World Peace - could it ever happen?

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:35 pm

Another thread got me thinking about this (but it was not meant to be serious stuff so I pulled my thoughts out here).

We all would love world peace - would anyone stand up and say they did not want it?

But being part of a forum, which is a collection of people from all over, it makes me wonder if it could ever be possible. With so many different views, passions, beliefs, assumptions etc. , how could everyone in the world agree.

Is it not these differences that make up the world as it is. Is it not the passions that push people to try and make changes. Is it not the passion that causes conflict? Is it not those passions, that have made major changes in this world - sadly at loss of life. Is it not these passions that have saved many lifes. This is very confusing - is world peace only possible if we all stick our heads in the sand :-3

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:41 pm

Im an eternal optimist but for lasting peace something very extraordinary would have to happen. Even then someone would want to spoil it.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:24 pm

no, sorry. :rolleyes:

lemon_and_mint · Post by **lemon_and_mint** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:27 pm

i think that at the same time we wish for it, we realise that what it would take for it to be attained would be nearly impossible.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:53 pm

It can't ever happen. It goes against human nature.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:54 am

I agree. I would love to see it happen. Just can't see how though

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:43 am

Yes it would be nice if there was Peace on Earth. Can you imagine how crowded it would be if there weren't any Wars??? That is why there will never be total Peace. :-5

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:00 pm

No, hell people on the forums can't get along.

No.

It's a shame but it won't happen. Warfare has been a staple of "civilization" since the dawn of time. It always will be.

It's out of our hands, but you can be nice to your neighbor, the checkout girl, the mailman, the stranger on the street.

Smile, open a door, hold a coat, say thank you and please. Hug an old lady and kiss a baby.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:54 pm

KB.;751867 wrote: No, hell people on the forums can't get along.

No.

It's a shame but it won't happen. Warfare has been a staple of "civilization" since the dawn of time. It always will be.

It's out of our hands, but you can be nice to your neighbor, the checkout girl, the mailman, the stranger on the street.

Smile, open a door, hold a coat, say thank you and please. Hug an old lady and kiss a baby.

Well said KB

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:25 pm

This reminds of of an old either Hitchcock or The Twilight Zone... The world was visited by huge alien ships which hovered over each of the major world cities. They brought peace about by threats of destruction (I think) Don't remember how it ended other than the leader turned out have horns and a tail.. but there was peace

-

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:56 pm

ThePheasant;751267 wrote: Another thread got me thinking about this (but it was not meant to be serious stuff so I pulled my thoughts out here).

We all would love world peace - would anyone stand up and say they did not want it?

But being part of a forum, which is a collection of people from all over, it makes me wonder if it could ever be possible. With so many different views, passions, beliefs, assumptions etc. , how could everyone in the world agree.

Is it not these differences that make up the world as it is. Is it not the passions that push people to try and make changes. Is it not the passion that causes conflict? Is it not those passions, that have made major changes in this world - sadly at loss of life. Is it not these passions that have saved many lifes. This is very confusing - is world peace only possible if we all stick our heads in the sand :-3

There is no need for everybody in the world to agree - just agree to accept others' right to be different.

We need the diversity of different opinions and different ways of life but we also need the tolerance to accept that we have no right to make others conform to our norms.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Bryn Mawr;752079 wrote: There is no need for everybody in the world to agree - just agree to accept others' right to be different.

We need the diversity of different opinions and different ways of life but we also need the tolerance to accept that we have no right to make others conform to our norms.

You make a very good point Bryn - I am just not sure that ALL people could have the 'tolerance to accept' - just look what goes on here, let alone in the entire world!

I do agree though, if people could accept different beliefs and views, we could be a long way towards achieving.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:30 pm

Even if we all got along there isn't enough space on the planet for total peace.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:42 pm

ThePheasant;752081 wrote: You make a very good point Bryn - I am just not sure that ALL people could have the 'tolerance to accept' - just look what goes on here, let alone in the entire world!

I do agree though, if people could accept different beliefs and views, we could be a long way towards achieving.

It need not be at the personal level - world peace depends on peace between nations (everything else is a police matter).

What is needed is a method of enforcing international law that is outside the control of any one nation.

I would guess that that would require a Supra National agency with teeth and the banning of the current national militias but how you move to that from today's fiasco I cannot imagine.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:49 pm

Bryn Mawr;752098 wrote: It need not be at the personal level - world peace depends on peace between nations (everything else is a police matter).

