world peace or world war?

[king_monkey]

i think we all gonna die if we dont stop the evil doer's from killing the planet and its in habitants.[COLOR=Navy]the power struggle has consumed the hart's and minds of the leaders of the nations the end is near we are living in the last hours.im just thinking of what i could do to change things im so confused i cant do it alone or can i? [/COLOR] :animeangr :blowup:

[Sandy]

...Except peace cannot be achieved by war. Those who think so have a pretty screwed way of thinking.

It's not even about "end justifying the means", because war has never brought anything to any nation but hatred, sorrow, vengefulness, oppression and unequality.

Honestly, taking a recent example, who can call the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq a "peace"?

[Brasil]

I voted war because I feel "peace through love" (particularly on a global scale) is trite and naive. Day-to-day life, on an individual level, peace through love? Absolutely.

It's laughable, however, to entertain the idea of a global love for all mankind.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Brasil]I voted war because I feel "peace through love" (particularly on a global scale) is trite and naive. Day-to-day life, on an individual level, peace through love? Absolutely.

It's laughable, however, to entertain the idea of a global love for all mankind.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I agree with Brasil. I mean the bible's stuff on "thou shalt not kill" and "blessed are the peacemakers"... we can skip over that stuff right? I mean, comon' who honestly reads the Bible these days!

[Sandy]

I hope you are just being sarcastic, [B]Drix[/B]... X/ Otherwise it'd be good for you to know that not all moral values are dictated by the Bible.

I don't believe in the Bible's message, yet the thought that killing is wrong comes naturally to me.

Yes, I'm aware that there are loads of twisted, sadistic bastards out there who get their kicks out of warmongering and suffering of others, but hey, as long as we sensible people don't let them get in power, everything should be alright, right?

Peace out!

[king_monkey]

i think love should attack war in the name of peace!!! because they'll keep waring if no one stands up for them selfs or the uncapable. :flaming:

[Stark]

I'm a fan of peace, but I try to think realistically. In a time of peace the higher ups are bound to get bored, and therefore start a war just for the sake of it. To prevent needless conflicts from happening...well...either stay in the conflicts that need taken care of or eliminate all conflicts.

True peace is impossible. It's a wishful dream, and the world would be lovely if it could happen, but I realize that true peace cannot be achieved though any realistic means.

There are always going to be conflicts and wars, because people don't want to sit down and talk. There are always going to be uprisings and rebellions, so I try to pay attention to what is real rather than a dream.

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Sandy]I hope you are just being sarcastic, [B]Drix[/B]... X/ Otherwise it'd be good for you to know that not all moral values are dictated by the Bible.

I don't believe in the Bible's message, yet the thought that killing is wrong comes naturally to me.

Yes, I'm aware that there are loads of twisted, sadistic bastards out there who get their kicks out of warmongering and suffering of others, but hey, as long as we sensible people don't let them get in power, everything should be alright, right?

Peace out![/QUOTE]
[size=1]...Yeah, he was being sarcastic about that.

As for not telling 'warmongerers' get into power... that's not going to happen. See [i]Third Reich[/i] and [i]Stalin[/i]. I wouldn't go so far as to point at Bush, but people are naturally combatant.

Yes, the hope for world-peace is unrealistic, idealistic, and laughable, but it's Christian.[/size]

[king_monkey]

There are always going to be conflicts and wars, because people don't want to sit down and talk. There are always going to be uprisings and rebellions, so I try to pay attention to what is real rather than a dream.[/QUOTE]


dreams do come true but unfortunately most don't happen over night,you just have to believe with unwavering faith and they will manifest. every thing seen today was once a dream. :animesigh


thanx 4 your comments every one :animesmil

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=king_monkey]There are always going to be conflicts and wars, because people don't want to sit down and talk. There are always going to be uprisings and rebellions, so I try to pay attention to what is real rather than a dream.

dreams do come true but unfortunately most don't happen over night,you just have to believe with unwavering faith and they will manifest. every thing seen today was once a dream. :animesigh


thanx 4 your comments every one :animesmil[/QUOTE]
[size=1]You're [i]sort of[/i] correct. True, if you work passionately towards a goal, you will have a greatly increased chance of accomplishing your goal. This is true for something like running a mile in under 5 minutes, or getting straight A's. I think it impossible to overcome what I believe to be human nature to get to world peace. It just won't happen, folks. There's always a person who likes violence, death, and spoiling someone else's life. There's no amount of passionate work that can erase that.

Well, nothing short of a world-wide dictatorship, like 1984, where if you even [i]think[/i] about breaking the law, you die, so you keep to it out of fear. And that is not worth world 'peace.'[/size]

[Brasil]

I don't really view Jordan's sarcasm as unwarranted, though, especially for a question/poll such as this.

