Is 'peace' a reachable concept?

[burner69]

OK, all over the place I hear people saying that such and such a thing is being done for "peace". Co-ilition (sp?) secering peace in Iraq. Peace deals in Ireland.

But surely peace means everyone being happy?

Clearly western ideals simply do not fit in with some countries view of life, or else there would be no terrorists. With such diversity in religious and economic ideals is it infact possible to achieve any sort of 'peace' without eradicating opposing views, either through control of education, media and religion - or through killing.

Is the killing of any side justified for the greater good, if it means minority, opposing views are ended in order to have a world wide consensus?

Is the idea of peace simply a paradox? To achieve peace you must be, what is described in almost every religion as being, evil? Killing, or otherwise ending other view points?

 

[skarrob]

No piece is not attainable,when your your dealing with terrorist and dictators.

 

[KoreBolteR]

OK, all over the place I hear people saying that such and such a thing is being done for "peace". Co-ilition (sp?) secering peace in Iraq. Peace deals in Ireland.

But surely peace means everyone being happy?

Clearly western ideals simply do not fit in with some countries view of life, or else there would be no terrorists. With such diversity in religious and economic ideals is it infact possible to achieve any sort of 'peace' without eradicating opposing views, either through control of education, media and religion - or through killing.

Is the killing of any side justified for the greater good, if it means minority, opposing views are ended in order to have a world wide consensus?

Is the idea of peace simply a paradox? To achieve peace you must be, what is described in almost every religion as being, evil? Killing, or otherwise ending other view points?

you spell it Coalition..

In my Opinion,, Religion is being used by the terrorists to recruit new people, and the people who follow these religions are being automatically branded terrorists (muslims). for peace what we need to do is look back in olden days and see how we handles it then. with the nazis and hitler we challenged him face to face! and won.. solved.

but this is a new kettle of fish, the opposition are not coming face to face like the nazis did.. they are hiding in basements , and recruiting women and LITTLE children, to become suicide bombers for gods sake.

i cant see any way round this now i think of it. the coalition have an impossible job picking out the terrorists and civilians.

 

[Kangy]

History teaches you nothing about the terrorist, for it is a relatively new wave of assault.

Peace is impossible. There will always be war, somewhere, somehow.

 

[KoreBolteR]

History teaches you nothing about the terrorist, for it is a relatively new wave of assault.

Peace is impossible. There will always be war, somewhere, somehow.

i agree with you
EDIT: for once

 

[Kangy]

i agree with you

I'm speechless.


:|

 

[Gray Fox]

Relative peace can and will probably be achived( by that I mean that there are no major wars on the planet, only wars against criminals), it will take a long time, the cultural, economical, religious, and language differences differences are a great obstacle but if globalisaton is used properly( which now it isn't) in a couple hundred years we could have overcome them.
IMO everyone wants peace, but the thing is what kind of a price are we willing to pay for it, when the price for peace go's down peace will be easier to achive.

 

[burner69]

No piece is not attainable,when your your dealing with terrorist and dictators.

Terrorists are protecting their ideals, as we send our out further. The whole point is, by forcing others to think the same as you, you create terrorists.

Surely it cud be said that the Coalition (thanks!) is simply a big old dictator in disguise. It certainly has many similar attributes.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Surely it cud be said that the Coalition (thanks!) is simply a big old dictator in disguise. It certainly has many similar attributes.

Currently that could be said, but it is what will be said 2-5 years down the road that will matter.

 

[burner69]

Currently that could be said, but it is what will be said 2-5 years down the road that will matter.

My initial point exactly. Is being 'evil' ok, if it sorts things out long term.

 

[seinfeldrules]

My initial point exactly. Is being 'evil' ok, if it sorts things out long term.

I believe it is ok. We are certainly not doing the same horrific things Saddam was, so at least we can see some improvement currently. In another 2-5 years as we begin to pull out I think we will be seeing much larger improvements.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Terrorists are protecting their ideals, as we send our out further. The whole point is, by forcing others to think the same as you, you create terrorists.

Surely it cud be said that the Coalition (thanks!) is simply a big old dictator in disguise. It certainly has many similar attributes.

so you are saying .. b4 9/11, there was no terrorists.. thats crap, what about the beslan school terrorists, they are inhuman

 

[burner69]

so you are saying .. b4 9/11, there was no terrorists.. thats crap, what about the beslan school terrorists, they are inhuman

Are you saying that b4 9/11 the terrorists had no reason to attack people? I completely disagree with people who use such methods, but they are clearly forced into a corner.

 

[Spartan]

Is the idea of peace simply a paradox? To achieve peace you must be, what is described in almost every religion as being, evil? Killing, or otherwise ending other view points?

PEACE?!?! I'LL KILL YOU!!

*cough*

Peace is temporary, that's what I think. The only way to lasting peace would be equality - everyone has food, healthcare, money and so on.

