Peace?

[Elvis]

Originally.. I posted this in my journal. Too 'deep' I guess

I've avoided the news, the papers, tv, even the radio.. I've avoided as much 'news' as possible. Of course... the important stuff seems to slip into my world of vision some how...

But, some how I missed the start of a new movement, one I've predicted would come about for quite a long time, and suddenly I feel like I've been in a cave.

350,000 people 'marched' not far from where I lived less than 2 yrs ago... all supporting Peace... the new anti-war movement is on the rise, mainstream media is trying to ignore it, but it's _all over_ the net. Yet, some how, being the net'head I am, I've missed it all.

I don't support Iraq, and I don't particulary support 8u5h. I don't support war, well not for the latest of reasons anyway, but I know it's going to happen.

People had thought that the 60's were a social revolution, and perhaps that's true, and since 94(ish) we've been gifted the title of the Information Revolution.... but what happens when the flow of information collides with the outcry for social change? SOCIAL CHANGE, read that again, SOCIAL CHANGE. People, and a great many of them, are seeing things in view of a global society, not greedy gov'ts, not the leaders (or dictators) that are their head of state.

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

So idealistic.
But if enough people want it, why can't it become a reality?
Perhaps it can. Perhaps it will. But I fear we'll see much destruction before we reach those days. Sometimes things must get worse, to make us realize that they MUST get better.

Can war be justified? For natural resources? for power? for peace?

... this is only the beginning.

Intelligent responses only... please.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Can war be justified?
Is there ever absolutely no alternative?
Does anyone actually know the answer to that? We only think, we dont really know.

 

[Dreadsox]

Nice post....

I believe that the information age has changed me. I do much more reading of information from Foreign News. I find that I am working to try and get a more Global Perspective on the issues of the day. Where as before, I would rely on the nightly news, or the paper.

People look at me now wondering where I am getting my perspective from (HEHE No comments please). I think that our media is being manipulated at times. I find that some stories about my country are in the headlines 24-48 hours before they reach our ears in the mainstream media.

I think months ago, I was much more eager to support the President. Especially back in September and October. Today, based on what I would consider a more Global View than I had, I would say I am more inclined to lean towards peace.

Is this a Social Change based on the Information age? In my opinion Yes.

The problem, as I see it, is some countries still control the information. The manipulation of the media for ratings is a problem. People without access to the information is a problem.

These will hinder the progress of the Social Information Age.

 

[hiphop]

I think that the peace and the social change you?re talking of can?t happen on a large, global scale at the moment. The power structures are too powerful.

But everyone can make a change. Actually our "leaders" can get away with everything - but it depends at which cost. That means that f.e. when a movement like the one in Seattle rises, or the Social World Forum (see another thread), people become more aware of thigs. This is not really dangerous for those in power, but could be... well, a little dangerous in the future, bc people get too educated and too eager to stand up for their rights. Or even more important, it could hurt sales. So, in order to keep the system up, those who are in power think its better to make some slight adjustments, so that "the dominating system" gets 0,001% fairer for a little period of time.

Then, I think you can make a change, too. If you want "no countries, nothing to kill or die for, no religion", you can retreat. in your mind there is no country, your mind is free. If you buy a place and go to live with some people who are the same like you, you may be officially part of a country, but don?t really have to care about that (except of some organisation for infrastructure etc.). So, it can become a reality for you. On a small scale. The more people who follow that thought, the more free this world will be.

War can never be justified, in my opinion.

And yes... this is just the beginning.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Great posts, all.

I've always appreciated how (I think it was) Pope John Someone put it: If you want peace, work for justice.

There isn't peace because human beings are sinful, greedy, scared, sick and starving. When we fix that, there will be peace.

Cheryl

 

[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.

that being said, do I think we need to fight Iraq? No. The Wall St. Journal did a poll recently and more people are against than if favor of a war with Iraq. A large number of people feel that the president must PROVE that Iraq is a terrorist threat before we go after them.

And in the UN, most countries are getting fed up with the U.S.'s stance that we have to go to war, that there is no other way. We're losing more respect day by day in the international community.

But as I said in an earlier post here, Elvis, I totally understand your position and I appreciate your well-thought out words. I don't think we need a peace sign on the Interference page though. We are a diverse group of people with a diverse group of ideas. Just because we're U2 fans doesn't mean we all agree on this issue and I respect anyone's opinion here even if it disagrees with mine.

 

[Elvis]

I don't think we need a peace sign on the Interference page though. We are a diverse group of people with a diverse group of ideas. Just because we're U2 fans doesn't mean we all agree on this issue and I respect anyone's opinion here even if it disagrees with mine.

Disagree with peace (the overall concept)?
Let me think about that a moment.


To think that some individuals believe that the world MUST have war, hate, violence, crime, etc.
That REALLY scares me.

Peace, Love, Kindness, Respect....
are these not basic principals?

