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. ....

Poverty is a big issue that causes a lot of unrest, but it isn't the only thing I was referring to. Think the Middle East and the unrest caused over specific pieces of land. Is it worth going to war over "sacred land"? And, non-religiously, is it worth going to war to secure oil reserves because you don't want to change your excessive way of life? The "American way of life," which might very well be deemed more "sacred" to some than Jerusalem to others.

The French have a saying, too: we surrender. I'm not willing to give up on something because it seems extremely difficult. I'm not comparing myself to JFK, but going to the moon was once considered by MOST people to be completely impossible. Mankind split the atom. We've cured plagues, and we even got Marisa Tomei an Oscar. It just takes the will to act. Maybe all war being over forver isn't step one. Maybe step 1 is having a whole week without war. Step 2 is having a month. Then we go from there. I'm not willing to give up on something this good because it's too big or too hard.

BTW, that's what my wife said last night.
I still see these things as solvable problems. One way or another, the US will eventually have to stop using oil. It's an inevitability. Oil is finite in the world, and will run out. Same with coal and natural gas. It's not a question of if but when people will have to stop using these things. As for religious entitlement: people can get entitled about anything. It's one facet of selfishness. The idea would be, simply, promoting consideration of others. The golden rule is said to have predated written word.

I can't believe I'm the first one to say this. It's a political science staple:

War is the prosecution of politics by other means

As long as we have politics, we will have war. People have conflicts. Nations have conflicts. Until you can stop bar fights, gangs and professional basketball, you'll have war.

Will, you have a noble goal, albeit unattainable. It is certainly something to work toward so long as you understand that it will never happen in your or any of your decendant's lifetimes, just like poverty. I see nothing wrong with trying to wipe it out so long as you realize that someone will always have something that someone else wants.

I'm telling you, the Buddhists have it right. If the problem of war is ever solved, I'm confident that what helped bring about that outcome will be parallel to what Buddhists have been trying to teach us all along.

Do you think we, as a species, can go without war for a year? Maybe not indefinitely, but for a fixed amount of time?

If everyone was a real buddhist, war would probably end. I agree, Baraka.

With 7,000,000,000 of us? No. Sorry. If we magically stopped all war today, I'm sure a new one would spring up very quickly. There are just too many motivating factors.

The problem is that just like Christians, a lot of Buddhists only pay lip service to the truth of the message.

From the Dhammapada VIII Thousands:
Greater in battle
than the man who would conquer
a thousand-thousand men,
is he who would conquer
just one --
himself.


Will, I don't think a period of absolutely no war is plausible... just like that: "let's try a week of no war." There are too many factors, reasons, conditions, what have you, making it impossible to "orchestrate" that kind of peace. The very suggestion is a hopeful "what if" scenario, but I don't think it is realistic. What I do feel is realistic, however, is that those with the most power would do well to be the first to embark on a lifestyle of peace. For example, if the U.S. were to suddenly take on a role of compassionate benefactor, they would be influential enough to encourage other powerful nations to do the same. This would possibly trigger a chain reaction, especially if you consider the amplitude of compassion if it played a role in international relations and trade. Take away the misery of even the most turbulent nations, and you just might take away the reasons to kill.

What a defeatist thing to say. Just because there are Buddhists who aren't rooted in action as true Buddhists should be, it doesn't mean the Buddhist teachings should be overlooked. I read a story of a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who was forced to fight against the Americans during the war. He spend his time trying his best to shoot over their heads so as not to harm them, while making it look like he was fighting them. Not everyone could be expected to act in the same way, but certainly this is an inspirational story that would encourage us to improve the world. We don't all need to be Buddhas, but we would do well to integrate his teachings. They are universal. He doesn't own them; he discovered them as our underlying reality.

Translation: The_Jazz gives up. I keep getting this message from people. War is a reality, deal with it. Sorry, but no thanks. I'm not interested in unbacked statements about the nature of man being unchangeable. What if this is possible, but it's never been done for a lack of trying? I can't back that up, of course, but neither can anyone back up the claim that there will always be war.

Edit: I know how fantastic this all sounds, but just dismissing it isn't going to do anything. What harm is there in trying?
Exactly! This is what I'm talking about.

BTW, I'm not talking about ending murder. I'm talking about ending war. War, I think we can all agree, is much different than war. War cannot be carried out by one person. War is about many people killing together. That's a different ball-game.

As soon as greed, ambition, pride, etc can be controlled or removed at all levels of every society, war might go away.

Be sure to inject everyone or the unmedicated will be fighting serious temptation.

Not sure I'd want to have a beer with those people - would they be people? - but it would be peaceful.

Will, I love Lennon and what he preaches, but the world is not ready for an end to war. I agree with Cyrnal, you would have to eliminate fully all greed, pride, envy, hatreds, prejudices, etc.... and in order to do so you would in turn destroy mankind.

It is like everything in nature, there is positive and negative. without one the other cannot survive because they are codependant on each other.

Neighbors kill each other over land disputes in our cities and rural areas everyday. Family members kill family members over money everyday. Some people thrive only on negativity and cannot be happy until everyone else around them is miserable and doing "bad" things. These people, hatreds and anger will always be present.

The same is true about neighbors helping the other after their house burns down, showing love by volunteering in the community they live, families helping other members and being true "teams" (for lack of a better word). There are people who radiate great beauty and love in life and people like to be around them.


The only thing you can truly change is yourself, in doing so you can teach and show others what living as positively as you can, can do for ones self. Perhaps, you will get followers perhaps not, but you will live a better, happier, life.

I always have believed an old saying and Pacino emphasizes it in Scarface (the restaurant scene near the end when he is losing it and Michelle Pfeiffer leaves him): Without the negatives people would not know the positives and in not knowing the positives, when negative comes, negative will win.