I mean, we're talking about two extremes here, let's be honest. There's either "peace through war" or "peace through love." We're given two options, and required to choose one?

I don't necessarily agree with either of them, but "peace through love" is a communal, hippie-esque distortion of Christ's original message that was irrelevant back in the 60s, just like it's irrelevant now--at least irrelevant on the global scale. Just the current geopolitical foundation in this day and age invalidates the entire viewpoint of peace through love.

And when it all comes down to it, peace through war (in the context of this poll) is just a more sensible and responsible choice, as bizarre as that may seem to some.

So, given all of that...how does anyone expect someone like me or Jordan to really take this seriously? lol. Any sensible person would realize that "peace through love" is a pretty lame idea lately.

As a brief footnote, I'm bothered by the relative speed with which some here have already started using the term "war-monger."

Just because someone understands, and most importantly recognizes, the downright uselessness of the "peace through love" concept does not mean they're some hawk all of a sudden, looking to snatch up a dove.

"War-monger" largely is a term from one extreme viewpoint's knee-jerk reaction to an opposing extreme viewpoint, and I think "War-monger" holds the same relevance as say..."Bleeding-heart Liberal" or "Anti-American." And that is to say, it doesn't hold much relevance at all in the first place. It's just a loaded word spurned on by partisan bull****.

[sakurasuka]

[SIZE=1]I'd just like to say that a few of you, sarcastic or not, are a bit psyco. Excuse me being blunt.

Total world peace is impossible. It will never happen, except by a miracle of God himself. Therefore, all that is said here is hypothetical. Since it will never really happen either way, voting for war is a vote for sheer violence. There isn't really another way to see it.

If we are talking more realistic, peace by war is. If we are talking ideal, peace by love is. True peace, though, cannot be won through war.

Since this thread is asking what you would want 'ideally', not 'realistically', it is absurd to bash those voting for peace by love! It is, essentially, the ideal, is it not?[/SIZE]

[The Newfie]

Fighting a war for peace is like ******* for verginity.

Peace is relative. You cannot have world peace - it isn't possible. There's always going to be somone who feels they're getting the short end of the stick, so there will always be people starting wars. Fighting a war for peace is even stupider - because then you've got the people you had to fight all disgrunteled and such, therefore it is not world peace.

Peace through love isn't possible either - because love just don't fly with the brass up there on Parlimant Hill. You can't build new factories on love, by'. Need land, need money, need people - need war. Countires go stagnent without war.

Besides, do we even [i]want[/i] world peace? War is what keeps countries advancing - a large reason that we've advanced so much over the last century is because of War. If we had world peace than the world would stop advancing - we'd become Eloi waiting to be picked like ripe fruit.

[Derald]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkRed]Peace - a state of total equilibrium. In other words, a state in which input equals output. In other words, a dead state.

In order for there to be dreamers there must be some obstacle they wish to overcome. In a state where there are no worries, no chaos, there is nothing to overcome. Thus, purpose is non-existent.

There must be some form of chaos in the world to keep things moving. Otherwise, "equality" will obliterate dreams in a way that nuclear weapons could not.

So, I vote: [U]No Peace At All[/U].[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=Purple]**** realism! It's the realist attitude that drives everone toward war and hatred! It's the desenitization to violence and thethoughts that everyone is violent that leaves us uncarring! If we all stopped assuming that no one cares anymore, we will realise that it is untrue! Everyone really [i]does[/i] care, but the underlying assumption than nothing can be done keeps them from doing anything and sadly it will remain that way. It is pure hypocracy that I speak these words, but nothing can be changed, but I only say it because everyone is thinking it and that itself is what stops things from changing! It's an unending cycel of impossible stupidity! ARGH!!! [/COLOR]

[Starwind]

I'm a soilder and all i have to say is "Can't we all just get along". Trust me, war is hell and all it does is create more hatred. War kills and for every enemy you kill you birth a new enemy in the form of a widow, a son, a daughter. Killing and destruction never makes problems better. I know that asking for world peace is unrealistic and I understand that people are naturally drawn to conflict. But that dosen't mean we need rivers of blood to get this across. History has shown us that as long as humans exist, there will be conflict, but we need to keep the conflict on the political field instead of the battlefield. People don't benefit from war. I've met people who've returned from war, and trust me, the casualties of war are not only the ones who die. Killing a person does something to your psyce, it makes you physically ill the first time. It's not something that should be advocated. I'm a soilder and I have never had to kill someone and I hope I never have to. To be honest, more then dying, killing scares me. the thought of for going the basic human moral that tells us killing another is wrong frightens me more then being shot.

