A global peace?

[Kamy]

could it be achieved in this era? or is it our fate to continue slaughtering one another. will this idea of our world with no wars and suffering be reality? history has shown us that after one war has ended another starts, and has been repeating until now. in my personal opinion, it can never end, as long as there is something to justify their actions such as religion, peace, independence and etc. war will continue on......

just my opinion though, so discuss!

[phantom_ko]

Firstly you have to ask the questions: What is War? and What has caused them?

The root of all wars are basically disputes between two or more nations, no nation in this world at the moment is going to be willing to lose out on "beneficial" things in order to achieve peace (such as oil). Which country dosen't want to have electicity to charge their phones and laptops? Which country would not want to have superiority over other countries? (Isn't it nice to be able to do things you want to?)

"The root of all evil in this world is humans" We have greed and desires (relates to the 7 deadly sins). Do you want to live in a mansion with people serving you? But those people serving you would want the same...(This is only an example of a smaller scale)

So...wouldn't a nation like to have other countries under her to serve as a servant? and to listen to everything she wants?

[Artemis]

I believe that we are destined that we will be plagued with eternal disputes and wars.

Simply because of one thing. People never agree with each other.
You could be like me and accept all cultures and such, which would probably lead to everlasting peace but not all people are in such an understanding mood.

Example: The everlasting war between Christianity and Islam. This fight has been around since the crusader times which was around 1000 ad and 12000 ad. No single side is completely right. Islamic terrorists are now considered one of the biggest threats in the modern world. But back then it was the European countries that were the terrorists. In fact most people agree that jerusalem was a peaceful city until the christian invader attempeted to take over the land.

And you can see that battle has lasted over 1000 years, as jihad has been declared on western society for the same reason the Crusaders had when they declared a holy war on the Muslims.

Now that's only 1 example out of thousands that can be found on the world.

But the fact that world peace cannot be established doesn't mean that we should stop. Thats like saying, why cut your finger-nails when they grow back again?

You cut your fingernails so they don't go out of control. Which is what we do. Even though the fight for peace seems hopeless, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to halt it or prevent it. We should try our best to maximise the image of world peace as far as we can.

So in the end, even though the idea of International Peace cannot fully be achieved, we should still attempt to make it spread as a far as we can. Because some peace is a hell lot better than no peace.

[Guy]

Eternal peace is childish. Seriously, whatever happened to "the war that would end all wars"? Lol! Indeed, a WWII followed! As long as humans have greed and envy (which they always will), wars will never end. We can try and minimize pointless wars between civilized countries, but it's really too hard to stop civil wars from erupting in third world countries. War will continue until mankind has destroyed itself.

[Fujiwara Ayumi]

i think we can achieve peace, but well i think it should really start within us first and we should have our faith back to our creator. With that we can have a peace, but if the war between some countries end, maybe it's the end of the world, especially from the war of the Iraq and Israel, because it is already stated in the bible, in the revelations sections. I don't really read the bible but some of my acquaintances read some parts of the bible and they sometimes tell me about this.

[leprousharry]

Well, are you implying that everyone should have faith in the same God to achieve peace?

Thinking like that is a source of conflicts as you don't accept that other people thinks differently. Frequently, war is a result of those religious conflicts.

Actualy, what makes war possible is the hatred or the fear of hatred (we attack because we dislike or because we have fear of being attacked). Those hatred are dicted by "Holy" books.

In my optic, if everyone was Atheist, they would use reason and not faith. Though, seeing that war isn't good for societies, they'ld never do it again.

[Silhouette]

A world without war? Eternal Peace? lol?

Seriously though, that's naive thinking. As long as the human race lives on, there will always be fighting... there will always be rebellion... and there will always be some large figure justifying their actions with useless things such as religion.

Though, religion is always a cover-up for greedy, power hungry dictators. Got oil?

[Shinomori]

There is a fundamental human necessity to compete, to bring one's self up while bringing others down, to never be satisfied with what one has. So long as there are even TWO people, I am sure they would constantly be fighting over who gets which continents. There are seven, after all, and they would inevitably be divided unequally in terms of land mass...and if you divide by hemispheres, then you don't necessarily know WHERE the dividing line is since it's a hypothetical line, not a physical one.

Essentially, human nature prevents global, everlasting peace.

So the only way to get it is by eliminating all the humans. :)

[koreasamurai]

unfortunately, we as man are always consumed by greed.No matter what we do we always do what will benefit us. Sure there are christians and devoted givers but subconciously they are doing it because they want the feeling of doing something good. There's a.0001% thats actually not greedy, but we all want something. And because of that greed, war starts since other ppl are always wishing for more, power, money, control, etc. So as far as i see it, war will not end for a very long time and we will indubitably become our own death considering the massive powers of destructions that every real world power has.