It's great to dream, philosophize and think you can change the nature of man, but you are a fool to think you can do so in just 1 lifetime.

With the advent of quantum physics and everything that it affects, I hope that things like this will prove your wrong. We are living in a world of rapid change; a speed of change that hasn't happened since the renaissance, especially if you consider the growth of global trade at that time.

The world is opening up; we are connecting in ways never before imagined. Cessation of all war in one lifetime? Maybe not. But, then gain, maybe...

YOU DO?!

Buddhists are also violent. No religion is immune to violence. I realize it is trendy and fashionable to bash Christianity, but to generalize in either direction is foolish.

Try it like this:

I'm telling you, the Christians have it right. If the problem of war is ever solved, I'm confident that what helped bring about that outcome will be parallel to what Christians have been trying to teach us all along.

It depends on what you mean by "peace". Do you you mean "peace" in the sense that everybody is respecting one another's individual rights? Or do you mean "peace" simply as the absence of war/conflict?

Europeans could have avoided war in the 1930s/1940s by allowing Hitler to take over their countries, for example. I would prefer war/conflict to that sort of "peace". I think a lot of other people would, too.

Absence of war. 'cuase the name of the thread is war, and that's what I've been saying for the whole thread.
Hitler could have been stopped easily before WWII had the idiots in the UK and France not been so damned afraid of communism and had formed an alliance with the USSR. They all saw what was happening and acted like children.

War can be avoided. ALL war can be avoided.

Really naive. Vikings weren't interested in being peaceful necessarily. They say your stuff and they wanted it, they took it.

One of Aesop's Fables:

From the perspective of the only XX in this conversation, neither war nor disease are inevitable. I was lucky not to contract polio before the vaccine became available. Today, that disease and many others have been all but eradicated. Matriarchal societies were not war driven, as painted by the mythical Amazons. Cyn, I believe the "human" condition that you describe is the Y factor in the equation. That peace is impossible in your world view, does not make it so.

You are lucky to not contract polio. Many mothers are foresaking vaccinations because they think it does more harm than good. Again, there's that human condition, Pride, they think they know better then all those that suffered before them. The guy who traveled to Greece and back with the virulent drug resistent Tuberculosis, he travelled because he thought he knew better and didn't give a shit about anyone else but himself. Another person afflicted with pride. These are just simple examples in both male and female variants.

Mythical Amazons. Warring tribes exist, even in matriachal societies and tribes that did exist in the real world.

If there's a sign up sheet for a matriarchy, I'll be the first with my John Hancock.

It occurs automatically whenever someone marries into my clan. :D

Margaret Thatcher, Condoleeza Rice, Golda Meir - Do we really want to make stereotypical judgments that females are not war driven? Ever get between a woman and her child? You will all but assure war.

Fair enough. I want to live in a matriarchal society because I like being objectified, but that's neither here nor there.

I never claimed that women will not defend their hearth and home. jorgelito, you have only one war monger in your list of three. But then, she has an oil tanker named after her, which is her offspring of choice and in service to her "king".

Do you really believe that a mother defending her child is "war?" That is silly at any level and not worthy of the political arguments I have experienced of you in the past.

War is human nature, it always has been. Ever since the caveman days when they were fighting with clubs and stones, and with mans progression through time, he has been inventing ways to improve on it. I don't think it is really possible to cease the cycle. Too many factors to attempt to stop all wars. Man will always have flaws, whether they are the so called 7 deadly sins, or just lust for total domination of another people.

Not all wars are bad either, what happens when talking does not accomplish goals, when compromise in not an option or feasible?

Also, how many people fighting constitutes a war? Is a border skirmish between tribes considered war?

Going to use a lyric quote from a Springsteen song, " poor man wants to be rich, rich man wants to be king, king aint satisfied till he rules everything"
That is human nature in a nutshell.

Something like war may very well be human nature, but not only is that not an excuse for it happening, but it doesn't make it unstoppable. Had it not been for the actions of brave people, we may very well still be in the Vietnam War.

This type of process, I imagine, will have to work one war at a time. Most people would suggest Iraq or Darfur first, and I'd tend to agree.

Elph, I think you misunderstand me. My point was that war is not the sole purview of the male gender and that women are perfectly capable of "making war". I took exception to the claim that war is a male pastime.

Justine, Catherine the Great, Joan of Arc were all war mongers. I would argue that Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher were certainly war mongers - Yom Kippur, Munich, Falklands were all done at their bidding.

The mother example was an illustration of a woman's capacity for violence, not to be taken as an exact analogy for war. That would indeed be silly to equate the two.

So, bottom line, I am not inclined to believe that this thought experiment regarding the eradication of war in hinged upon gender. I still think the possible solution lies at the more core foundation of our humanity.

Hope that clarifies thing Elph :)

Rather than continuing with the current focus of how peace is impossible, I would like to further Will's OP on how war might be ended.

My first suggestion was to undercut the current war economy by public financing of elections. I concede that this is a mere baby step, and an extremely difficult objective to accomplish. But not impossible.

It is also necessary that other changes must be made. These are not in any particular order:

Pass a law that removes the attribution of a corporation as a "person." The legislation that accorded "all persons" equality (the post civil war amendments) was intended for "natural persons," not commercial entities. (If you are not aware of the importance of this, I would recommend Thom Hartman's website).

Cheney was lying (gee, golly, what a surprise) when he insisted that conservation was irrelevant to our oil dependency. Had Reagan not negated all of Carter's conservation initiatives, we would not be attempting to steal the oil of other countries today. The current wars of US initiation would not have been necessary.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. speaks to our oil "dependency" better than I can:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLy...elated&search=

-------------

I am not an isolationist, but many of my suggestions that end war on the part of the US depends upon our country becoming self-sufficient once again.
More to follow.

