Is Love the answer or is War the answer?

I think the best answer is silence, let it be.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

Is love the ultimate path to a solution of peace between nations and individuals, or is I s it war? What do you think?

I think its awareness.


A knowledge that you will only harm yourself in the long run if you follow orders to kill or imprison another.

Awareness that the borders we live in are created by us and can be abolished by us.

Awareness that as individuals we need to "live together or die alone". A little LOST reference there for any fans.

You said Ultimate path, Love will get you the same place in a bigger picture of understanding as War or fear will, if its absolute your looking for, awareness and knowledge will influence our love or hate and therefore I believe would be more of an ultimate path to the destination you seek.

Originally posted by earthling42
I think the best answer is silence, let it be.

The sound of silence, Simon and Garfunkel


Let it be, The Beatles


Brilliant lyrics, brilliant music, brilliant messages from some tripped out artists of their time.


Wise words earthling42, short and meaningful.

The answer to all, the theory to everything will be similar, short and sweet for all to enjoy.

Well, IMO with regards to what's happening now, the way we're backing off from Syria is not out of love it is out of indifference and apathy - which may be just as unfortunate as war.

Love IS the answer but are we loving or adopting a global mantra of "if it's not me it's not my problem" - something that could be even more dangerous.

The problem with love being the answer is it seems that even when there is enough peace, someone always tries to start a conflict.

Real world example: My significant other and myself love each other dearly. However, one or both of us make a comment that's in jest, and the other doesn't find it amusing, and now look, a war has been created (I let her win... sometimes...just so we can end it peacefully).

In a similar light. war isn't the solution either, as even when it ends, there's still a lot of tension between the parties. For example: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran all mistrust America, because of the wars we had/still are having with them. The fact that certain parties here in America think it's better to blow themselves up in the name of their god doesn't help this, because this causes us to want to blame those countries and religions. instead of blaming the individuals themselves.

Instead, I think that the answer to the riddle is: Respect. Imagine, if each person in the world didn't agree with each other, but had enough respect to look at their enemies in the face, and say "you know, I hate you - but I also respect that you are a human being, and will not do anything that would treat you as a non-human".

Real world example (Passed down from family member who fought in WWI & WWII) : When the Germans & Americans were fighting, one of the Christmases brought a surprise to both sides - The Germans sent the Americans some of their native food, and in return, the Americans sent over Coffee and a couple more items. On both Christmas Eve & Christmas day, both sides actually had "duels" to see who could sing or bugle call the loudest in the trenches. My Grampa still had some of the items that were exchanged, the last time I heard.

Even though the Americans thought that the Germans were enemies, and the feeling was mutual from the German side...both realized that there really wasn't a "side" to the fighting, and that everyone was human. If either side didn't have respect, then that war could have gone with a lot more heat than it did.

It'd be nice if we didn't have to have war period, but to do that, you need to truly have the following:
1. One Religion (or none at all).
2. One currency (or none at all).
3. One social status (or none at all).
4. Illicit substances for everyone! (Kidding, kidding ).
5. Two humans: One female, and one male, with similar beliefs, likes and interests.

-fossilera

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Happiness is the answer for those who wish to be happy.
Sharing that happiness is called "love".
Spreading that happiness is called "peace".

It all begins with being happy within.

Happiness begins with accepting the past , trusting in the future to be well - but focusing mainly on enjoying what is here presently.

The enjoyment of what is happening now is called "fun". Fun means being entertained by what is happening.

reply to post by arpgme


Yours is by far the most intelligent comment made on this thread.
I think as long as we have borders between us, we will have wars.
One side is always going to believe it is greener on the other side, cue jealousy.
This will always cause a war at some point.
Isn't that one side loving what the other side has?
In order to have peace, we just need to learn to be happy with what we have got and learn to get along.

Conflict occurs between loved ones. Can there be one without the other?

Love doesn't necessarily prevent conflict... perhaps ends it, but still lovers will quarrel.

Sometimes people do bad things to those they love.

A parasite loves it's host.

Is love the answer or is war the answer?
If love leads to peace between nations, then love needs to create a certain mutual understanding. As without that understanding, either of the nations might make a mistake that could lead to the end of the peace. Without the understanding, both parties are in fear of each other. For both parties are of man, and man fears all that he knows nothing of.
If love is a synonym for diplomacy, where through representatives the misunderstandings are tried to be undone, then love is possibly the answer.

War is caused by misunderstandings, and greed.
If war is caused by the misunderstanding, it will not lead to peace.
If war is caused by the greed (for land or resources), it might lead to peace. For example the Pax Romana, where there is first war, once the party that initially attacks has won, it tries to understand the ways of those who are conquered, while making the conquered ones understand some of their ways and enforcing some of those as well, after which they let them be (mostly).

The answer is to understand each other. How you go about establishing said understanding, is up to you.

reply to post by SlackOps

SlackOps
Conflict occurs between loved ones. Can there be one without the other?
Love doesn't necessarily prevent conflict... perhaps ends it, but still lovers will quarrel.
Sometimes people do bad things to those they love.
A parasite loves it's host.

A conflict does not necessarily mean a "war". There are different levels of conflict:

There are disagreements, actual arguments, threats, violence, and murder (wars).

Yes, there is "conflict" even between loved-ones but most of the time this does not escalate to the extreme. The same is possible between countries.