[MasterX25]

I have my own thought on humans. I am stereotyping but this is definitly the truth. Humans are greedy and careless, no matter we realize it or not, that is who we are. Because we have emotions, we cannot rid ourselves from the action. It exist in all of us, thus makes it very difficult to obtain peace in the world. Unless someone with EXTREME leadership, we will always move in seperate paths.

[horsie]

As long as there are people with differing opinions in this world, there will always be conflict. As long as we have limited supplies with which to survive as a species, people living together will band together to assure that they get what they need--by however they can. I can see no way everyone will agree to "share equally" until there is enough for everyone to sate their wants. And since we live on a planet with limited resources, this is not going to happen.

And even then, supposing all our material needs are capable of being met--everyone on the Earth, there are still the issues of people whose wants directly go against the wants of others. There will be those who wish to hunt, and those who wish to do no harm to any living creature. There will be those who wish to seek out relationships with people of different "races" or of the same gender, and those who find such matchings disgusting and intolerable.

I would say that the very basis of free will and thought forces conflict upon us. Because even when all our needs are met, our conscious thoughts will be dissatisfied with some thing or another. So no. I do not believe we will ever achieve a lasting peace. All we can hope for is civility to lessen the amount of conflicts that will occur.

[Samanosuke]

There will never be such a thing. This is reality. The battle for recources, might and right, may stop for a short period of time but will always come back.

There will always be a reason for a conflict. May it be religion, the claiming of regions which are not legitimate, but occure nonetheless.

Wars like the spanish civil war, can not be prevented sometimes. Why did this war happen? The answer is: An opinion that differed.
The one half wanted an absolute monarchy, to reform the old regime while the other half wanted to stick to the old traditions.

Even small factors can lead to a big war, and there will never be a time where all opinions, and ideals, are the same.

[WhyteDragon]

The only way that humanity would ever come to peace or terms with each other as a whole would be in the event of otherworldly confrontation. If there is such out there (and I am only being hypothetical). It would be an event much like a war with a different species of power. We would then band together to save what we have.

Until then it's hard to say about our little selves in this matter. I think that we have the capacity for it, But, we lack the control of ourselves to complete it. It is that never ending want and desire to have what others have. Someone does something small (ie someone runs a stop sign on a street full of kids, you as a parent get pissed) you get upset, you take it out on them verbally or on someone else.. and then the crap rolls down hill to the next person.

We have a hard time not getting upset over the little things let alone the problems on a grander scale.

Unless there is a way to breed out the gene or to be rid of the mentality part that drives us in that direction then we may keep walking down the same road we keep walking on. The notion of survival of the fittest, kill or be killed.... you know what I mean.

[Artemis]

About my point.

There is a possible way to achieve global peace, but the journey towards the goal is totally opposite of peace.

If everyone was unified under a single banner, and hence everyone was on the same side then global peace would be activated to a certain degree.

Although the only way to rally people under a single name or side is through defeating them and basically conquering the world via war.

Now, I don't support this form of global content as you know, a lot of people get killed and such. Whats more, is that there's a very slim chance of achieving a equilibrium and hence there would mean a pretty much non-stop on-going war.

Whether it may be a rebellion of an another country or a Civil war erupting within the empire, the chances of a total peace is so slim that such a feat would never be worth it no matter the cost.

Just to add in.

[Guy]

No, I don't believe in global peace, and if what Scorch said is true, then communism should work. Unfortunately, Communism doesn't work. Global peace will never be achieved. Man will continue to fight for religion, resources, or just greed to conquer the world. Man is born imperfect, so as long as humans cannot be perfect, war will forever rage on and on.

[Artemis]

The reason communism can not 'work' is because other societies despise and are against communism as an idea and as a form of government.

Look for example at the People's Republic of China. They're one of the world's strongest countries, in the economy and in physical strength. They're army are larger than many nations and they're economy is 3rd (?) largest in the world!

When I meant that the world must be rallied under 1 banner, I meant everyone. Which seems so impossible that everyone doesn't bother because it cannot be done. The fact you see communism failing is because outsiders tamper with the balance of the government.

I am not a supporter of communism or fascism. And I believe that even democracy has its flaws, so there basically is no way to gain global peace.

But we still have to try.

[Draffut]

Communism doesn't work. China has adopted many socialist idea's to get it's society and economy functioning. Plus the other stuff like it's army is only superior because of it's population.

You put that many people in Austrailia and they will become a top 5 world power to.

[Aizen_sama]

It is impossible. Humans have the emotion to hate, with this emotion, people will fight no matter what

[KingKong]

Draffut and Scorch, there is so much wrong with what you say about communism.
Then again, its f**ing strange that inevitably in a debate on world peace communism has to be brought up.

First off, China has at large been a communist country since, well, before greeks developed democracy. In that power was highly centralized. Many people don't know this, but China was highly developed and could have conquered the world in i believe the 7th century. They didn't because their system was highly self contained, ie the world had nothing noteworthy to offer. So saying China adopted many socialist ideas to get its society and economy functioned is just off - I believe you are talking about Mao's interpretation of Marxism, but you got it twisted.