Thank you, jorgelito. That is the form of debate that I have always known you for. :)

Of course you are correct that war is not due to humanity alone. I was responding to the arguments that "war will always exist and I have my gun to prove it." Perhaps that is an unfair interpretation of the posts here, but some of them seemed to be dripping with testosterone.

I would like to return to Will's OP in thinking about how we can make war unnecessary. I honestly believe that a peace economy is possible in the US.

Will, I do not want to derail this thread towards Vietnam, but in December of 1972 Nixon started linebacker 2 air raids on North Vietnam, within a matter of weeks North Vietnam was at the cease-fire table, if the US would have fought the entire war this way it would have been over much quicker with very different results.



Will, after we leave Iraq tomorrow, how do you convince the Iraqis not to erupt into a full fledged civil war?

This is hardly as simple as Iraq. This is about ending war, no matter who wages it. If the US wages war, it's wrong. If it's Iraqi civilians and militants divided by sects, the tiny al Qeada presence, or the almost non-existent Iranian influence, it's wrong. This thread is way past taking sides. I was only suggesting that if a movement based on the idea were to take off, the first two projects would probably be either Iraq (not just meaning the US) or Darfur.

Yes there have been and, I'm sure, are violent Buddhists, but they aren't following Buddha's teaching, now, are they?

Although I wouldn't bash Christianity, I would like to point out that there is a difference between looking at the Buddhas teachings and looking at the Bible. First of all, there are far more contradictions in the Bible. Second, the Bible is far more convoluted, metaphoric, and dependent on parables. I wouldn't say that Christians couldn't heal the world, because I believe they could. What I am saying is that Buddha teaches a straightforward, realistic approach to fixing the world's problems. If you disagree, please convince me how the dissemination of this knowledge, whether one knew it was Buddhist or not, wouldn't at least help stop wars:

Four Noble Truths:
1. The Nature of Dukkha: All life is suffering. This is the noble truth of "dukkha": the word "Dukkha" is usually translated as "suffering" in English. Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, sickness is dukkha, death is dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; to get what one does not want is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha. This first Noble Truth reflects on the nature of suffering. It comments on types of suffering, identifying each type in turn. A more accurate simplification of this truth is "Life is full of suffering."

2. The Origin of Dukkha (Samudaya): Suffering is caused by desire. This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: It is craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. The second Noble Truth reflects on the sources of suffering (Dukkha.) Put very simply, it states that suffering results from expectations linked to our desires, and our attachment to those desires themselves.

3. The Cessation of Dukkha (Nirodha): To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire. This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, and non-reliance on it. The third Noble Truth reflects on the belief that suffering can be eliminated. It asserts that it can be done, and that it has been done.

4. The Way Leading to the Cessation of Dukkha (Magga): To eliminate desire follow the Eightfold Path. This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of Dukkha: It is the Noble Eightfold Path.

Eightfold Path:
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

Source: Wikipedia

To quote Albert Einstein, "So long as there are men there will be wars." I agree with the genius. If you want to see an end to war, you will have to end the human race.

I for one would find such a department within our government or within any multinational organization to be most disturbing. I believe George Orwell created a "Ministry of Peace" that in truth did nothing of the sort.

The very name of a department of peace opens itself up to being used to take advantage of the trust of the populace to enforce a peace. Similar things have been done before, after all what could be wrong with a government organization designed to protect. Perhaps even call this organization a "protective team", seems to be no harm there, at least until you translate "protective team" into German. Suddenly you have the term, "Schutzstaffel", which when abbreviated becomes "SS". The SS was created within the National Socialist (Nazi) Party and was responsible for many of the atrocities committed within Nazi Germany. But I guess "protecting" that which is important to your country is a good intention.

How do you give someone power or authority without corrupting that person? Corruption leads to greed, lust, desire for more power, all of which are on the path to war. Take away the power structure and you have anarchy which eliminates the possibility for peace.

War has been started from something big like desire for conquest, something as small as a single murder (World War 1), or something as insignificant as the outcome of a soccer game (1969 between El Salvador and Honduras). In my view, if a war can be started because of the outcome of a sporting event, then it becomes clear to me that people can find any excuse to start a war. If people can find any reason to start a war, then there will always be war, it is inevitable.

will, was this a tacit admission that the threat of violence is a deterrent to violence? or the threat of war is a deterrent to war?

By my count, there are no less than 7 wars currently going on(Afganistan, Iraq, Columbian civil war, Darfur, Ugandan civil war, Chechnya, Sri Lanka), and those are just the ones that I can remember on a Sunday morning on my way to the airport. It also doesn't count a bunch of cold wars like China/Taiwan or India/Pakistan or North Korea/everybody.

Every single one of these is political. No exceptions. Again, war is simple politics persecuted by other means. Complete world peace is a fantastic goal and we should all work towards it (in other words, I'm not the defeatist you accuse me of being, will), but let's recognize that the ONLY solution to the problem is political. If you're going to pursue this goal, you also need to realize that violence is the failure of personal politics.

Reality comes no clearer than this

Will my point isn't that murder will always exist but that the negative emotions that cause murder, greed, envy, lust etc, reasons for murder will always exist.

If they exist then there will always be war because there will always be leaders to prey upon people's fears and project them onto other countries.

To play God an to try to take half of man's nature away, will be to ultimately destroy mankind.

The negatives that start war are the very things we need to recognize the positives and progress.

If I have a very good day, how will I know if I have never had a bad day?

If I love someone, how will I know that it is loveand appreciate it, nurse it, build it and keep it alive, if I do not know what hate is?

If I never fail, how do I know what success is?

It is impossible.