What is needed is a method of enforcing international law that is outside the control of any one nation.

I would guess that that would require a Supra National agency with teeth and the banning of the current national militias but how you move to that from today's fiasco I cannot imagine.

A sovereign entity would require respect from all nations. The division amongst nations is too great.

I personally think it could be possible but I dont have that kind of faith in others.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:01 pm

Nomad;752104 wrote: A sovereign entity would require respect from all nations. The division amongst nations is too great.

I personally think it could be possible but I dont have that kind of faith in others.

A sovereign entity deserves respect from all nations - the trick is to set up the system with sufficient checks and balances that it is so obviously self regulating that everyone has faith in it.

Needs to be the old three leg stool trick in one form or another.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:22 am

fuzzy butt;752185 wrote: NO it will never happen I'm afraid . You would need a major world eventful catastrophe to slow everybody up a bit . Something like a comet to hit us or something. Then we could see if anything changes.

Totally agree - i cannot see any way of moving there from our current position - too much entrenched power and self interests to be given up in the process.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:42 am

‘You have to kick at the darkness till it bleeds daylight¦’ (Bruce Coburn)

World Peace, why not? But the issue is at who’s terms?

As long as people are unwilling to make some sacrifices, modify some of their own believes, be willing to change points of views when presented with a ‘better’ idea, and loose the perception of ‘our way is the right way’ to live, then it can be done.

As long as there are entrenched fundamentalists world wide unyielding in their beliefs and convictions, then there will always be conflict.

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:00 am

Bryn Mawr;752079 wrote: There is no need for everybody in the world to agree - just agree to accept others' right to be different.

We need the diversity of different opinions and different ways of life but we also need the tolerance to accept that we have no right to make others conform to our norms.

True, but how tolerant should we be of gross abuses e.g. stoning people to death for adultry etc. Should we just ignore atrocities and genocide in other countries - should we stand idly by while one group hatchets another group to death? How much should a country tolerate and accept as viva la difference !

Maybe we should just stand back, completely back out of all countries including giving foreign aid to anyone, and look after ourselves.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:05 am

I am interested to know what people think is the number one cause of war? What starts it, what drives people to start wars?

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:19 am

Commodities:

Food (land)

Oil

And in the future I think probably fresh water

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:59 am

Genocide and ethnic-cleansing is happening now in Kenya, a once fairly stable country. Should we totally ignore this one...maybe - after all it is an internal problem.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:39 am

freetobeme;752332 wrote: Genocide and ethnic-cleansing is happening now in Kenya, a once fairly stable country. Should we totally ignore this one...maybe - after all it is an internal problem.
Ooooo there's a larger question:

When are we obligated to step in, to intervene?

The US seems to have a different line than the rest of the world right now. Like Mike said, at whose terms?

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:06 am

Many people think we should go into Darfur - put the troops in harms way there - should we, even as part of a larger U.N. force . At what point do we stop saying we have to tolerate this and intervene, or do we say all this is culturally fine for them - so do nothing.

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:08 am

not while humans run the show

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:14 am

Or at what point to the countries that colonized take some responsibility for the mess they left behind?

Darfur was part of the British rule and after WW1 they incorporated the region into Sudan in 1916 and placed it under Aglo-Egyption rule.

The only areas of the country that was to be developed was the Blue Nile province leaving the rest of the region to ruin.

Perhaps Britain and Egypt should take responsibility on this one and clean up their mess as many of these type of issues are the fall out from the Empires that once ruled.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:14 am

Greed. That is the cause of war, imo.

Not just greed for material wealth but greed for emotional and spiritual wealth as well. Everyone wants to belong to the "winning" group; the group that everyone envies.

We can only change ourselves. Peer pressure goes a long way but the only real possibility is for popular opinion to support non-violence and shun greed. We don't need to make every human being peaceful to have world peace we just need the majority to be that way and to use their voices.

Question one: how much are you willing to give up from your own comfort level to end poverty?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:45 am

mikeinie;752367 wrote: Or at what point to the countries that colonized take some responsibility for the mess they left behind?

Darfur was part of the British rule and after WW1 they incorporated the region into Sudan in 1916 and placed it under Aglo-Egyption rule.

The only areas of the country that was to be developed was the Blue Nile province leaving the rest of the region to ruin.