Actually, that's too optimistic. We're all ****ed.

 

[burner69]

Could almost be led back to the cannabis debate (hehe)

I'm half joking by the way

 

[Eg.]

peace can only be attained once a system is created that has no end, therefore whatever cycle that will continue to exist.

 

[GiaOmerta]

A human ran utopia is impossible... but

peace can only be attained once a system is created that has no end, therefore whatever cycle that will continue to exist.

That seems reasonable. Keeping the subjects within the system entertained.

You see, our lives are based on conflict. In sports, look at sports. Friendly conflict. One team trying to defeat the other. Life is like a big chess game. The big players make the moves, while the pawns, average citizens are swept away from time to time. That's a simple way of putting it, but naturally our lives would be boring without conflict. War brings out the best in people. One of the reasons why big man Teddy Roosvelt engaged in the Spanish American War, boosted the economy, which war does, boosted the general spirit of the people.

 

[Eg.]

no, not subjects

in nature each animal has a niche (im not going for communism), and they only fill that niche. if that animal or niche was removed, the system would falter, or over time change with it. no animals nature or habits is self destrucitve

the problem is humans are insane. creatures with relative intellegence, apes, dolphins, act in "unstable" ways when compared to lesser minded animals. ex: a chimps mind at its hight is equal to that of a 5 year old. the thing is, a chimp is 3-4x stonger than the strongets human. imagine a 5 year old that could tear odff your arm.

as with humans who are exponetially smarter, think of this; the earlist weapon was either a club or throwing a rock. the rock evolved over the years in teh shape of the sling, bow, crossbow, gun, canon, missile, and then atomic missile. all to throw a rock.

 

[Tr0n]

Short term peace is possible...but as the saying goes "Only the dead have seen the end of war".

 

[burner69]

War brings out the very worst in people, particularly governments.

Killing people and endangering your own troops to boost the economy is evil-minded, surely.

 

[Eg.]

1939 usa economy=shit
1946 usa economy= best in world

y? the war made more manufacturing jos, as the economy was changed to fit war production. not only workers, but also consturction projects employed even more people

so yes war does boost the economy. im not saying, oops were poor, lets invade china

where the hell did ur post come from?

 

[burner69]

War brings out the best in people.

Came from there.
I see your point if you have to go to war anyway (like with the third reich) - it seems we both agree that it isn't right to start a war built on the hope of strengthening the economy.

I worry now because America's economy is going down, and it looks like we're about to enter the third war in as many years - each one highly controversial (meaning there is a valid argument both for and AGAINST the war). Three wars, and many people don't believe they are right. Crazy

 

[Steve]

Are you saying that b4 9/11 the terrorists had no reason to attack people? I completely disagree with people who use such methods, but they are clearly forced into a corner.

Are you saying somebody FORCED those people to kill a couple thousand innocent people on 9/11?

...that somebody backed them into a corner, and they had no other choice?

 

[Steve]

Came from there.
I see your point if you have to go to war anyway (like with the third reich) - it seems we both agree that it isn't right to start a war built on the hope of strengthening the economy.

I worry now because America's economy is going down, and it looks like we're about to enter the third war in as many years - each one highly controversial (meaning there is a valid argument both for and AGAINST the war). Three wars, and many people don't believe they are right. Crazy

What was the first war? Afghanistan? I don't think that was very hotly contested at all. Pretty much everyone supported us there.

 

[burner69]

Medling with foreign affairs, drastically effecting many people's lives resulting in war creates great hatred. They were not listened to when they asked things get changed. They were not listened to when they made terrorist threats. In the end, it seems, they were driven to such evil actions... it back fired...

You think that completely arsing up a country, I mean, totally f*cking an entire country up is justifiable in the search for a very small minority?

That's like shelling London to get at the small number of terrorists believed to be living there. No, actually, it's like shelling Britain to get at a few terrorists believed to be living in a London flat.

 

[Steve]

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. Please use names.

 

[Ames]

With the idiots running around out there, there is in no damn way we could have peace.

 

[Hapless]

Terrorists are protecting their ideals, as we send our out further. The whole point is, by forcing others to think the same as you, you create terrorists.
.

Ah, but these terrorists want to force us to think and worship as they do. So who is right? Them, just because they aren't us?

 

[Tr0n]

If you force your beliefs on someone you're just as evil as the former.

 

[Eg.]

but since their all dead now who is left to say ur wrong

 

[K e r b e r o s]

OK, all over the place I hear people saying that such and such a thing is being done for "peace". Co-ilition (sp?) secering peace in Iraq. Peace deals in Ireland.

Peace will exist when differences are either setteled, or ignored. Difference, attracts attention.

But surely peace means everyone being happy?

Exactly.

Clearly western ideals simply do not fit in with some countries view of life, or else there would be no terrorists.