You will always have leaders that want more, that will bring forth greed, lust, desire, fear and so on. As long as we have national leaders like that we will know war.

The only way to get rid of the negative feelings so that there will be no war, is to have every single person on Earth treated the same, fed the same, paid the same, have identical possessions, look/act/believe/ exactly the same, you would have to destroy ALL art, you would have to make everything the exact same, you would have to get rid of colors, sounds, anything that someone may like that another doesn't..... but therein lies the rub, in order to do so, you destroy and take away man's individuality, and I for one, will not give away my individuality. I will kill to save it, I will band with others and we shall fight to the death .... in other words civil war.

Even if everyone did give up their individuality, who would oversee that everyone was the same? There would have to be leaders of some sort (even in a rotation), thus the leaders would be treated differently, to the point where one or a group would like the difference and take over. Of course he would need to treat others differently so that he would have allies, I am sure he would find some.

In doing so, all the greed/lust/anger/hatred/etc would again bubble to surface and war would be inevitable.

Individuals can be peaceful, mankind can have peace for a generation or two... but war is always inevitable, just as peace is always going to be the end result.

the largest obstacle to ending war is that it only takes one to wage. no matter how many billions are peaceful, it only takes one individual/faction/nation/race to start another.

a world without war would have to be one of COMPLETE ideological hegemony. it would, by necessity, be a world of uniform and lobotomized thought.

i know this sounds crazy... but the only scenario that could possibly precipitate a end to intra-human war would be interstellar travel or contact with alien life. only such a momentous discovery could galvanize humanity into a single unit unwilling to cannibilize itself. but, even under those incredible circumstances it's still an unlikely eventuality.

In that case I won't agree that peace is inherently better than war. I value my rights more than I value peace.

Why shouldn't they have feared the USSR? How many millions were killed during Stalin's purges? I wouldn't trust that sort of nation, either.

first off, i dont understand what people are talking about when they use the term "human nature."

i dont think you are talking about anything, really: the term here seems to designate an arbitrary collection of actions which are then linked back to an even more arbitrary set of subjective dispositions.

because these actions and their "explanation" seem to be function outside of all context, it would follow that a claim for "human nature" is either (a) tautological or (b) a de facto claim for the existence of the soul.

which is quaint.

here's what that idea does.
if war is an expression of "human nature" then no=one is responsible for it.
the result is a version of the story about the scorpion trying to get across a river. he talks another animal--say a beaver (can't remember)--into giving him a ride---initially the beaver was not going to do it, but the scoprion persuaded him, saying everything is cool dont worry--about halfway across the river, the beaver feels a prick in his back and realizes that the scorpion has stung him.
"what do you do that for?" the beaver asks.
"i cant help it," says the scoprion "it's my nature..."

according to this line of thinking, then, war is a simple expression of one's nature and can therefore be neither good nor bad.
and if you imagine that this is an eternal feature of being-human, then it is a function of the Soul. if you were to run out a biologically based interpretation of the same thing, you'd end up with something like robert ardrey's work, in which the notion of the soul is simply transposed onto a vague set of biological correlates.

second problem: reverting to "human nature" to explain a political phenomenon (and war is a political phenomenon, like it or not) erases the fact of the political. it's like folk above prefer powerlessness, prefer erasing any latitude they might have to work to actually prevent war or violence or anything else. let's say that a collective is smarter than an individual (not a stretch) simply because it is a deliberative body. say that this nonsense about "human nature" is understood for whatever reason to mean something. it is possible that a group of folk could arrive at the understanding that left to themselves, life could be nasty brutish and short, but working together they might be able to check something of this "nature" and its bloody expressions. perhaps then they could try to figure out what that might entail practically.
it;d be worth a shot, wouldnt it?
but these facile references to "human nature" would lead you to think the project a waste of time.

another problem: in ALL the historical examples above, NOT ONE person took even the slightest account of how the societies that they referenced were organized internally. groups like the vikings were ordered around war bands--they operated within pestige economies that were geared materially around plunder---so the social groups were organized around war. but this is ONE TYPE of social organization and has no particular a priori privilege, even in one-dimensional non-accounts of an abstract topic like "war"---so that folk would advance societies like the vikings as examples works in a strictly circular relation with the conceptions of "human nature" that folk import.

capitalism is arguably a type of permanent war--if by war you mean systemic violence--something broader than the legal state of affairs that names conflicts between nation-states (its modern usage)....but this systematic violence is fundamentally Other than that of a plunder-based war-band type social group. the fact that you see war in both contexts does not mean that there is any continuity between them. if you argue that there is, you are making shit up.

there could be a political system that is geared around a collective decision to end war. this is not such a system. think about the functions of the present host of wars in propping up otherwise bankrupt political regimes, enabling the avoidance of structural problems with (say) the nation-state in its older form and position....the system that we live under needs war. it IS war. this claim could be demonstrated at length--but for the moment i'll leave it here. suffice it to say that the fact that capitalism IS war implicitly (systematic violence) on a continuous basis, and that this system also relies on explicit war to iron out irrationalities in its systems of production is the ongoing result of choices that WE HAVE MADE, and that we continue to make by participating in this socio-economic order. it has NOTHING to do with any abstraction concerning "human nature"--WE are responsible for the order within which we operate. "human nature" in this context is nothing more or less than a category used to legitimate an evasion of responsibility....

I think you know me better than that. Even as a last resort, I don't threaten or commit violence if I have anything to say about it.
I'm glad to hear you're interesting in working towards 'world peace' (a term that's been used considerably by beauty queens, for some reason). War would be the result of a failure of politics.

