Peace? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-24-2003, 07:19 PM   #16
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 12:51 AM
I think I get the point. Instead of pointing fingers as to who caused what, which no nation can really do as all have drunk their fair share of bloodshed, look at earth as one big nation/race/tribe/whatever.

If we could get the whole world sold on peace, then there is no Hitler, no Stalin etc etc. and hence no need for intervention.

It is mankind's belief in general that violence acheives positive objectives that bred these individuals and allowed them to flourish.

War to stop them is just a band-aid, and it is rooted in violence which perpetuates even more violence.

Peace IS the answer, its getting everyone sold on that concept that is the hard part.
__________________

__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 07:28 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox
I think I get the point. Instead of pointing fingers as to who caused what, which no nation can really do as all have drunk their fair share of bloodshed, look at earth as one big nation/race/tribe/whatever.

If we could get the whole world sold on peace, then there is no Hitler, no Stalin etc etc. and hence no need for intervention.

It is mankind's belief in general that violence acheives positive objectives that bred these individuals and allowed them to flourish.

War to stop them is just a band-aid, and it is rooted in violence which perpetuates even more violence.

Peace IS the answer, its getting everyone sold on that concept that is the hard part.
As much as I'd like to believe you, I can't (at least not completely).

There will always be psychotic individuals who try to ruin things for everyone. Our problem is to make sure that they never reach positions of power.

And there has been at least one example in history of a nation waging war against itself and turning out for the better--the American Civil War.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 07:31 PM   #18
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 01:51 AM
I thought I'd share a copy of a letter sent to President Bush that I received in my e-mail this week.


Bread, not Bombs

Nations around Iraq have not been concretely threatened by Iraq. If they or we were concretely threatened, invaded, etc., then we could assist with force.
If we used even 1/10 of our military budget for Peace Missions, we could pay diplomats for years and feed/heal thousands of Iraqi Children! Why don't we consider such options. A stray dog won't bite the hand that feeds it!


I have been reading this board for awhile now, trying to find an answer that makes sense that we might be going to war with Iraq soon. I still don't get it.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 07:41 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:51 AM
I would say the difference between the activism of the 1960s, as Elvis mentions in his original post, and the seemingly feeble activism of now is due to the major philosophical shift from modernism to postmodernism. Modernism, to put it oversimplistically, was future-oriented and tended to have Marxist leanings to it. In other words, change was *always* possible, and we could do our part to make it happen.

Somewhere between 1968 (the Paris student riots) and 1973 (the completion of the postmodernist architectural structure of the World Trade Center), modernism had a painful death, whereas it was determined that "change" was a futile proposition; that no matter how hard one struggles to make that "utopia," things will always remain the same, so what is the point of trying? This arguably cynical and neo-conservative philosophy dominated the past 30 years, establishing itself as the "end of philosophy."

However, postmodernism never realized that philosophical changes are often the result of very traumatic and shocking events, causing society, as a whole, to reestablish its values. Ironically enough, with the passing of 9/11/2001 and the destruction of the postmodernist WTC, postmodernism has potentially received a fatal blow. It would only be most curious if plans to build modernist architect Antoni Gaudi's 1908 design actually gets built on the site of the WTC (ironic, considering it was supposed to be built on the same site back in the early 20th century).

So what are the prospects for peace? Although we are potentially on the verge of war with Iraq and a prolonged anti-terrorism affair, I actually think that the prospects for peace are perhaps better than they have been in over 30 years. The idea that we *can* change things seems to have reemerged, even if, right now, we disagree on how to change things. However, it is premature to judge, as I have yet to see what kind of philosophy will emerge from the seeming ruins of postmodernism.

I will, as a media culture geek, be interested to see....lol.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 10:29 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
Ok, here I am being the fighter. I think war CAN be justified. If 3,000 people die and our only option is to go after the terrorists who did that then we should. I'm not saying "revenge," I'm saying war to take away their obvious ability to do it again.