[IceRose]

I don't believe in either to tell you the truth. Peace achieved by love is the same retrospective hippies had during the 60's and at did not work, its just a foolish idea, I don't mean its a bad idea but throughout history people have tried it and it has not worked. Peace by war doesn't exist, war kills, war brings alienation of people and turns best friends into worse enemies. If people really want peace they have to stay out of everyone's bussiness, let them live their lives without butting in like the big heroes of the movie. Sorry got a little carried away its just that that is the only way to not have wars and reassure the future of the next generation

[Mykul]

Ok, after wading through all previous posts, and reading "World peace is not possible, M'kay" over at least ten times slightly rephrased, all I have to add to the muck is this:

This topic, to me, centers around a great and ancient paradox, "to have peace, you must prepare for war." If you achieve some form of peace and do not prepare to defend it from those who would take it from you, it WILL be taken.

Let's say, completely hypothetically, that there is this happy nation of people in the south. There is no violence or crime of any sort, and everyone gets along. Having no crime, they never felt the need to amass an army.

Now let's say that the bloodthirsty nation to the north decides they need more land, so they invade the nation to the south. If the south had been ready to go to war in order to defend its peace, warriors would die and the fighting would be terrible, but if they defeated their enemy peace would abound in their country once again. However, since they did no such thing, the nation from the north will come, rape the women, take the land, and force the entire population into slavery for who knows how many hundreds or thousands of years.(please everyone remember that my scenario was COMPLETELY hypothetical).

And I believe it was [B]Sandy[/B] who picked up on another paradox concerning the war in Iraq. How do you correct and eliminate a dictator who throws people into woodchippers and vats of boiling oil peacefully? Again, to gain a better (never perfect) level of peace, you must unpeacefully eliminate the unpeaceful.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[QUOTE=Bolt]Ok, after wading through all previous posts, and reading "World peace is not possible, M'kay" over at least ten times slightly rephrased, all I have to add to the muck is this:

This topic, to me, centers around a great and ancient paradox, "to have peace, you must prepare for war." If you achieve some form of peace and do not prepare to defend it from those who would take it from you, it WILL be taken.

Let's say, completely hypothetically, that there is this happy nation of people in the south. There is no violence or crime of any sort, and everyone gets along. Having no crime, they never felt the need to amass an army.

Now let's say that the bloodthirsty nation to the north decides they need more land, so they invade the nation to the south. If the south had been ready to go to war in order to defend its peace, warriors would die and the fighting would be terrible, but if they defeated their enemy peace would abound in their country once again. However, since they did no such thing, the nation from the north will come, rape the women, take the land, and force the entire population into slavery for who knows how many hundreds or thousands of years.(please everyone remember that my scenario was COMPLETELY hypothetical).

And I believe it was [B]Sandy[/B] who picked up on another paradox concerning the war in Iraq. How do you correct and eliminate a dictator who throws people into woodchippers and vats of boiling oil peacefully? Again, to gain a better (never perfect) level of peace, you must unpeacefully eliminate the unpeaceful.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Purple]I think what we're wanting here is not to have a bloodthirsty nation to the north, but a bunch of peacefull countries, or one big one. Yes, I realise that saying that I believe in peace among nations and elimination of money makes me the anti-christ, so be it, I've never been to church :P. And to whoever said the hippies didn't work... what they were doing was working perectly for them until they all got high. Eliminate the drugs and the hippy life isthe perfect one.[/COLOR]

[Outlaw]

[QUOTE=Sandy]...Except peace cannot be achieved by war. Those who think so have a pretty screwed way of thinking.

It's not even about "end justifying the means", because war has never brought anything to any nation but hatred, sorrow, vengefulness, oppression and unequality.

Honestly, taking a recent example, who can call the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq a "peace"?[/QUOTE]

What about the Revolutionary War, bring about America's independence? Or the Civil War, bringing about freedom for slaves (Many historians beleive Lincoln freed all slaves in attempt to create an black uprising in the South)? Or WWII createing a wartime economy which brought about the end of the great depression, and made the US one of the worlds leading super-powers. I'm not saying war is right by any-means, but you cannot claim something so 'definate' as war bringing nothing but hatred, sorrow, vengefulness, oppression and unequality.

Now, back to the focus of the topic, I beleive that 'absolute peace' cannot be achieved without the elimination of want or greed. So once we figure that out, I figure the whole peace thing will be solved. Ah well, wishful thinking.