Perhaps Britain and Egypt should take responsibility on this one and clean up their mess as many of these type of issues are the fall out from the Empires that once ruled.
What does "clean up" mean in this case?

I keep getting an image of trying to put an anthill back together after kicking it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:47 am

koan;752369 wrote: Greed. That is the cause of war, imo.

Not just greed for material wealth but greed for emotional and spiritual wealth as well. Everyone wants to belong to the "winning" group; the group that everyone envies.

We can only change ourselves. Peer pressure goes a long way but the only real possibility is for popular opinion to support non-violence and shun greed. We don't need to make every human being peaceful to have world peace we just need the majority to be that way and to use their voices.

Question one: how much are you willing to give up from your own comfort level to end poverty?
I don't see the connection. You think stopping war will end poverty?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:08 pm

mikeinie;752201 wrote: ‘You have to kick at the darkness till it bleeds daylight¦’ (Bruce Coburn)

World Peace, why not? But the issue is at who’s terms?

As long as people are unwilling to make some sacrifices, modify some of their own believes, be willing to change points of views when presented with a ‘better’ idea, and loose the perception of ‘our way is the right way’ to live, then it can be done.

As long as there are entrenched fundamentalists world wide unyielding in their beliefs and convictions, then there will always be conflict.

As I suggested previously, each country polices themself internally with the international court policing relationships between countries and commonly agreed basic standards within each country.

Start with the obvious basics, thou shall not invade another country, thou shall not assassinate the leader of another country, etc and work your way up from there.

That way, no one country has the dilemma of when to intervene as everyone is working to a commonly agreed set of standards. Any aggressor is automatically guilty - no pre-emptive strikes allowed.

Treat relationships between countries as you would relationships between people in a small town - if someone upsets you, don't go round to their house and beat the sh!t out of them, call in the police and have them apply the law.

that way, no single country has the dilemma of whether to intervene

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:09 pm

freetobeme;752298 wrote: True, but how tolerant should we be of gross abuses e.g. stoning people to death for adultry etc. Should we just ignore atrocities and genocide in other countries - should we stand idly by while one group hatchets another group to death? How much should a country tolerate and accept as viva la difference !

Maybe we should just stand back, completely back out of all countries including giving foreign aid to anyone, and look after ourselves.

If you can get sufficient support from the international community to get a law passed in the International Court of Justice banning the practice then go for it and it ill be enforced - if you cannot raise that much support then walk away, it's none of your business.

How and where you give foreign aid is up to you - if you wish to use it as a sweetener to win another country to your way of thinking then I hope you're rich enough.

BTW, before anyone mis-interprets the above, you refers to the nation state of your choice, not an individual or group of individuals.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:17 pm

freetobeme;752364 wrote: Many people think we should go into Darfur - put the troops in harms way there - should we, even as part of a larger U.N. force . At what point do we stop saying we have to tolerate this and intervene, or do we say all this is culturally fine for them - so do nothing.

We should be intervening - as part of a larger UN force.

As we should have done in Rwanda.

No way should any country go in on their own - they have not the right.

The point at which you stop tolerating it is the point at which a consensus is reached agreeing that the situation is unacceptable - with Darfur that consensus was reached some while ago.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:20 pm

Accountable;752387 wrote: I don't see the connection. You think stopping war will end poverty?

The one is certainly a direct cause of the other - not the only one but a major one nonetheless.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:04 pm

Bryn Mawr;752477 wrote: The one is certainly a direct cause of the other - not the only one but a major one nonetheless.
Stopping war (not fighting) is a passive act -- actualy it is inaction. I don't see how inaction will end poverty. It will certainly free anyone to seek their own way out, which is a start, but some kind of more assertive act is necessary to help those who won't help themselves.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:09 pm

Bryn, this "world government" of yours: You really see it as simple as imposing a single legislature worldwide, with a military large enough to put down any international squabble??

So everybody would have yet another level of government to pay taxes to, vote representatives to, etc?

Less government is what we need, not more.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:44 pm

Accountable;752491 wrote: Stopping war (not fighting) is a passive act -- actualy it is inaction. I don't see how inaction will end poverty. It will certainly free anyone to seek their own way out, which is a start, but some kind of more assertive act is necessary to help those who won't help themselves.

Turn this around, war is an action that, in many cases, leads directly to poverty in the affected country. By removing the action causing the poverty you will reduce the level of poverty in that country.