Second, the premise that communism cannot work is simply wrong. Look at Cuba. Comparing data from the UN you will find that the cuban GDP per capita in relation to their "quality of life" is by far the lowest in the world, or conversely, the quality of life in Cuba is [U]many times higher than in any other country with a comparable GDP per capita and also the relative difference in these numbers is by far the largest in the world.
So they manage to provide an outstanding quality of life given their level of income, thereby refuting economic theory.

How does this relate to world peace? If you look at communism vs capitalism on a deeper level of understand you will find that in its pure forms they are the two extremes on a scale ranging from absolute state control (call it socialism) to absolute liberality (call it freedom to serve your ego).
However, countries which are very liberal in terms of state control (US) and countries which are very much state control (one party system China) do peacefully coexist and trade together. Cuba and the US are practically neighboors.
Now you could go and point out that the CIA developed ludicrous schemes to run over Cuba during the Cold War, or that tensions are arrising on China's testing of SSM (Surface Space Missiles, errrr). But to what end? Reality has proven for the past 50 years that Communism is no longer a sufficient excuse to invade a country.

So in conclusion my point is that communism vs capitalism is an outdated concept for getting people's minds to (passively) condone wars.
Nowawadays its all about religious beliefs and intensity of androgenic hair.

In the real world, ie behind the curtains, it has always been about power/wealth/economics: that is resources, arms deals, trade relations, etc.
Until the general populace starts educating themselves and adopting a realistic view of the benefits/costs of wars and a realisation of people being killed over utterly retarded propaganda, we will always have wars.

Personally I tend to believe that with modern information technology any individual is now more than ever in a position to educate themselves. So there is hope.

[KingKong]

No, I don't believe in global peace, and if what Scorch said is true, then communism should work. Unfortunately, Communism doesn't work. Global peace will never be achieved. Man will continue to fight for religion, resources, or just greed to conquer the world. Man is born imperfect, so as long as humans cannot be perfect, war will forever rage on and on.

Sorry for double posting, but I felt this deserves special attention.

Don't you think that accepting there is no such thing as perfection will do as well?
Think of it as a pyramid and everybody's trying to reach the top. Everybody's convinced their way is the way to the top.
Rather, realizing there is no perfection, not one way, but many 'heights' in their own right should be enough from causing people to force their way onto others, no?

[Guy]

Sorry for double posting, but I felt this deserves special attention.
Don't you think that accepting there is no such thing as perfection will do as well?
Think of it as a pyramid and everybody's trying to reach the top. Everybody's convinced their way is the way to the top.
Rather, realizing there is no perfection, not one way, but many 'heights' in their own right should be enough from causing people to force their way onto others, no?

I don't quite understand. Are you trying to say that man will never be satisfied with what he has, so he will continue to fight others to obtain greater desires? If so, then yes, I agree to that. Man's desires are also another reason why wars will wage forever.

I, myself, hate wars, but I know they cannot be stopped. That's why I support military funding and development of better military technologies. We can try to prevent ourselves from being the initiator of aggression, but can we say the same for another country?

[KingKong]

Man is born imperfect, so as long as humans cannot be perfect, war will forever rage on and on
I don't quite understand. Are you trying to say that man will never be satisfied with what he has, so he will continue to fight others to obtain greater desires? If so, then yes, I agree to that. Man's desires are also another reason why wars will wage forever.
I, myself, hate wars, but I know they cannot be stopped. That's why I support military funding and development of better military technologies. We can try to prevent ourselves from being the initiator of aggression, but can we say the same for another country?

No that is not what I am saying. Admitted, the thing needs more explanation.
You used human imperfection to explain an important cause for war. In that I agree. I do not agree in the (unlikely/impossible) remedy you offer. Reaching perfection.
Instead, acknowledging imperfection should be enough. I mean really, it is complete and utter arrogance to use military force (killing women and children) because you are convinced your way of doing things is superior. Like wageing war in the name of one's God. By divine authority. Pinnacle of perfection, what people dedicate their existence to.
So the alternative, at least what I offer, is to simply acknowledge that no such thing exists. There is no perfection. [Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people should abandon religion, its just an example.] So if there is no perfection, you might as well respect that other people have their way of doing things.
Sorry I'm writing in such a basic way, but really, it is that simple. People tend to overly complicate things.
EDIT So to sum it up, there is no human perfection, there is not one right way of doing things and accepting that can result peaceful discussion of ideological conflicts. The premise that ideological conflict unavoidably results in war is a fallacy.

Just like you I hate wars. Especially the misconceptions and the propaganda surrounding wars.
Now here is what I don't understand: If you hate war, howcome you do support military funding/technologies and yet blame 'other' countries for this in the next sentence? That's a kind of arms race mentality don't you think? On top of that, with people like you (who hate war) supporting the means for war, it becomes increasingly easy for people who desire/profit from war to engage in warfare. Of course, at the expense of peace loving citizens, your tax money and innocent women and children.