I'm not talking religion here, or national patriotism. I'm talking REALLY basic concepts of humanity and common sense. .... and don't argue with me that it's common sense to blow up buildings, kill people, and threaten nuclear war (not to mention start it).

So... here again... I pose the question....
can war be justified?

can war be justified to bring an end to those nations/groups that believe PEACE can NEVER happen, and WAR (etc) must?

can war be justied to achieve the greater good of peace?


Someone... please... present a logical, and intelligent argument that PEACE is bad.
I dare you to try.

 

[bonoman]

Peace isnt bad and i really dont think anyone in their right mind would ever think that. But war can be justified to prevent further death. Was the A-bomb justified, it did kill many but saved so many more.

War is something that the world has become acustom too, which IMO is sad. But we havent had an large scale war since deset storm, and many wouldnt consider that a all out war. 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. IMO war in Iraq will not happen. Many will call me crazy but i think that there will be a war this year. I have seen peace say we need a imediate and exteremly dangerous threat to commit to war.

Peace in my opinion is a idea that can will never be established. For reasons that are so simple. There are crazy people out there and they will do crazy things and to stop them sometimes we must use force. Just like if there is a man with a gun on your city street and he refuses to give up and keeps shooting we must use force to stop him.

PS Sharky, the 3000 killed that you are refering to in your post, that isnt from 9/11 is it. Because the number is much lower then that.

 

[pax]

I've always appreciated how (I think it was) Pope John Someone put it: If you want peace, work for justice.

Pope Paul VI, actually.

 

[Dreadsox]

Someone... please... present a logical, and intelligent argument that PEACE is bad.
I dare you to try.

OK....I love a challenge....

Would it have been better for the United States to have chosen PEACE over intervention in World War 2? Or would that have been BAD?

I do not have time to thoroughly argue this one...but lets start here......

 

[sharky]

PS Sharky, the 3000 killed that you are refering to in your post, that isnt from 9/11 is it. Because the number is much lower then that.

Roughly 2800 in the World Trade Center, 150 at the Pentagon, 200 on four planes is actually more than 3000.

As for justifying war, if I had to choose between the two I would always choose peace. But what could have happened if we didn't put Osama bin Laden on the run? We had a potential shoe bomber on a plane, deadly risin in the U.K. and who knows what else where else.

And let's get away from just the death numbers. NYC is reaching near-record highs in their unemployment rate because tourists don't come here and jobs aren't moving here. Because we lost tax money from the Trade Center and the people who worked there, the city had to make deep cuts in education spending. Because of all the money the city has to pay to widows, they threatened to close the fire station a block away from my apartment as well as several others. We were not only terrorized that day, but we've had to compromise education, safety and jobs because of what happened.

If we go to war to stop the spread of terrorism, if we can prevent one person from dying, is it worth it? You don't know what it was like to be in NYC that day so please don't say that watching what happened on TV that day gave you a good perspective about what it means to be terrorized.

Is war with Iraq justified? I haven't seen proof and I won't support an attack on Iraq until there is proof that they were involved with the terror attacks. But if they were involved, if they do support al Qaeda, if we have to choose between protecting our people and being terrorized, what should we choose?

 

[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.

 

[Zoomerang96]

im starting to disagree with sting2s last two sentances.

though ofcourse they did pay terribly for it, i believe proper intervention before the situation got so out of hand could have prevented a war to begin with.

it all started when the nazi's took the rhineland (demilitarized zone serving as a buffer between france and germany after ww1), there should have been serious consequences. however, none were taken, and the nazis managed to somehow annex 4 different zones and countries without having to fire a single bullet.

if there was a strong stance on the entire situation at the beginning, they would not dared to have gone outside their borders in 1939.

nazi germanys militairy was not all that strong until about 1937 or so, and they were really only ready for war when they started it on sept 1 of 39.

just a thought. but sting2, id hate for you to think that im disagreeing with the fact that europe suffered for playing with hitlers antics for too long, cause thats not what im trying to do.

 

[Elvis]

I think some of u are missing the point.

Peace is an over all concept, not just a solution to a dictator.. etc

 

[speedracer]

though ofcourse they did pay terribly for it, i believe proper intervention before the situation got so out of hand could have prevented a war to begin with.

As in, non-violent proper intervention? I'm not sure what the world could have done to stop Hitler short of engaging in combat.

 

[gvox]

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.

 

[speedracer]

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.

 

[BostonAnne]

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[hiphop]

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 can?t make war against it. War on terrorism is a western media populisation.

 

[hiphop]

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, didn?t.

 

[Kieran McConville]

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.

 

[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).

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[Elvis]

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.

 

[Clark W. Griswold Jr]

And not all Europeans believed in peace in the 30s. Hitler, for example, didn?t.

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.

 

[deep]

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.

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.

 

[Elvis]

Elvis,

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

'Some' shouldnt have the power that they do.

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[hiphop]

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