WAR
 

I've said this a few times, to many people, in order to spark interest in pursuit of my dream: I believe that all war can be ended in one generation.
Naive? Maybe. Impossible? No way. There have been so many bells rung in the history of mankind that cannot be unrung, and this continues today. I refuse to accept that I was born into a world where war is just something you have to get used to. It's unacceptable that war happens.

So we'll start with step 1: One of my favorite John Lennon quotes was "give peace a chance". I dare you to argue with that ideal. So I think we can all agree that peace is better than war.

Step 2: For those who make war, why do you do it? What makes war a better alternative than peace? Why is killing someone going to achieve a greater good in your mind?

Step 3: How can we stop war?

Honestly, I'm sick of it and I've only been alive for the span of maybe 50 wars. Some people out there are in their 80s and 90s and have been alive for the span of hundreds upon hundreds of wars. Well, not on my watch.

Kucinich has proposed legislation creating a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Non-Violence. It currently has 60some co-sponsors:

http://www.thepeacealliance.org/imag...50_support.jpg

Highlights of the bill:
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/20/68/

Full text of the bill:
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/278/23/

It certainly deserves further discussion.

That was what I was looking for! Thanks DC.

war will always exist because there will always be people that will figure out that they can use force and threats of violence to obtain a personal objective.

So give up? Comon, you can do better than that.

Will, I love this topic.

In my opinion, peace needs to be profitable and I think it can be if we frame "taxation" as "investment" in our future. Eisenhower's warning of the military/industrial complex went unheeded and has left us with a war based economy supported by our political structure of *owned* representatives.

The extraordinary excess that we spend on the military could be redirected into infrastructure, education, research, health care...so many things. We could become a self-supported country once again with a vision of domestic growth v. foreign domination and conflict. Tactical use of our military against extremists is a proven failure and we should address that threat from a criminal perspective.

The first step in accomplishing any of this is public financed elections. Once the near constant need to raise money for the next election is eliminated, we might finally have public servants that actually have the best interests of the country in mind.

Pollyanna Pen

Pen, you're a smart lady! I like that a lot. A peace industrial complex, perhaps?

Elphaba, I think you have correctly identified that the driving force here is commercial/industrial, not necessarily political. I can't even begin to imagine what sort of solutions would be required to effect change.

As long as people crave money and power there will be war. :( It is a sad truth.

Well, in that direction, one could argue that the economic consideration is only a problem because morality lost out to money.

I can do better than that. I am realistic that it will still exist since it is part of the human condition. War will always exist, just like disease.

The best I know that I can do is to try to protect the weaker from being warred upon.

How do we stop war? Well, maybe by making the penalty for war-mongering so severe that none would dare try it. In other words, a real peace backed by threat of real violence.

Or, to eliminate war, you would probably want to eliminate some of the driving factors.

Greed/want - Desperate situations fuel desperate measures. Eliminating poverty would probably help reduce some of the drive for war.

Education/tolerance - educating people and having people being more tolerant of each other would go a long way in reducing the desire to kill each other over arbitrary phenotypical, cultural, and philosophical differences.

Of course there are exceptions so we would need an enforcer/keeper of the peace to ensure no outliers or madmen try to take advantage of a peaceful populace.

And if you had an enforcer, you would then need a balancer so that the enforcer would not corrupt (or corrupt easily).

What or how this enforcer would be, I don't know. I suppose if it were that easy we would be doing it already.

War will always exist, eh? Why's that?
How would you protect Iraqi farmers from 7 humvees full of 18 year old Americans armed to the teeth?

Like bombing a weapon factory? I mean what organization, with the ability to punish the most powerful militaries in the world, could do this? The people, I suppose, but that would take organization not seen in a long time. I like that, though. Admittedly, it seems like killing someone for killing, but it's an interesting idea.
Bingo. This is about addressing the roots. Like Elphaba said, war doesn't just happen for no reason. There are vast socio-economic reasons. These each need to be addressed seriously.

HUMAN CONDITION. You must get rid of all the 7 deadly sins, Pride, Anger, Greed, Gluttony, Lust, Envy, Sloth before wars will be averted. Any of those human conditions can easily trigger warring behaviors which ultimately lead to wars.