[Guy]

Man is born imperfect, so as long as humans cannot be perfect, war will forever rage on and on
No that is not what I am saying. Admitted, the thing needs more explanation.
You used human imperfection to explain an important cause for war. In that I agree. I do not agree in the (unlikely/impossible) remedy you offer. Reaching perfection.

I know that man will never reach perfection, which is why I'm confident that wars will continue to wage on.

Instead, acknowledging imperfection should be enough. I mean really, it is complete and utter arrogance to use military force (killing women and children) because you are convinced your way of doing things is superior. Like wageing war in the name of one's God. By divine authority. Pinnacle of perfection, what people dedicate their existence to.

Yeah, acknowledging imperfection is very important. However, the problem is that man is an arrogant species; he doesn't seem to like to acknowledge his own faults.

So the alternative, at least what I offer, is to simply acknowledge that no such thing exists. There is no perfection. [Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people should abandon religion, its just an example.] So if there is no perfection, you might as well respect that other people have their way of doing things.
Sorry I'm writing in such a basic way, but really, it is that simple. People tend to overly complicate things.
EDIT So to sum it up, there is no human perfection, there is not one right way of doing things and accepting that can result peaceful discussion of ideological conflicts. The premise that ideological conflict unavoidably results in war is a fallacy.
Just like you I hate wars. Especially the misconceptions and the propaganda surrounding wars.
Now here is what I don't understand: If you hate war, howcome you do support military funding/technologies and yet blame 'other' countries for this in the next sentence? That's a kind of arms race mentality don't you think? On top of that, with people like you (who hate war) supporting the means for war, it becomes increasingly easy for people who desire/profit from war to engage in warfare. Of course, at the expense of peace loving citizens, your tax money and innocent women and children.

I understand that I sound rather hypocritical for hating wars but yet, at the same time, support military funds. That is because I believe in another oxymoron statement, "fight to defend peace". I mean, if we educate our own people well enough to expose our own arrogance, we can reduce the probability to start an aggression on other countries.

However, if some lunatic like Hitler takes control of a neighboring country and decides to invade us, without proper military strategy, then how can we defend our people? For that, we need military power. I know it's hypocritical, but it's better to stop a second Hitler from taking over the world again using military power rather than just sitting back, letting him conquer us, while discussing how very civilize we are for not fighting back.

[dragoneyes001]

as long as we the people of the world continue to allow a division of the world into countries instead of one planet we will always have war.

[Juujika]

we can't have peace in this world, atleast real world peace. We can easily get the fake illusion of peace but it wont be real.

First of all human nature is why peace will never happen, people are greedy, they like to fight and be on top.

Second of all governments are corrupt and the biggest law we have, and governments are godless which is the only plus they have.

Lets say we take the world as it is today and make it so 99% of people in the world are equal with money/housing/things. After awhile everyone will want to get more then what someone else has and try to do this threw crime whether its selling drugs to stealing. The idea of everyone being equal leads to jealousy and desire would crush that way of living, So communism wont work.

Democracy wont work because humans have a corrupt side to them, Even if democracy gives the illusion of checks and balances its really bull shit. The president can invade another country claiming it to be "Police actions" if the other two sides of the government shut down the idea of going to war. Then one man and his team being in charge of an country is giving to much power to one person already. Even more so how we choose presidents gives into corrupts before they even get in power. If your part of a politcal party and you need to let the people know what your about you get support from companies whethers its 100g's to 200million dollars some time down the line you owe those companies which makes that politcan corrupt.

The only way i could see world peace happening is if god came down from heaven and said "STFU bitches and listen to me or i'll kill you, this is how your going to live now deal with it other wise you can die right here, right now.. get it got it good"

If peace is left in the hands of humans the most we can achieve is the illusion of peace but never actual peace or equality.

[KingKong]

I know that man will never reach perfection, which is why I'm confident that wars will continue to wage on.
Yeah, acknowledging imperfection is very important. However, the problem is that man is an arrogant species; he doesn't seem to like to acknowledge his own faults.
Yes exactly, the idea of perfection is the pinnacle of arrogance. How we deal is up to us. Personally I do believe we are moving from a modern age [ie where society was constructed in one big hierarchy] to a postmodern age [ie where multiple hierarchies exist]. Evidence herefor can be found in eg the rise of India and China, two countries that now have significant power and can throw their financial weight around in the international arena. As a result, for instance, a war with N Korea has been postponed again and again. Instead a diplomatic approach is taken.
So basically a more or less communist country is preventing a nearly pure capitalist nation to bomb a weak country. Let me stress that I'd prefer to see the world take a no nonsense approach on Kim Yun Soo rather than Iraq, but thats beside the point.