War is still per definitionem an action between two states (except of civil war), I think, or are we living in the middle age. Bush declared war on terrorism? You can fight terrorism, but you canīt make war against it. War on terrorism is a western media populisation.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 10:34 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Peace is bad if it means NOT stopping someone from harming another or yourself. Would it be a crime for a women to use violence to prevent someone from attacking her childern? Of course not, rather it we be wrong if she did not do everything in her power to prevent an attacker from harming her childern.

Should Police officers be allowed to use force to combat and enforce the law against criminals in their communities? Of course. Should the FBI be allowed to use force to stop a multi-state murderer and stop other threats to society? Of course. Should the military be allowed to use force to protect its countries citizens or the citizens of multiple countries? Of course. Should passengers on a hijacked airliner be allowed to fight back against the hijackers? Of course.

People in Europe and elsewhere believed in peace at any cost in the 1930s. The world definitely payed for that decision.
I thought at least you know the difference between force and war. :surprised:

And not all Europeans believed in peace in the 30s. Hitler, for example, didnīt.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 10:42 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonoman
The talk that the US govt is talking is only being backed by the Brits. France and Germany said they wont help Russia is always on the fence, Canada wont go unless the UN aproves so who does that leave them with. IN the last few weeks i have seen Peace prevail.
Not from where I sit, unfortunately. Australia is on board with the US as always. The ships left this week. Not that you'll likely hear about it.

I hope it can be averted.
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
Old 01-24-2003, 11:10 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 10:51 PM
Melon-- I am not exactly sure what you mean that the end of postmodernism has arrived... I mean, modernism existed from the European Renaissance until 1945, right? It seems to me that postmodernism is still, in fact, in its infancy... yet it also seems to me that postmodernism takes a very accelerated pace in cultural/social/technological advancement... (like a drunk driver speeding down curvy lanes).

Anyhow... back to the main question: peace.

(Ideally and oversimplified) I think peace can only come when all the people in the world realizes that they have a responsibility, not only in their family, community, state, or country, but the whole global world around them. We as individuals cannot always think about screwing the other guy, albeit social-economically, politically, or whatever.

Through communication and action toward a common global goal for basic human rights, we must achieve global interdependence to reach those goals.

BUT the issues are deeper than that... Because we should bridge the gap between the poor and the rich, the uneducated and the educated, the powerless and the all-too powerful... Think how much more productive a global society could be, if these gaps were bridged... And I'm not talking only about helping Third World countries, but initiatives that should be taken within our own countries, for the poor, homeless, and disenfranchised (for how can a country help another, if their own country is in disorder?)... However, such measures (domestic and foreign) should be simultaneously taken in every country... there is no time to do anything one at a time-- This is the apocalyptic tyranny of the urgent we're talking about here.

Bono once quoted a Seamus Heaney poem to the Pope.

The poem went like this in form of a catechism:

Q: Who is thy neighbor?
A: All of mankind.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 11:27 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by theSoulfulMofo
Melon-- I am not exactly sure what you mean that the end of postmodernism has arrived... I mean, modernism existed from the European Renaissance until 1945, right? It seems to me that postmodernism is still, in fact, in its infancy... yet it also seems to me that postmodernism takes a very accelerated pace in cultural/social/technological advancement... (like a drunk driver speeding down curvy lanes).
Well, you bring up a good question. The "modernism" I speak of, from a philosophical standpoint, is generally accepted as existing between c. 1890/1900 to 1970. Like many terms, it is overused, much to our confusion.

To me, postmodernism's peak was 1980-2000, with technological revolution and information bombardment. With the decline of the Clintonian economic prosperity (which, ironically, was media hype--exactly what postmodernism likes to study). There are different paradigms that we must work with now that make the postmodernist ethic seem outdated: a resurgence of moralism, technology to limit technology, etc.

But the above is merely my opinion anyway, and for me to pass it off as anything else but that would be wrong.

But I digress...as you were...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 12:15 AM   #25
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox
I think I get the point. Instead of pointing fingers as to who caused what, which no nation can really do as all have drunk their fair share of bloodshed, look at earth as one big nation/race/tribe/whatever.

If we could get the whole world sold on peace, then there is no Hitler, no Stalin etc etc. and hence no need for intervention.