Well, in your pretty flowery sky world, apparently laws and dogma would work, so in your question, it should be laws and dogma that protect the Iraqi farmers. Which for the most part, currently does protect Iraqi farmers from 7 humvees full of 18 year old Americans who are armed to the teeth.

"War. War never changes."

"In the end... even war surrenders."

...

I was in Iraq. I was in Afghanistan. Years of my life.

PLEASE... SOMEBODY SHOW ME WHERE THE F*CKIN' "WAR" IS...

This topic belongs in Tilted Philosophy with the "WUD U HAV SEX WITH GOD??" topics. War cannot be eliminated, as others have said. To pretend otherwise is naive to the extreme. For potential scenarios in an attempt to forcibly eliminate war, look to film.

My favorite is when people try to define war.

Where does it start? Where does it end?

What does it taste like? Where does it sleep?

I must be misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that we will always wage war because of god or the bible? This would suggest that religion is the reason behind war, and thus a world free of religion would be free of war. Is that really what you mean to say? I somehow doubt it.
Laws and dogma haven't. In my flowery world, however, I take real steps to stop not just the war, but all war. I don't know exactly how many people I've talked out of joining the military. I don't know how many times I've been out on the street protesting. I don't know how many times I've written someone in power, trying to get them to understand they need to be responsible. I can't say for sure what impact I've had, but I know it's more than zero.

Cromp: war is wherever there is a state of violent, large scale conflict between two or more groups of people (wiki). When you were bravely doing what you did in Iraq, you were at war. When you were doing hat you did in Afghanistan, you were at war.

If you want to talk in circles about stuff you don't care about, go right ahead. Do it in another thread, please.

You can't read suddenly? Where do I write God or religion? I stated HUMAN CONDITION. People have pride, anger, greed, gluttony, lust, envy and sloth. Those have nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with the human condition
Sure it is, it is YOUR flowery dogma that convinced someone to not join the military. It is your dogma that makes you protest, it is your dogma that makes you write someone in power.

And for every action you take, there is someone out there that takes the opposite of your action because they too feel impassioned about it conversely to you.

Apparently, I read better than you:
These "7 deadly sins" aren't just featured in Morgan Freeman movies. The 7 deadly sins are a part of early Christian and currently Catholic dogma. Catholicism is a sect of Christianity, which is a type of religion. That's where you wrote god and religion. That's where you wrote god and religion. That's where you wrote god and religion.
I already know it's not everyone's prerogative to end war, but I wonder, if given the opportunity to explore their thoughts, if people would actually come to the conclusion that killing people over things like money, land, power, and sex is wrong.

I would argue that war occurs when one party perceives that they will draw some benefit from attacking the other party. If we want to end war we must remove that benefit, or counteract the benefit with a greater cost.

We could end war tomorrow if we wished to do so. Simply give each nation a dozen ICBMs. The benefit that any country would receive would be completely outweighed by the prospect of a dozen of their cities being obliterated.

Damn, I can't even be facetious anymore.

(shakes bruised fist at Wikipedia)

WillRavel:

If you were there, bro... your idea of "war" would change.

If you get REALLY bored... look up "ISAF" and American involvement in such on Wiki.

I'm pretty familiar with NATO. Here's my idea: in war one will always have a belief that one side is bad, but what you should be thinking is one side is worse. Like in the Israel/Palestine thing. No matter which side of that you come down on, you can't deny that both are wrong. I'm very pro Palestine (because I'm a centerist on the issue), but I recognize that every time a Palestinian opens fire or blows himself up, he is doing wrong.

:shakehead: No, apparently you JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS better than me. Reading better? Words that don't exist in the text that I wrote?

You brought that luggage to the conversation not me.

All of those human conditions pre-existed Christianity in Greek Tradgedies well before the life and times of Jesus Christ by about 500 years and well before the first pages of the bible were even put in writing. Read back to Greek myths, you'll see the same themes, Aesop's Fables has some 600+ short stories that emphasis the human condition as being flawed with those at the very root of the lesson.