I understand that I sound rather hypocritical for hating wars but yet, at the same time, support military funds. That is because I believe in another oxymoron statement, "fight to defend peace". I mean, if we educate our own people well enough to expose our own arrogance, we can reduce the probability to start an aggression on other countries.
However, if some lunatic like Hitler takes control of a neighboring country and decides to invade us, without proper military strategy, then how can we defend our people? For that, we need military power. I know it's hypocritical, but it's better to stop a second Hitler from taking over the world again using military power rather than just sitting back, letting him conquer us, while discussing how very civilize we are for not fighting back.

Sorry but pulling the Hitler card only shows the weakness of that rational.
If you choose to anticipate the worst possible scenario you contribute to things taking a turn for the worse. I mean f**k, where do think most of the weapons used in conflicts nowadays come from? Remnants from the arms race between Russia and the US, where of course the USSR broke down and became an 'arms free trade zone', and the US has developed into a military industrial complex with arms lobbies having significant influence on american politics.

Its not civilized to turn a blind eye to the side effects of that pre-reactionary rational; its self serving.

Pipio, your views are just depressing.
Also, in history the main flaw of communism is corruption and greed in the government (where all power is centralized), not the general populace. Same can be witnessed in Venezuela.
Republics are prone to be vulnerable to the efforts of lobbies, regardless of whether their agendas benefit society or not.
Democracies provide the most benefit to [all of] their societies as of yet. However, lobbyism is growing even in social democracies with the growth of anglo-saxon capitalism.
And a fake illusion is what, a reality?! Or the product of poor magic?!

[Guy]

Sorry but pulling the Hitler card only shows the weakness of that rational.
If you choose to anticipate the worst possible scenario you contribute to things taking a turn for the worse. I mean f**k, where do think most of the weapons used in conflicts nowadays come from? Remnants from the arms race between Russia and the US, where of course the USSR broke down and became an 'arms free trade zone', and the US has developed into a military industrial complex with arms lobbies having significant influence on american politics.
Its not civilized to turn a blind eye to the side effects of that pre-reactionary rational; its self serving.


What's wrong with being pessimistic? Anyways, if we abandon military funds in our country, then that means our country could be under attacked and we would have no means of defense. I believe in a thing call self-defense. And really, there's no telling when a next Hitler will rise. It's all about preparations.

[KingKong]

I understand what you're saying and I mean of course you are right.

As of now, the US and Israel clearly use their arsenals as deterrence.

Its funny that while self defense is of course legit, americans obviously have the greatest military force but at the same time are the world#s most war minded people:Domo

[WhyteDragon]

I wish that america would stop being the watch dog.... jumping into everyones fights. No wonder we have such a debt to the world...

I think everyone has good points... to many to quote...
Here is a "what if question"
What if the people of the internet, the new age, where to band together and petition the world leaders? To show a united thinking and understand to stop war. It could show them that the ones in power are the only ones that want war.

Its just a what if thought... what do you think of it...

[Artemis]

Some people think I am a mild-supporter of communism. Others think I am an anti-communist supporter...

Truth is, I honestly believe that ALL forms of government can work in a sense of peace. The thing is, they all can't work together as a working global community.

Democracy was and mostly is known for it's 'peace' and 'freedom', yet there are so many problems with people trying to take advantage of the system, by USING the system for their own. Corruption is a main issue that brings the idea of democracy down.

Communism. Uniting people under a single banner. People don't think this will ever work because of previous history. But the truth is, most communist idealists fall because of outsiders believing that communism doesn't work. Of course, some communist are known to oppress their people and they also face problems of internal corruption. But this doesn't mean communism doesn't work.

Anarchy is never talked about. why? Because it is often perceived was a frivolous aim to achieve global peace through chaos. But thats not what true anarchy is about. True anarchy is how a part believes that a stiff governmental structure would not work as well as a land of true freedom and people's rights. This is a hard target to achieve as so many others do not agree with anarchism at all and in fact assume that anarchists are terrorists.

So, ALL forms of government can work. ALL forms of government can fail. But no matter in what form of governemental structure, whether you think communism is best, or democracy is best, the fact remains. The world remains in strife because of what we're doing right now.

Not agreeing on the same point.

NOTE: I am a very mild-supporter of anarchy. As a non-violent and a non-aggressive anarchist, I honestly believe that all governmental systems fail due to the minds of the open will and the closed doors of the oppressors. So I am NOT a communist, democratic or even an aggressive anarchist. I am merely a person who has his views. And so do you.

[Juujika]

Pipio, your views are just depressing.
Also, in history the main flaw of communism is corruption and greed in the government (where all power is centralized), not the general populace. Same can be witnessed in Venezuela.
Republics are prone to be vulnerable to the efforts of lobbies, regardless of whether their agendas benefit society or not.
Democracies provide the most benefit to [all of] their societies as of yet. However, lobbyism is growing even in social democracies with the growth of anglo-saxon capitalism.
And a fake illusion is what, a reality?! Or the product of poor magic?!
My views maybe depressing but its reality, there is no way for global peace when everyone is different. Power, greedy, racism and basic human nature wont allow for world peace. Democracy has as many faults as the rest of government types cause it can be exploited by people in power.