[Mykul]

[QUOTE]I think what we're wanting here is not to have a bloodthirsty nation to the north, but a bunch of peacefull countries, or one big one. Yes, I realise that saying that I believe in peace among nations and elimination of money makes me the anti-christ, so be it, I've never been to church :P. And to whoever said the hippies didn't work... what they were doing was working perectly for them until they all got high. Eliminate the drugs and the hippy life isthe perfect one.[B]-Hug Monster[/B] [/QUOTE]

*Sigh* Of course, even though I said twice that my scenario was hypothetical, somebody speaks as if I really meant anything by a bloodthirsty nation to the north. Nobody wants a bloodthirsty nation?! Gasp! You don't say...

And even though my Scenario IS hypothetical, it's still sound in a realistic way. There always will be a "bloodthirsty nation to the north," (even though usually it's more like bloodthirsty person or people) and there will always be someone who wants to take something from someone else. Many little peaceful countries can't co-exist, because history shows that it is impossible for AT LEAST one person in the population of the world to not want to take something that is not his or hers.

[king_monkey]

And I believe it was [B]Sandy[/B] who picked up on another paradox concerning the war in Iraq. How do you correct and eliminate a dictator who throws people into woodchippers and vats of boiling oil peacefully? Again, to gain a better (never perfect) level of peace, you must unpeacefully eliminate the unpeaceful.[/QUOTE]


i agree i believe that the peacefull should stand and fight for there peace and smite all who try to take it away(or die trying). love is stronger than war if it was genuinely felt for one another to put it simply peace through war is the same as peace through love its just one is agressive and the other is not

get back at me on that note :animesigh

by the way nice reply outlaw, and thanx everyone.

[Tigervx]

[quote name='king_monkey']love is stronger than war if it was genuinely felt for one another [/quote]
[COLOR=Teal][SIZE=1]
Unfortunately I must strongly disagree with this. How many conflicts have we seen averted by love? As opposed to how many conflicts we've seen generated by other emotions, majorly hate. And other countries don't really love each other, they may be allies and have close ties, but no country is stupid enough to let their guard down to another country. International Politics is an extremely complex system that love cannot affect, I'd like to see an international conflict solved by love (Not being sarcastic, it would actually be idle) but it?s too unrealistic to happen.

And moreover, humanity has been horrified by war since recorded history was chiseled into stone tablets, yet we haven't stopped yet and have created more and more deadly ways to kill one another. WWI was thought to end all wars with its horrid new weapons and massive loss of life, and yet we're still fighting today. The only way I can see world peace unfortunately is an everlasting cold war in which the superpowers of the world all have the means in which to wipe out the entire human race and the flip of a switch, but no one will do that because no one is -that- mindless and hateful to doom the entire species and world of earth as we know it. It?s the very threat of annihilation that we use for war that will eventually shield us from using these weapons. Thus my vote for Peace from war.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Tigervx][color=Teal][size=1]It?s the very threat of annihilation that we use for war that will eventually shield us from using these weapons. [/size'][/color][/quote]
And this is precisely why "peace from war" makes the most sense. Thank you, Tiger.

People...get with the program, please. All of you talking about love solves everything are so blinded by that notion that you can't see the actual context of this topic.

If there is one example of a "peace" in the last century, it's the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union did not engage in global thermonuclear war for a reason.

That reason was not because they loved each other, or because they were mildly fond of each other, or because they were on speaking terms.

We didn't see worldwide annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis because any attack from either side would result in complete destruction.

To put it really simple:

[u][b]Love does not prevent war, nor does it create peace.

Mutual Assured Destruction prevents war, and it creates peace.[/b][/u]

The reason why we fight today is because with the various new terrorist cells that have popped up "recently," MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction - learn about it) has become outdated. These terrorists don't give two ****s about destroying themselves--because they're already martyring with suicide bombings.

You eliminate the lunatics, you achieve peace, simple as that.

A final note, quite frankly, not to sound harsh or anything, any of you claiming to be in the military and spouting this "do it for peace, war isn't the answer" nonsense ought to be ashamed of yourselves, because in saying what you're saying...you're betraying a complete ignorance of the intricacies and subtleties of global conflict of the past 50 years. Pull your heads out of your rear ends.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=king_monkey]this is because the leaders have lost touch with there humanity they dont actually see
the gruelling of the battlefield so they'er numb to all the killing they dont send there
sons/daughters to the killing grounds, wonder why? :animesigh[/QUOTE]
I'm calling bull on that one, and advise you to do some study of the Cold War era at the very least, and then read-up on the events that led to President Truman's decision to use the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII.

Leaders losing touch with their humanity? Please. Get out of here with that rubbish. As much as I dislike the current administration, and as much as I feel they're incompetent...I'm not about to say they've lost touch with their humanity (not in this context, at least).

Dude, get a fricking clue and then post again, because right now, you're talking absolute nonsense.