It is mankind's belief in general that violence acheives positive objectives that bred these individuals and allowed them to flourish.

War to stop them is just a band-aid, and it is rooted in violence which perpetuates even more violence.

Peace IS the answer, its getting everyone sold on that concept that is the hard part.

Folks... again.. some of you are STRAYING off the path....
gabrielvox said it quite well.

The key is EDUCATION. Educating the world is no small task, i'm aware... but it is the solution. Educating people about the holocaust, people carbonized during the gulf war, and the drop of the atomic bomb.... pictures... stories... they educate.

PEACE is logical. WAR is not logical.

Imagine that you're on a ladder, but you're not allowed to just stand still and hold on. You can move up or down - thats all. Of course, in this scenario, the goal is to get to the top 'Peace', whereas 'War' and chaos are at the bottom. Up or Down. Those are your choices.

If the world's overall philosophy becomes that of PEACE, then people like Hitler would never be allowed to rise to power.... or perhaps even share such horrific ideas.

And yes... a thought to kill someone... is a crime. Why is it a crime? Because it's not peaceful - you'd be going down the ladder.

Just because you have a philosophy of peace, does not mean you would be without police, and those that enforce the law (possibly global law).

I think the reason people and countries fear losing sovereignty is a simple matter of ego and protectionism. People want to know that everyone else is sacrificing the same amount that they are, if they are... and they wont unless they are convinced of that. It's a catch 22. It's called greed.
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 01:35 AM   #26
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wallyworld
Posts: 571
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


And not all Europeans believed in peace in the 30s. Hitler, for example, didnīt.
Hitler was who Sting2 was refering to when he suggested that the world paid for Europe's "peace at any cost" mindset of the 1930s.
__________________
Clark W. Griswold, Jr is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 02:42 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Elvis



Folks... again.. some of you are STRAYING off the path....
gabrielvox said it quite well.

The key is EDUCATION. Educating the world is no small task, i'm aware... but it is the solution. Educating people about the holocaust, people carbonized during the gulf war, and the drop of the atomic bomb.... pictures... stories... they educate.

PEACE is logical. WAR is not logical.

Imagine that you're on a ladder, but you're not allowed to just stand still and hold on. You can move up or down - thats all. Of course, in this scenario, the goal is to get to the top 'Peace', whereas 'War' and chaos are at the bottom. Up or Down. Those are your choices.

If the world's overall philosophy becomes that of PEACE, then people like Hitler would never be allowed to rise to power.... or perhaps even share such horrific ideas.

And yes... a thought to kill someone... is a crime. Why is it a crime? Because it's not peaceful - you'd be going down the ladder.

Just because you have a philosophy of peace, does not mean you would be without police, and those that enforce the law (possibly global law).

I think the reason people and countries fear losing sovereignty is a simple matter of ego and protectionism. People want to know that everyone else is sacrificing the same amount that they are, if they are... and they wont unless they are convinced of that. It's a catch 22. It's called greed.

Elvis,

Some are educated in WAR and seem to long for it.


Quote:
Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2003


They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.

If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.

"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.

In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.

The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.

"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.

Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.

If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.

Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.

Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 02:55 AM   #28
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



Elvis,

Some are educated in WAR and seem to long for it.



'Some' shouldnt have the power that they do.
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 03:45 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 AM
HIPHOP,

Force is force, whether its a police action in a city that involves violence, or a police action in against a foreign country. Only the size or scale is different.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 01:56 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:51 AM
Oh, STING2, so that means the police is the same like the military? Bc both use force? You start to confuse me, mon.

War is war, and force is force. Force is not war.
Police is police, and military is military. Police is not military.

Police is the executive power of most countries, you also got a lawgiver and jurisprudence that controls executive power and vice versa. Police could not exist without lawgiver and jurisprudence. Military can exist without government and without court of justice. Military goverments, f.e. provide all three functions in one, and therefore are not very democratic.

Clark W Griswold: oh yeeeeessss... I must have missed that point?!?

And now, lets stop that. This thread, please let it be about

Peace
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com