A fine example would be george bush going to war after congress shut the idea down and using his power did it anyways. Miss direction is the main tactic of any government, especially ours. When a leader can confuse the people and hold enough power to over rule the checks and balances then its not going to work.

As for illusion just use examples that go on every day, like the illusion of security. Have you been in a airport or traveling lately? The security there is over the top and they question americans about who, what, when, where, why? while some illegal alien can jump a two foot cardboard fence find himself a social security card and start living a new life in our country.

Miss direction is used my our government all the time, specially when we invaded iraq and they wanted to make it sound like 9-11 and iraq were connected. Theres people today that still believe iraq caused 9-11 due to miss direction. Thats what i mean by illusion, its all smoke and mirrors when the government doesnt know or wont fix a issue.

[KingKong]

I like Whyte Dragon;)

Pipio, the US is hardly a fine example of a democracy. I'm with you on what you're saying on illusions, smoke and mirrors. Its a shame, and really people should read more and watch less TV.
Don't agree on the part that there will always be war because people are not equal. There is some evidence to suggest that in the coming century diversity will be seen as a source for ,put crudely, profit.

One thing, the contradictions in your post, because I feel they really touch upon the core problem.

In the beginning you state 'human nature' as the main reason for well wars.
Near the end of the post its the tactics of the government. (I disagree in the case of your example, the government was merely a tool for companies and interest groups; but generally, yes)

So which is it?
Obviously less glorious parts of human nature are targeted and exploited by pro war rhetoric.
But - who's to blame? And who do you think is most likely/capable to change their ways.

[WhyteDragon]

Thanks Kong!
The who's to blame part falls on us all. We pay taxes that pay for the research, that makes the weapons, that taxes pay for as well. We pay the political party to govern us that puts our necks on the line with war.

So we have to change the government as well as our selves to stop war. But I also believe that each country should not jump at the next little civil war that a country might have. The US has a ego the size of itself that gets us into others wars and we lose. No matter the outcome... we lose, they lose. Its no gain.

[Juujika]

I like Whyte Dragon;)
Pipio, the US is hardly a fine example of a democracy. I'm with you on what you're saying on illusions, smoke and mirrors. Its a shame, and really people should read more and watch less TV.
Don't agree on the part that there will always be war because people are not equal. There is some evidence to suggest that in the coming century diversity will be seen as a source for ,put crudely, profit.
One thing, the contradictions in your post, because I feel they really touch upon the core problem.
In the beginning you state 'human nature' as the main reason for well wars.
Near the end of the post its the tactics of the government. (I disagree in the case of your example, the government was merely a tool for companies and interest groups; but generally, yes)
So which is it?
Obviously less glorious parts of human nature are targeted and exploited by pro war rhetoric.
But - who's to blame? And who do you think is most likely/capable to change their ways.
my point is humans arent perfect, we have desires and interests that would maybe anger different people. As long as a government is run by people who have desires and interests that arent pure then world peace most likely wont happen. At best we could get an illusion of world peace but not the actual thing.

If someone has a brilliant idea to stop countries from fighting over land, money, power and freedom. Then we can get some real world peace till then we wont have it. If you look at the world as it is, theres so many things that show why world peace would never work, first would be the governments, second would be religion and extremest, third would be class issues and problems with equality in life style, last of all human nature with desires that would stop it.

As for diversity being used for profit, thats already happening for companies if you mean it in that way when you say profit. A prime example would be alienware tech support, i had to deal with them quite a few times and while talking to a guy i could barely understand i found out instead of paying someone in the united states 20 something a hour, ailenware hires people from different countries to cut down on money they need to spend. Whether or not it provides good service is another thing but they do use diversity for their own profit.

[KingKong]

You're giving an example of outsourcing/offshoring. Yes that happens.
I meant smt else. As nations develop into knowledge societies, creativity, innovation, etc become more important. Diversity fuels all of the above. Thus there is more appreciation for different people and different cultures.
That is directly contrasted to the past century, where eg immigrants where ranked as 'gastarbeiter' who fall in suite and are basically production tools. Having passed the industrial age, human qualities become more important.
I don't mean to imply that this will result in world peace, although it's intrigueing to hope it will result in more appreciation one another.
Just explaining what I meant with profit.

Question remains unanswered, again you say smt like 'countries' fighting over land etc. whereas before it was governments that trick their people into going along with their own agenda/incompetence to resolve issues. There's a big difference there.

WhyteDragon, I agree that in proportion hardly anybody won anything from the most recent case of american aggression. Although hard to find there is information on who did. Military contractors, reconstruction companies and some others made a KILLING. Billions and billions.
I also agree that its up us to educate us and eg sign an online petition or w/e, get organised. In case the government does not serve the interest of the general populace any longer they should get the sack.