Pan, I wouldn't have expected you to be so pessimistic about this. A lot of my inspiration comes from Lennon and Ono. An end to war does not mean an end of the understanding of war. We have history to look upon for lessons, and war could just be a cautionary tale for generations after the last war. Also, you act as if war is the spice of life: it isn't. I've not been directly in a war, but I've done it vicariously through all of my friends who are currently in or have been in the military. I know enough about it to know that it destroys souls as well as lives. Several people I know have PTSD. You don't need PTSD to appreciate what peace means. Maybe I should ask you this: have you ever murdered anyone? Then how do you know what it means not to kill anyone?
I don't commit war, but I have free thought. We just need to lobotomize the want to kill another over an idology, if anything. I'd hardly call that a loss.
Your right to wage war? Because that's the only right I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting taking anything but that.
I'm talking about the insane fear of communism. That was, by my understanding and from reading on the subject, what kept the alliance from forming before Germany started attacking.
This is what I've ben trying to say. Thank you for articulating it.

War is not a part of human nature any more than rape or murder. Anyone can choose not to wage war.

yeah but sooner or later you need to specify what exactly you mean by war, will. so far as i can tell, you are using an extremely wide understanding of the term, which is more or less defined as the absence of peace--which is also not obvious, definition-wise. so for example under capitalism, you can have "peace" between states and ongoing routinized brutalization of human beings at the level of production at the same time. this would be a problem if by "war" you really mean "violence"....in which case, there would be war and nothing but war.

so i am confused.

I think by war we mean a physical conflict between groups that causes damage and/or destruction of life and property. Violence is a more general word that could refer to an act by one person on another, or, perhaps, simply on oneself.

In other words, war is violence of great magnitude.

Peace, I think, would mean the cessation of such violence as war. It would be far-reaching to say we would want no conflict/violence whatsoever. For the purposes of this thread, it would be good to focus on the cessation of war as defined above as being indicative of peace.

I'm not pessimistic, I'm being a realist.

Yes, I believe in what Lennon and Christ taught, peace is a great concept. However, it is impossible at this time and I recognize it may always be impossible.

My above argument shows my reasonings.

People desire peace as a whole and they see the destruction, but as long as there are sovereign countries there will be war.

As long as there are differences among peoples, there will be sovereign states.

Let's say the UN or some world governing body finds a way for countries to have peace. There will always be rogue nations to deal with, there will always be "terrorist" cells to deal with, eventually that spills out into countries.

Will, again, I reiterate, you cannot have peace unless everyone is exactly the same, and it is not in man's nature to be exactly the same. There will always be war, whether it's tribes in Africa, the Bloods and Crips and whatever gangs are out there, etc etc.... it will always exist.

I am willing to listen though to how you would find a lasting world peace. Tell me how to do it and I will be happy to stand beside you and "fight" so to speak for it with you.

But as long as there are naysayers..... there will be no peace.... the only way to get rid of naysayers is to kill them, destroy who they are and create that homogenized specimen example I gave above..... and that cannot exist. I will fight to my death to prevent it.

so we're talking about the "state of war" or a legal situation.
that'd be fine except..

there's always an except

something strange like the cold war--which i think paul virillio characterized neatly as a war of pure logistics that did not require the messiness of battles etc. to function (politically, economically, socially) as war. but the cold war was a de facto state of affairs, not a de jure one...so would it count for these purposes? same questions basically obtain for the ongoing absurdist "war on terror"....

over the past 60 years or so, the dominant forms of war have been linked to cold war--logistical conflicts--remedies for the old marxian category "crises of over-production" which are endemic to fordist and post-fordist types of production. so if you think about war from a vantagepoint informed by war-as-logistics rather than war-as-series-of-discrete-events (you know, battles and attending whackings and dismemberings), then (a) the boundary war/not-war gets quite blurry (b) the question arises of whether the present capitalist order can function without some kind of de facto state of war that functions to direct production into spaces of waste/expenditure/turnover in products otherwise useless (think cluster bombs. the americans do. tey like cluster bombs. they dont want them regulated.) or problematic (the americans are the world's largest exporter of weapons conventional by a MULTUIPLE of ten--from which a cynical fellow could argue that the central feature of the american GNP after agricultural production is war...)

if that's true, then you might also wonder why it is that folk are so willing to default into arguments from "human nature" to "explain" war--given that they are social agents within a context that relies on war production in order to operate at anything like full production capacity (even this is a bit outmoded terminologically, but i'll leave it) in a range of industrial sectors (in general, those which benefit from state largesse under republican "fiscally responsible" regimes, characteristic of which is hostility to the transfer of wealth in the direction of poor people but support of transfer of wealth toward defense contractors)...

A few of what I would consider recent wars, to give you an idea:
Israel vs. Lebanon, 2006
US and allied occupiers vs. Iraqi rebellion
JEM vs. Janjaweed, vs. AU, Darfur, 2003-present
US vs. Baath Iraqi Regime, 2003
Second Chechen War, 1999-present
Let's take two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints, like host and ace (first that came to mind). These two people often get into verbal battles, and clearly have a completely different outlook on life, different philosophies, and different politics. I would be willing to bet, though, if Host were president of the United States of host, and Ace were the leader of Aceland, they wouldn't go to war. In this crazy world, you can completely disagree with someone even on fundamental levels without going to war. If everyone who was different and had different viewpoints went to war, the US would have bombed France in 2002 and 2003. Why didn't that happen?

Because the French would have surrendered before the bombers took off.:)

Touche. The point stands, though. People can disagree and be individual without war. I am different than most TFP people in that I am openly socialist. Most on TFP are more about the free market (libertarian). I cannot recall one time where I have had a debate here about that where it even became heated. They're respectful discussions about the way of things, and even if we leave the discussion agreeing to disagree, we leave on not only peaceful but pleasant terms. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes exactly. In the same way that the Buddhists act violently and make war are going against Buddha's teachings is the same way that "Christians" who act violently and make war (and there are plenty!) are not following Christ's teachings.