I stated simply it is the human condition that will continue future wars. Exploring their thoughts for what touchy feeling kumbaya hippy shit? Fuck that, no one thinks wars are right. They think their needs for the human condition are right and justifiable.

Look up the term that you used: seven deadly sins. Look it up. Just go look it up.

Do you really think gluttony is a cause for war?

Um, both of you can be correct.

Yes the Seven Deadly Sins have a religious context and yes, the seven deadly sins have a context outside of religion.

Bottom line: the seven deadly sins ARE certainly human conditions. Very basic. Very powerful.

Cynth, your posts are closer to reality, yes of course. But I believe the purpose of Will's "exercise" or "thought experiment" is hypothetical and meant to provoke discussion no matter how seemingly absurd. He is challenging us to put aside our "realsims" in way to think outside the box. Pan did this once too in a thread meant to explore breaking partisanship.

Just because the human condition seems primed for war and destruction, and history would tell us so, doesn't necessarily mean we have to be bound by it.

Yes, gluttony can be a cause for war. I would argue that "gluttony" is closer to "greed", and that "greed" is closer to "avarice". For me, that context would make more sense (from a cassus belli standpoint).

I know plenty about the seven deadly sins. I wrote what I wrote the way I wanted the reader to read it. I didn't say anything about "And God said," or "The pope said..." Funny how you also tossed in the original gangster of reading Easy Reader who only read what was Chyroned onto the screen and nothing more and nothing less.

Yes, gluttony is a cause for war. Warlords in Ethopia is a good example withholding food and supplies for themselves to control. America keeping an eye on its own oil interests. Iraq invading Kuwait for the oil stores. Indian Wars in the Americas for the land and resources of the lands.

The only way to have "peace" is to remove the part that is the X factor in the equation. That is to remove the human condition. If you can remove that, then you can achieve "peace" but I also think that the seven deadly sins are things that keep us alive and kicking. They are the things that make us human beings and without them we are without souls but just automatons.

We all need some pride otherwise, why do worthy things? Will does things that give him great pride like protesting wars, writing letters to government officials, etc, but not too much pride that he's big headed about them. Greed to some degree is good as is lust. It is the degree at which these affect us as individuals. The amount that I can tolerate is not the same as what will can tolerate and what either of us could be way below what you are able to tolerate.

I loved that thread.
Jorgeito gets it. :thumbsup: I appreciate you articulating it better than I.

My friends keep getting hurt. I keep hearing about atrocities committed by simple people who wouldn't normally hurt a fly. I want to do something about it and I honestly believe that most people want to do good.

Okay, speaking to the human condition:
We all have in us the ability to take a life in cold blood. This is one of those things you learn in psych 101. It's a really sad fact, but it's something to bear in mind because it's really important in understanding the way the human mind works. Here's the thing: not everyone does take a life. As a matter of fact, on the whole very few people take a life. It's about consciously making the decision whether or not to take a life. This may come as a surprise, but if I can help it I will never take a life. I don't think I have the right to take the life of anyone but myself. I know it's difficult to imagine that kind of decision being made on a massive scale, but doing so gives me hope.
I'm not talking about removing conflict, I'm talking about removing war. I suspect that conflict may always be with humanity. War, on the other hand, is the biggest and worst form of conflict (besides maybe genocide, which can result from war). Yes, there may be no way to ever end fights, but to escalate to war.... don't you think that may be a different story?
They are a part of the human psyche, sort of, but it's how we respond to these things that count. As you said, pride can be a great motivator or reward for good.

That's for you to not want to be willing to take another life. I crossed that line long ago when I picked up my first firearm. I knew at that moment I was able to quickly and decisively wipe another life off the planet in one second flat. I accepted that responsibility with the next shot I squeezed off.

I will protect me and mine, and if that means you don't get to live another day, that is my choice and decision. It does not mean I will sleep well at night, but it does mean I will sleep while the other individual is dead.

But you are making this not about conflict but about war. What is the definition of war? Crompsin seems to have been within the "conflict" but cannot locate the war. At what point does a conflict change and become war? And why is then a conflict acceptable for carnage and death?

