace and more about justice.
"Justice is made by humans and justice may be wrong sometimes,peace is made also by humans but peace is always right"

diamondsmith

edit on 18-1-2012 by diamondsmith because: r



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



I care less about peace and more about justice.
"Justice is made by humans and justice may be wrong sometimes,peace is made also by humans but peace is always wright"

diamondsmith


I think the last word was misspelt and was supposed be 'right'.

No. Peace is not always right, for those who know justice. But those who don't know justice can hanker after peace. But I totally understand that those holding an unjust advantage and determined to continue it will keep talking about peace and avoid talking about justice.

Sorry, but we can see right through such self-serving garbage talk.

So, if the West can't keep their finger off the triggers a few million Americans may get vapourised in nuclear clouds and then your beloved peace will be there. If you don't want to see them vapourised, may be you can convince them to start behaving like decent human beings instead of the psychopathic monsters that they are now.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



Peace is not always right
Peace before THE WAR will start, is always right as long as no blood has been spilled and no destruction done.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



Peace is not always right
Peace before THE WAR will start, is always right as long as no blood has been spilled and no destruction done.

It is not right if it is dependent on the continuation of injustice. No self-respecting human being desires peace that comes by succumbing to the dictates of psychopaths, even if that is what they accept sometimes. The psychopaths of the West are threatening to murder others for not bowing down to their dictates. The others are not willing to take it any more. If that results in war, so be it. We just want ensure that this will not be one war the psychopaths initiate with impunity. You want peace? Ensure justice. At least ensure that the psychopaths don't make anymore unjust demands than they got away with so far.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



TextEnsure justice. At least ensure that the psychopaths don't make anymore unjust demands than they got away with so far.
Who's justice?What justice,which are those laws that should bring justice!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



TextEnsure justice. At least ensure that the psychopaths don't make anymore unjust demands than they got away with so far.
Who's justice?What justice,which are those laws that should bring justice!

For starters, "Don't do unto others what you don't want done to yourself".



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



"Don't do unto others what you don't want done to yourself"
That is the low of man not the law of the war.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



"Don't do unto others what you don't want done to yourself"
That is the low of man not the law of the war.

You asked me about what constitutes justice. I was attempting to educate you. If you don't want to know what justice is, that is fine by me. You will learn the consequences of injustice in the language you understand well, death and destruction.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



You asked me about what constitutes justice
Sorry I think now I understand what you mean,the Universal Law.Thank you.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



You asked me about what constitutes justice
Sorry I think now I understand what you mean,the Universal Law.Thank you.

It is universally applicable, but constitutes only the lower bound of justice. Since most Westerners don't understand even that, that will do for the now.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



Since most Westerners don't understand even that, that will do for the now
Many of the normal people understand,the leaders do not understand.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
There us only ONE "solution to prevent THE WAR"

The Prince of Peace




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
to avoid the last great war people must...
want to avoid war enough to give up...
all religions
all nationalisms
all racisms
al politics

people must give up everything that makes them fell superior to others
people must give up everything that makes them feel that others are less than they are
no more borders
no more isolated communities
no cronyism
no secret agendas
complete equality
the total belief that no ones individual or collective liberty is more important than or dependent on the impingement of the liberties of others.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
My solution to all war is the same. Allow the growth and prosperity of a country flourish without subversion or threat. Done so as to alleviate economic tensions there in and so avoid the rise of fanatic power by a discontent, un represented base.

Political extremes mostly exist in areas under heavy economic warfare and sanction. If global prosperity and progress was aligned not with tributary global corporatism, we would see less extremist popping up in disenfranchised communities. The same can be said locally as well as globally.

Power taking power by the craft of the sword and not by the craft of command. We lack true leaders.

Our noble lions are replaced with vile sneak thieves, snakes in the garden.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



Since most Westerners don't understand even that, that will do for the now
Many of the normal people understand,the leaders do not understand.

Those who understand it are obviously not a majority, otherwise there is no way psychopaths keep getting elected to positions of power.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Observor
 



Since most Westerners don't understand even that, that will do for the now
Many of the normal people understand,the leaders do not understand.



Wrong. There is a big difference in how leaders think compared to how the public thinks.
Just this difference makes us understand things from a different perspective. We react to a event that is very much meant to be. Leaders use our reaction and understanding to form their next step.

The information we receive is much like a guided channel, which we have to receive to reach a specific destination.
Our opinions are being guided. because we can only analyze or predict based on events that have taken place or will take place. We are not within the grand plan of thinking. We are on the receiving end.





top topics
 
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join