The same goes for Islam. Some take it to the extreme and others are peaceful.

For all the Christian war mongers, there are plenty of peaceful Christians engaged in humanitarian activities and charities.

That was pretty much the point I wanted to make. I am not opposed to Buddhism mind you. My objection was in the broad generalization.

I think the problem lies even more basic than religion. It goes back to the human element. If war is the extension of politics, then religion is the excuse or reason some politicians would seize upon to make their war. So I am inclined to believe that it is not religion that is the problem, but rather the people in power or the politicians.

Actually, DK, I brought that up. And yes, for me, deterrence is certainly ONE way to frame the idea. It is an intriguing idea, I am still thinking it through. Seems like en endless loop.

But you see, my point implies that Buddha teaches something inherently non-religious, that if war were to be ceased, it would likely be because of humanity adopting much of what was taught by Buddha at the core, as I've quoted from the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Once we "let go," there will be less to fight about. If war becomes a thing of the past, I think it would be because of something related to these teachings, even if it is merely a coincidence.

The Buddhist teachings I quoted aren't dogma, ritual, or worship (they are atheist, even); they are practical steps toward getting to the source of misery and ceasing it at its cause.

There are only two ways to end war.

1) Eliminate all of the problems in the world.

Not just the "seven deadly sins" mentioned previously, but the poverty, religion, and racial and ethnic differences among individuals, plus the problems of resource management around the world.

This is probably impossible, not just because of the overall "human nature", but because there will always be someone who will see an opportunity to take some kind of power and then use it to gain more. That's is how we got here in the first place.

In addition, the way the world is structured today, the organizational problems, not to mention the social ones, make it an undertaking that would ultimately lead to failure, based on the reason above.

Think of it as the Soviet Union. After the revolution in 1917, they were trying to form into a socialist nation. Then Lenin dies, and in the confluence of confusion caused by his death and the ongoing struggles of the revolution, Stalin sees an opportunity, starts knocking off his superiors, and takes absolute power. Or even as Russia after the collapse of the USSR, where Putin is taking more and more power in the rebuilding towards capitalism.

2) Continue on the path that humanity was on up until the past half-century: make war so terrible that no one will be willing to fight.

Until the nuclear age, the goal of military technology was to kill as many of the enemy as possible so that, through demoralization or simple depopulation, they were no longer willing or able to fight.

However, once people saw the power of nuclear weapons, the tide started turning away from that towards simply disabling the enemy. That is the wrong way to go if you want to prevent people from fighting, since death is in most people the ultimate fear.

Even this isn't foolproof, because there will always be someone who is motivated by the reasons mentioned earlier who will take the risk, or there is even the chance of someone with mental problems or an inferiority/superiority complex will be the one making the decision to fight.

So, as I see it the end of warfare at this point in the history of human civilization is an impossibility.

However, if one of the two scenarios I suggested can come to pass, then war could end at some point, in the future.

Ooh, well then that is definitely a different set of points altogether then. I have long argued that Buddhism is not a religion but rather, a philosophy.

But although you cite the teachings as not being dogma, ritual, or worship, the various denominations of Buddhism have evolved and adapted the teachings as dogma, ritual, and worship. I used to live in Asia and am pretty familiar with Buddhism. Two of my family members are Buddhist as well. A lot of these different Buddhist denominations can't agree on the doctrines which is why they split off and formed their own schools.

No doubt if all of humanity were to experience the "Awakening" (or Enlightenment if you're Western) then war could be a thing of the past. Freedom from want is a powerful thing.

Likewise, if we were to follow the teachings of Christ, even by coincidence, then war would also be a thing of the past.

But diametrical differences aren't what starts wars. It may act as an impetus and create the friction that causes more panic to be stronger than the other side (USA -USSR/China) but it isn't the start.

The start for war is primarily greed (Hitler wanting to take over the world, the USSR in Eastern Europe, China in Asia), trying to "liberate and protect people" (US - Iraq/Nam/Korea), trying to subdue and conquer your "enemies" before they can do it to you, religious issues (the crusades, todays Middle East, India/Pakistan), many reasons, those are the simple basics.

Or in most recent times, you could have the 2 strongest kids on the block wanting allies so badly that they start revolutions and put puppets in... the other side finds reasons and plants the seeds of hatred/fear/prejudice/etc into neighboring countries... both sides arm and it's a ticking bomb noone can disarm because the seeds of hatred and looking for reasons to fight/defend preemptively have been planted.... think US-USSR Middle East.

One reason the Iranians have come to hate us is we needed Iran to help us maintain control in the Middle East, we put a very sadistic, cruel leader in power (the Shah) and when the people overthrew him and realized we had supported him, they came to hate and distrust us. They then go to their neighbors and plant seeds of doubt as to what the US might have done in their countries.

There was no need to bomb France, and had we, any allies we did have would have been lost and that would have started a truly serious war that would make the one we have with Iraq/Afghanistan seem nothing more than a skirmish.

It takes time, education and willingness on both sides to diffuse the hatreds and gain true peace between countries.

It is easier to rule and keep power by fear (either within or without) than to share true power among the people.

With fear comes hatred, with hatred comes preparation and eventually some form of violent reaction. Negativity begets negativity.

Roachboy and I have both pointed to the economic basis that supports and furthers war in this country and others. The economy is driven by political ideology. If you agree that war is driven by economics (which is implicit to politics), what do you suggest is necessary to move our economy from a war driven to peace driven economy?