As far as some small examples, how does the gangs in your neck of the woods operate? In my world from the gangs of Los Angeles to the crime families in NYC. They sometimes have skirmishes or conflicts, but sometimes they have all out wars.

Again, I have to say that the human condition creates the conflict, the human condition expands it to war.

People kill others for any reason, so far in the 16 years I have lived in the NY area, people have been killed for $.25, sneakers, leather jacket, ipod, looked at them the wrong way, no reason but being in the same subway car, bestf friend jealousy over a girl, complaining about the noise as someone was working.

I can't help but think that's war. Everyone has an amazing justification for why they need to kill someone. I've heard quite a few. We've all heard Bush go on. I'm sure everyone who's ever taken a life can claim that "freedom" or "protecting my country/family/friends/etc." was a valid reason. So if this hypothetical phantom bent on killing you and your family steps over that line, you've already made up your mind that you're taking his life.

What if you were the last person on the planet willing to make that claim? What if it was you who stood between war and peace?
And they're wrong, of course. I wonder, what works better for stopping gangs: prevention or reaction?
That's after a million levels of conflict, though. It's not like conflict, then war. I would think that there can be, somewhere between conflict and war, a time when someone can stop the escalation.
And those things can be prevented. Poverty breeds desperation. Without poverty, that desperation subsides. I'd say the cold blood killings come from mental illness. That can also be prevented.

[QUOTE=willravel]I can't help but think that's war. Everyone has an amazing justification for why they need to kill someone. I've heard quite a few. We've all heard Bush go on. I'm sure everyone who's ever taken a life can claim that "freedom" or "protecting my country/family/friends/etc." was a valid reason. So if this hypothetical phantom bent on killing you and your family steps over that line, you've already made up your mind that you're taking his life.

What if you were the last person on the planet willing to make that claim? What if it was you who stood between war and peace?
You may think that these are phantoms. Maybe you don't know about such things because you don't see them firsthand. Maybe you don't think about them because you didn't have family members who were beheaded. No, there are many stories, but to you there is no justification for the retribution. While that dogma and standard works for you, it does not work for many others. Ask a Palastinian or a Lebanese about the Israeli soldier that took their family member's life. Or the Jew who's children were just playing in the street, or the man who's wife was just on the bus going to work.

Poverty is only but one aspect I posted, Jealousy? the deadly sin Lust, men have started wars over a piece of ass. Can the jealousy of affections of another be prevented? I don't think so. Brother has fough brother, in literature Cain versus Abel.

I think it's great that you believe that it may one day stop. But I'm a realist, and see that history has shown that we cannot. All I have to do is look at the human condition as it is before it is educated. Look a some children with some toys, you suddenly haves and have nots, and wants begin to bubble over until one child takes something from someone else.

give up? it's called accepting reality. with 8 billion people on the planet, you will NEVER acquire total peace. there will always be the human nature of greed, selfishness, and lust for power.

The solution to stopping war is the same solution to quitting smoking: you just stop. There's nothing to it but to do it. It really is that simple.

What about accepting the reality that your house might be broken into? You didn't just lay back and accept that reality. You have guns.

you accept the reality currently of war, you go to marches and protests. I don't get what your point is.

I just got lost also.

Short of miraculous outside influence, Humans will create warfare until we grow up dramatically as a species. Just as children generally act up unless controlled,so do we on a larger scale.

I for one, would welcome our peaceful overlords

Peace takes far more work than war. It requires collaboration and compromise. The only real way of eliminating war is to move beyond materialism, both religious and non-religious. Materialism isn't the only factor, but is certainly is the biggest.

It's about taking proactive action in order to help the situation that you recognize as a problem, instead of just laying back an accepting it as something you can't change.
I suppose it could be possible to stage something, but I was hoping for stuff like Elphaba, DC, jorgelito and Eatrip. I would think that this would be about finding the problem then looking for solutions to those problems.
Well, I was discussing addressing poverty before. Do you suppose ending poverty, worldwide (which I'm not suggesting would be easy), would deal with the materialism thing? Or are you talking in more generalisms?

I have this Icelandic saying hanging in my office...
it translates to:

Spoiler: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

vit til að greina þar á milli. ....