Its not Western, Eastern, or Middle-Eastern ideal's that were cause for this war. What was, are men's fear of each other, or jealousy against one another.

Putting these ideal's aside, we already have peace.

With such diversity in religious and economic ideals is it infact possible to achieve any sort of 'peace' without eradicating opposing views, either through control of education, media and religion - or through killing.

This does'nt have to be done -- if men would just say, "**** it" and forget about violence, oppression, imposition, or imposing; we'd already have the world we want.

Violence gives men purpose -- men like to fight. However, Space is violent. Why not combat that with sciences -- why not explore this?

I've often wondered outside of my planets politics, and have often wondered about otherworld sciences.

That to me, is peace. Exploration.

Is the killing of any side justified for the greater good, if it means minority, opposing views are ended in order to have a world wide consensus?

Consensus would just be a probability, if men ignored their differences, and lived with each other no matter what.

Black Ants fight Black Ants, Red Ants fight Black Ants.

We can take a lesson from nature's basic wills to survive, from within the species in provides us that are indeed, bollow us in reasoning.

We dont always have to look for our own problems, to correct ourselves.

Is the idea of peace simply a paradox? To achieve peace you must be, what is described in almost every religion as being, evil? Killing, or otherwise ending other view points?

Peace is only a paradox for those who choose to have violence in their lives.

 

[burner69]

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. Please use names.

Gulf war, giving weapons to both sides, esentially being treacherous to people you're pretending to ally with, resulting in many deaths.

Afghanistan is now f*cked after our attempt to hunt down Osama and his crew, that's a whole country now in pieces, with many people no doubt hating the people who did it. Wouldn't you? Enough to attack them? Probably.

Ah, but these terrorists want to force us to think and worship as they do. So who is right? Them, just because they aren't us?

When do terrorists force you to think like them? They don't. They want you to keep out of their lives, in general. There are exceptions, but many are attacking the western world because of what it has done to them in the past. The war in Afghanistan is now the past... as will be the war in Iraq, and, I wouldn't be suprised, Iran. Get ready for a surge of terrorists; this is only going to happen as a result of the "war on terror". Though they'll say; "Ah, see there are loads of terrorists, thank god we're having a war with them." Its BS

 

[Steve]

Gulf war, giving weapons to both sides, esentially being treacherous to people you're pretending to ally with, resulting in many deaths.

Afghanistan is now f*cked after our attempt to hunt down Osama and his crew, that's a whole country now in pieces, with many people no doubt hating the people who did it. Wouldn't you? Enough to attack them? Probably.

Oh! The GULF WAR! Okay. Pfft. Sorry bout that. Yeah.

Okay, well, yes, Afghanistan is totally getting screwed over right now. But the war itself...you know, against the Taliban...I don't think that was highly controversial.

 

[The Mullinator]

The only way for peace on earth would be if there is one all powerful government that can take controll and stop all terrorism and major criminal activity.

It wouldn't last long though, as the human race increases its territory this "government" would not have as much controll over newer areas further away from it and we will end up with war all over again.

When Britain expanded we ended up with the US declaring independance. In the future we would probably colonize other planets and then they would declare their independance. We will never achieve peace.

 

[burner69]

Oh! The GULF WAR! Okay. Pfft. Sorry bout that. Yeah.

Okay, well, yes, Afghanistan is totally getting screwed over right now. But the war itself...you know, against the Taliban...I don't think that was highly controversial.

Well considering now the country is far worse off now than before. And that tens of thousands of innocent people were killed, I'd say it was highly controversial. Especially seeing as the majority of the country WEREN'T terrorists.

 

[The Mullinator]

Well considering now the country is far worse off now than before. And that tens of thousands of innocent people were killed, I'd say it was highly controversial. Especially seeing as the majority of the country WEREN'T terrorists.

From what I have heard (not American media) Kabul is much better off than it was before while the rest of the country has remained relatively unchanged from how it was before the war. It sounds like it has improved, just not by much when you average it all out.

 

[burner69]

From what I have heard (not American media) Kabul is much better off than it was before while the rest of the country has remained relatively unchanged from how it was before the war. It sounds like it has improved, just not by much when you average it all out.

That's not what I've heard. I was told by Bush and Blair that it WOULD be a better place but...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=584408

 

[Steve]

That's not what I've heard. I was told by Bush and Blair that it WOULD be a better place but...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=584408

You know, there is some legitmate business that comes out of the opium trade. Ever heard of a little drug called morphine? How about a drug that helps people quit heroine called methadone?

 

[burner69]

90% of world street heroin comes from Afgan. Believe me, if any being sold from there is legal, its the minority, why the hell wud they be about to relaunch war on the countries drug trade? For selling too many aspirin?

Notice the 2nd worst state to live in too?

 

[burner69]

Incidentlt, make recreational drugs legal and that'd solve this problem as well. But alas, governments are too f*cked up to even consider this.