[.System]

A global peace sounds like a very good idea but it will never happen.

First of all, man is very territorial, and fighting is our way of life, ever since the Dawn of Man, we have always fought for territory, food and the right to mate. We may have rapidly progressed since then but the fundamentals stay. If global peace is ever achieved, it won't last very long. We will always find something to fight about, who's country is the best, even here in Club Bleach, people in Divisions keep arguing that their's is the best division, even if it is technically not.

We are also a very dominant race, when we do eventually create ships that can traverse through space, if we ever meet new life, we would want to dominate that species and take over their planet and their natural resources. We also take advantage of the weak. We are no different from the Animal Knigdom in certain aspects, for one, we have our own Political food chain, America is at the top, while lesser countries provide food, materials and oil for them, while the West is Out-sourcing to India, while India Out-sources to Mexico.

Lets face it, global peace will never happen.

[scholar]

Well, I know I'm going to get my head ripped off for some of my thoughts on the matter so here it goes. The United States has one of the best and stable government systems in the world. Our Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation can be constantly Amended (Amendments) to better protect the modern society.
Now it is in no way perfect, as there are corruptions in politics, but the unique thing about our government is that the people united have control and can influence the future. Because of our love of freedom we will not allow a dictatorship (i.e. Allied soldiers "Soldiers of Democracy" who were drafted and in two years became soldiers v.s. Hitler's Youth who were raised from birth to be fanatically militant and loyal to Hitler and Nazism. These two groups clashed head to head at the pivotal moment of World War 2 in Europe, the Invasion of Normandy. You know the outcome) and it is not viable in the Constitution. Our democracy has stood for 300s years to present day, the longest democracy to continue to the present in the world. (As from creation to now, if you know any others please post their names and the information or a link). Our constitution has been emulated by countries throughout the world, its a nice one. (A good example being France)

When talking about world peace, a possible solution is unification, like the United Nations except under one central government, an overhead for all of the territories (once countries). Lets say that the leaders of the countries work together to draft a new world democracy, where the leader of the territory would represent his or her territory in the world government. Every country would combine their armed forces into a unified Global Military, each territory would train their troops of course. If one territory attacks another the Global Military stops the offensive party. So, in general, a House of Representatives made up of territory's from the different countries (Elected and impeachable/replaceable), in which the speaker of house elected among the representatives would lead the topics of importance. It would definetly take some time to draft a constitution that would ensure the speaker could never become a dictator.

This is very idealized and the probability of it actually working is incredibly low, just merely my musings from studying world governments. There are most likely better ways than mine.

[KingKong]

Scholar, benchmarking against the 3rd Reich's Hitler Jugend hardly attests to anything. It would be nearly impossible to look worse.
Americans are still really hung up on WW2,huh? Guess which rich mofos traded weapons with the antichrist?

And well the French Revolution (legalité, égalité, fraternité) is a cornerstone of enlightenment thinking - leading to the modern age. Nowadays the US is the last country aggressively/foolishly pursuing the enlightenment project: to superimpose western culture on all others (this may sound very racist and conspiracyesque, and well, it is; sources are hard to find but if you'r interested I can recommend books by distinguished professors).

Your second paragraph I do and do not agree with. Basically you are describing the UN. All united under one flag thing. I mean that is what has been happening in the world for a long time now. It was the Bush administration that put up their middle finger and waved it in the world's most important supranational organisation's face.
Small detail, about the troups thing defending their territory, NATO!

So the past 50 years have shown us that uniting the world under one roof will not work. Major players have devoloped their own brands of democracy, others have abandoned ship for selfish reasons.
However, countries with completely different forms of government have provided stability where it wasn't expected and are reliable trade partners.

[Loko Moto]

I'm a bit tired and couldn't bother reading all your posts ( sorry! ), so if anybody said anything remotely like I will. Please accept my apology in advance.
Anyway.
Global Peace will only be obtained when we all die.
Every single thing.
Animals fight each other.
Even plants technically fight each other. They fight for space, light, warmth and water. ( They do FIGHT, not like physical but they "compete" I guess ).
All the world is a big doodoo.

[scholar]

Americans are still really hung up on WW2,huh?.

About your remark that is close-minded and prejudiced, classifying people based on a small group or person. I major in American History, and and the first half of the 20th century greatly interests me, get over it.

The soldier tie in was just explaining that the American people would not allow their freedom to die, explaining one of the many reasons I like my country. Many people in other countries would probably feel the same way about their own, so eh.

"Nowadays the US is the last country aggressively/foolishly pursuing the enlightenment project: to superimpose western culture on all others (this may sound very racist and conspiracyesque, and well, it is; sources are hard to find but if you'r interested I can recommend books by distinguished professors)."

I'm glad you admit it is like a conspiracy. Many distinguished professors hundreds of years ago preached the Earth was flat, get the point? On another note our foreign aid program is performed so that in the future there will be a financial return and hopefully a good trading partner. Having a similar government does help though :madfire: :Haha (New World ORDER!!!!!!)