I reject the notion that human "nature" is the source for war. We continue to have some primitive brain stem functions, but our species is primarily distinguished by our intellect. That some would chose to engage in war does not negate the supremacy of intelligence over animal violence. Many of the great leaders over recorded time denounced violence and promoted peace. If war is a part of the human condition, why did the great teacher, Jesus, say otherwise over 2,000 years ago?

Because other stories and parables that are older than 2,000 years ago from Greek to Babylonian discuss that the human condition is more consistent than "peace."

Jesus also tells of a parable wherein the eldest son will leave the father and squander all the family money. Or that bandits will beat the crap out of someone and many people will not help the distressed man.

Seems to me there's plenty of selfishness (Pride) that is mentioned as well.

without a rethinking of basic structures and basic ways of doing things--which cant be just a matter of people trying to be nice to each other and perhaps embrace the buddah, but has to involve the entire socio-economic order within which we operate and that we have effectively exported over big areas of the world--you'll have lots of war.

it'd probably have to involve a decentralization of economic organization--but there's still have to be infrastructure, so there'd still be centralized functions--so economic reorganization is too narrow even in the abstract---so there'd have to be a political decentralization as well, a multiplication of centers of organization and political power. some kind of tending-toward direct democratic organizational forms--so folk could be in a position to get information and operate within responsive structures (though who knows how responsive folk really want organizations to be--too much of that stuff and you'll have to start taking responsibility for what you do--it's a two edged thing.)

i think people replicate the ideology they live under all the time.
it's a problem. we are adaptable beings and lots of how we think moves as the bigger frameworks we think through move.
so you think war kinda sucks so how do we stop it and you say let's try to be nicer to each other and there's nothing wrong with that, it's a fine idea, who wouldn't argue that being nicer to each other is better than not being nicer to each other?

but if you think that actually responds to the question "how could we stop war?" then you probably watch tv--because the same kind of things are included and the same kind of things excluded in thinking "how to stop war" via "be nicer to each other" as are included and excluded in a tv image of the world.
and your thinking moves as the framework you think through moves. just like anyone else's.
it's no-one's fault, really. it happens by itself. it's the camera.

i dunno, maybe you could get at these problems from any number of starting points, and maybe embracing buddah would be a good thing to that end, but it seems to me that you at least have to think a bit about this other stuff...

You reject and deny that human nature is the source for war?

Ok, then what other source is there and since you can point so easily to this other source and reject that human nature is the cause, perhaps you know the solution to end war and would like to fill everyone in then?

What book, chapter and verse does Jesus say war is not part of the human condition?

Where does Lennon say it, Ghandi, Mohammed, etc?

War is part of the human condition because they are started by the free will and emotions those leaders, it continues through the emotions of those who wage it.

Jesus talks about YOU as a person, Lennon talks about individuals, they all talk about individuals, choosing peace, turning the other cheek etc, etc. Each one believes it should be the individuals choice. That being the case not everyone obviously will choose peace.

As an example, Lennon distinctly states "You may think I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope someday you will join us, and the world will live as one."

He hopes people will join and want peace but he is not demanding it, forcing people to believe as he does, but he welcomes them and believes someday free will, will lead to peace.

I may live peacefully, I may talk to others about how they can, but it is free will, and I am pessmistic that man will ever choose 100% peace. There are too many differences, too much greed, too many inherent hatreds, that exist.

If you force peace, people will resent peace, you cannot force upon others what they do not want, or you will have started the violent actions yourself.

Finding reasons to go to war is easy, finding ways to prevent war and find a lasting peace are extremely hard and both sides have to be 100% willing to do the work. I just don't ever see that happening.

Alright, time to address this human nature stuff.

Either a given trait can be explained by innate genetic traits or it's tabula rasa. 'Human nature' is a simplistic and outdated term that's virtually meaningless because of it's varied and vague meaning. One may have a genetic predisposition to violence, or has acquired the concept of war from their environment. To blame 'human nature', as is pointed out by roach above, is to blame Vague language does this thread, and by extension hope of a solution or progress in the venture of ending war, a disservice. Can we move away from the vague and antiquated, for the benefit of the thread topic? If you'd like to suggest that a genetic or environmentally acquired predisposition for violence (coupled with any number of things such as greed or selfishness) spread across certain members of a given society can and will manifest themselves in violent behavior and, when coupled with a type of thought like groupthink, the inevitable conclusion on a mass scale is war, then go ahead and we can debate it on it's academic merits. I welcome that type of debate here, as that can reach a solution. Blaming human nature is tantamount to using Newtonian physics to examine wave functions on the subatomic level or using a rams horn to play a trumpet concerto. We have the necessary tools to really look into this.

Ah, but see therein lies a problem, I believe in human nature, I don't believe that we are "predisposed" or "our environment" is 100% fully responsible for who we are. So if I can't make my arguments from my beliefs.... you win the debate by default and don't have to answer any of the questions that the opposing view put forth..... how fucking clever.

If it were, genetic, environmental, etc.etc. (whatever you want to claim); the same drugs would affect everyone the same. You can have identical twins, who have shared every experience of their lives together smoke weed, do coke, take a xanax, etc. and have totally different reactions. Sooooo why is that? Identical twins have pretty much the identical genetic makeup, and sharing the same experiences takes the environment factor out also... so what is the answer that makes this happen? HUMAN NATURE, FREE WILL, INDIVIDUALITY, whatever you wish to call it.

We have emotions, we are a species that we may try to control emotions and come up with 99 million excuses as to why we feel certain ways, but if it is not an individualistic choice, then everyone would eventually feel the exact same about everything. This isn't even true with siblings, let alone any number of random people in a group.

You can collect a group of 100 random people, sit them down and show them Annie Hall (as an example). Now, from that group you may reason certain percentages will feel certain ways, but chances are you will not even guess 10% accurately as to who felt what about the movie, who slept through it, who ate more popcorn, who didn't truly pay attention and so on. You cannot guess because of HUMAN NATURE and FREE WILL.

To disregard them and to try to explain them away is ludicrous, lazy and IMHO, trying to be someone who believes since they know what makes humans tick (so to speak) they can poo-poo anything and control mankind. Trying to explain away man's emotions as genetics and environment is to say we have no souls, we have no spirits we are just neurons reacting in certain ways. Sorry, don't believe ya. But I am so glad that the government has been training our psychologists and psychiatrists to believe this. Makes helping the individual almost impossible at times. But makes the makers of Benzodiazapines, Prozac, Seraquel, etc, much, much richer.

Sorry, man is not GOD and man will never be able to control others... Hell the people who claim environment and genetics, I know have a hard time with their own self control.

BTW, if you go by "academic merits" you can come up with answers to everything you wish to..... theoretically... however, put into real life and upon the grand stage you will never get the results you hypothesized. Again, human free will, individuality, nature, spirit will prevail. What you profess as "antiquated, vague.... (was obsolete in there also?)" will basically always bite you on the ass, when you profess that it doesn't exist for one reason or another.

Wait... you are saying that things like desire for things, such as better more fertile lands, resources such as oil, gold, food, pretty wenches for better bred offspring have no bearing to warring peoples whatsoever?

Separate fact from belief. If you have no facts to argue with, what are you posting? Opinion? This isn't a theological or metaphysical debate. This is about actively seeking to end war. In the real world.
Identical twins aren't actually identical. It's a generalization based on the phenotype. Each of two twins may have a different reaction, but it's not God or human nature that determines that. You don't have to be a doctor to get that, but I'm sure people on TFP with more expertise in human biology can confirm what I'm saying.

BTW, twins to tend to have similar reactions to medications. I know that because Several of the classes I took to get my degree went into twins studies in psychiatry.
Pan, I can respect that you're very smart when it comes to a lot of things. As a matter of fact, I'd say you were probably smarter than I am on average. I don't think you quite understand the way psychology works, at least in the context you're presenting. I mean absolutely no disrespect, you're a stand up guy who I proudly call friend, but you can't make up psychology as you go. I took years of my life to intensely study psychology, and I still don't know most of it.
I also don't know exactly how black holes form, but I can give you my sincere assurances that it has nothing to do with human nature. If I had backgrounds on each of those people, how can you claim that I'd only get 10%? Do you have actual studies to cite? Or is this all hypothetical studies carried out in your mind? Do you realize what you're communicating by stating hypothetical studies as fact?
Lazy is using a vague term and ending the conversation there. Souls were the explanation for sentience and intelligence before philosophy and science got to work on explaining them. The government doesn't train psychologists or psychiatrists. We're trained at universities by people who are experts on the subjects.

Psychology and psychiatry are sciences. They are as reliable as any other science. In all sciences there are exceptions to rules. That's normal. That hardly proves the metaphysical, though.
Man is not god, but neither is god. I control other people all the time. If I ask Jerry in accounting to fix the insurance numbers because they look wrong, he does it. So far as control in the context in this thread: I'm not talking about forcing peace. I'm talking about getting everyone on the same page; we should strive for peace. If all 7 billion people decided that, on their own, this thread wouldn't look so crazy.
Again with the metaphysics. Free will only requires a capacity for rational deliberation. Individuality is the fact that it's impossible for two people to have the exact same genetic makeup and environment. Nature...well we all have covered human nature. Spirit is religious or metaphysical. What I profess as antiquated is in fact antiquated and still has no place in the real world. If you want to have a philosophical debate, I'll meet you in tilted philosophy. This is politics.
Of course they do, but to explain those wants away as 'human nature' is too simplistic for discussion. As we've seen it's starting to break down our progress in this thread.

So, basically you are telling me you want to control the debate. You want people to debate only by your beliefs, so that in doing so perhaps you can control the outcome.

I have much Psychology training and I am very well read in the field. (Have to be because I am in the business also.) I may not have a doctorate or Masters, but I know people and I am a good study and have studied human nature and know it exists.

I have no more proof at what I say than you do. You can present your argument, but none of what you say truly can disprove human nature/emotions/individual free will.

The movie analogy stated 100 RANDOM people..... in order to be random you cannot know anything about them before they go in other than how they look. But you imply that you would want backgrounds and yada yada.... that takes away some of the randomness though.

It would make for a good study. Take 100 pure randoms and make predictions just based on look, and then take 100 people whom you have background knowledge of and make the same predictions.... Of course knowing the backgrounds, you'd know who would probably like Annie Hall and who probably wouldn't, but that would be about it. I never stated fact, I said chances are.

Sorry Will, I like you, respect you and yes, I also call you friend. But I am also in the field and I could not disagree more on the subject.

Let's say someone is raised in a certain religion, everyone they know is of that religion, how does that person decide to take a different religion?

As for bringing philosophy and this into politics, you are the one who did so. You stated what you wanted in the thread and after I had invested my time in this thread, I felt I should be able to point out, I wholeheartedly disagree with the parameters you are wanting.

What exactly are you wanting from this thread? Are you asking how can we have peace? Are you asking what people think and feel on the subject or are you wanting solutions only?

If you want solutions only, that everyone can agree upon, you will never get them, no matter how you try to set the parameters of the debate.

BTW, just because "Psychology and Psychiatry" are "sciences" does not mean they are in any way shape or form concrete sciences, with concrete answers. To believe so is foolish and will eventually hurt you.

And yes, if you wish to continue this we can go to Tilted Philosophy..... however, in this thread obviously my answers and debate are not welcomed because they do not meet the parameters you have decided to set already deeply into the debate.... so I will leave this thread, for you to have your controlled debate.