Erm, did you happen to see the disclaimer?"This is very idealized and the probability of it actually working is incredibly low" ooh, and this one too "Now it is in no way perfect, as there are corruptions in politics".

[WhyteDragon]

We need to become more tolerant of each other and capable of living together. But the world leaders need to listen to the world population as well. Other wise something on this magnitude will fall apart and never get off the ground.

[KingKong]

The soldier tie in was just explaining that the American people would not allow their freedom to die, explaining one of the many reasons I like my country. Many people in other countries would probably feel the same way about their own, so eh.
Whadda ya mean, like Afghans and Iraqis?
Never mind, this is pointless, is that a high school major btw?

"Nowadays the US is the last country aggressively/foolishly pursuing the enlightenment project: to superimpose western culture on all others (this may sound very racist and conspiracyesque, and well, it is; sources are hard to find but if you'r interested I can recommend books by distinguished professors)."

I'm glad you admit it is like a conspiracy. Many distinguished professors hundreds of years ago preached the Earth was flat, get the point? On another note our foreign aid program is performed so that in the future there will be a financial return and hopefully a good trading partner. Having a similar government does help though :madfire: :Haha (New World ORDER!!!!!!)

Ever since when is it unthinkable that a small group in power conspire to ensure continuation and growth of their power?! I don't get why people have such a problem with seeing this. Seems like a natural thing to do for profesionnally organized organisation/clubs/wtfyouwant.

I saw your disclaimer. Son, as idealized and whatever it may seem to you after studying so much, you are describing EXACTLY what happened. We have a UN, we have NATO.
However what you later refer to, the NWO (spooky) is a groundless conspiracy theory. Just goes to show that people don't have a clue whats going on in the world.

[scholar]

"Just goes to show that people don't have a clue whats going on in the world."

Wow, another generalized statement, try to keep an open mind will you?

"you are describing EXACTLY what happened. We have a UN, we have NATO."

Yes we do have a NATO, but the current NATO is only composed of North American countries and European Countries. Not what I'm describing. I mentioned earlier how I believed all governments should donate their military's to a world NATO program. Many countries such as Albania, the Yugoslav Republic, and Croatia. The government I described consisted of an assimilation of this new NATO and the United Nations? Please reply, this is very exciting.

Figured you would like the NWO joke.

[KingKong]

If its a joke to you then we are on same page about people taking NWO ideas serious, aren't we?

I believe you do not grasp what Has happened. A supranational governmental body Has been constructed. (Furthermore institutions like the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank encompass most of the world.)

Members adhere to the same system. Countries that do not, cannot join until they do. This makes sense, because in order to govern there needs to be some kind of protocol. Bureaucracies are inefficient as it is with internal communication, even with protocol.
Now the part I've mentioned earlier: There are countries that simply do not adhere to this system, but have stable economies AND significant weight in the international arena. You should understand that the enlightenment project has failed, in the sense that there are spin offs of western democracy with (more or less) free market capitalism that do not allow for an 'assimilation' into 'our' system.
Therefor you might conclude that we have to respect other forms of government after all, at least, history woul suggest so.

However, I believe I understand your first post better now. If you meant an idealized world where all countries are willing to follow the same protocol, then yes, I guess it would work and it is of course as unlikely as a Miss Universe making a sensical comment on world peace...

[scholar]

The Mrs. Universe comment is adequate... But to have all the countries in the world cooperate is impossible to do currently. Perhaps in the next 50 or so years it might be an option if foreign relations really improve. This was a nice discussion we've had, and yes, we are on the same page with people and their NWO theories.

[SolBeowulf19]

I don't believe in an everlasting or global peace. Mainly for a big reason: Balance. In this world we see things as one way and must see something else in an entirely opposite way. And the same with elements in this world. When we have one then we have to have the other. Thusly, when we have peace we must have war. Another element that exists is human nature. There may never be an idea that, down to the smallest specific element, we all agree upon. That disagreement can escalate until you gain a war from something as simple as a disagreement in a sort of domino effect.

[Midare]

I guess I have a really negative way of see the things.
Talking about world peace, in my opinion, is something almost impossible to reach due to the "imperfection" of the human being itself.
Most people want to gain power at some level, it doesn't matter how big or small that ambition seems to each one, that wish always exist.
Ambitions in a logical and "real" way and, inside each one's expectations, is not bad, but, those who have a great power, eventually would search for even more power and that, inevitably, leads to fight to reach that power, at which point, they hardly cares about how many people will fall with this, or maybe they realize once the damage was done.
So, I guess the only way I think that world peace could be real is that human beings learn how to control their ambitions, specially when fighting for those ambitions include the death of innocent people that has nothing to do with it

[Neko Ruki]

NOT GONA HAPPEN, in this worl? pleace, sense when have people been reasonable and stoped war? It would take a mirakle 4 something near world peace