Think Ethiopia and Somalia by way of example.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:57 pm

Accountable;752494 wrote: Bryn, this "world government" of yours: You really see it as simple as imposing a single legislature worldwide, with a military large enough to put down any international squabble??

So everybody would have yet another level of government to pay taxes to, vote representatives to, etc?

Less government is what we need, not more.

Not World Government so much as an extension of the existing International Court and a replacement for the United Nations.

The cost of maintaining the "World Police" would be far, far less than the current cost of maintaining the various national militias hich would, of course, be outlawed.

Overall cost to the individual would be less than current.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:12 pm

Bryn Mawr;752512 wrote: Turn this around, war is an action that, in many cases, leads directly to poverty in the affected country. By removing the action causing the poverty you will reduce the level of poverty in that country.

Think Ethiopia and Somalia by way of example.
"Reduce the level," yes. But stopping war will no more eliminate poverty than removing a needle from a balloon will re-inflate it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:16 pm

Bryn Mawr;752516 wrote: Not World Government so much as an extension of the existing International Court and a replacement for the United Nations.

The cost of maintaining the "World Police" would be far, far less than the current cost of maintaining the various national militias which would, of course, be outlawed.

Overall cost to the individual would be less than current.
You understand, of course that that will only happen (if at all) after the guys on your side spend and exhorbitant price in money, arms and many dead people in war against the guys on my side, right?

This naturally doesn't reduce my respect for you one iota. :-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:28 pm

Accountable;752530 wrote: You understand, of course that that will only happen (if at all) after the guys on your side spend and exhorbitant price in money, arms and many dead people in war against the guys on my side, right?

This naturally doesn't reduce my respect for you one iota. :-6

I said right at the beginning that I saw no way it would ever happen :wah:

As an ideal to aim at it has much to commend it :p

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:33 pm

Accountable;752527 wrote: "Reduce the level," yes. But stopping war will no more eliminate poverty than removing a needle from a balloon will re-inflate it.

Not instantly, no, but medium to long term it would.

I am not talking a global solution to all poverty - war is a major cause of poverty in affected areas and the removal of war would lead to a reduction in poverty in the area affected. That is what I said previously and I stand by it - show good reason why it would not?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:38 pm

Bryn Mawr;752541 wrote: Not instantly, no, but medium to long term it would.

I am not talking a global solution to all poverty - war is a major cause of poverty in affected areas and the removal of war would lead to a reduction in poverty in the area affected. That is what I said previously and I stand by it - show good reason why it would not?
I had stipulated that. We agree there.

Back to the OP -- I forgot to ask my standard question. What would qualify as "peace"? Is it simply an absence of war, or is it something more?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:52 pm

Accountable;752545 wrote: I had stipulated that. We agree there.

Back to the OP -- I forgot to ask my standard question. What would qualify as "peace"? Is it simply an absence of war, or is it something more?

The absence of overt conflict would be a good starting point.

Given that, I'm sure true peace would grow with time.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:57 pm

Bryn Mawr;752548 wrote: The absence of overt conflict would be a good starting point.

Given that, I'm sure true peace would grow with time.
If that's the case, then it follows that martial law would be an acceptable means to that end. The Soviets forced that brand of "peace" among some of their holdings, if I'm not misaken.

I'm not prepared to accept that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:01 pm

Accountable;752549 wrote: If that's the case, then it follows that martial law would be an acceptable means to that end. The Soviets forced that brand of "peace" among some of their holdings, if I'm not misaken.

I'm not prepared to accept that.

Not so - martial law inevitably leads to internal conflict.

I chose my words carefully to avoid just such a scenario

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:15 pm

Bryn Mawr;752551 wrote: Not so - martial law inevitably leads to internal conflict.

I chose my words carefully to avoid just such a scenario

Sorry. I start feeling claustraphobic when suggestions arise to outlaw means of rebellion. The ability to rebel is a wonderful balance to a government.

Could you expand then on your post, "The absence of overt conflict would be a good starting point. Given that, I'm sure true peace would grow with time"?

I ask because while I absolutely agree with your idealism, I think we are polar opposites when it comes to acceptable means. Can you give an example of how you would handle a current conflict as a third party?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:21 pm

Accountable;752555 wrote: Sorry. I start feeling claustraphobic when suggestions arise to outlaw means of rebellion. The ability to rebel is a wonderful balance to a government.

Could you expand then on your post, "The absence of overt conflict would be a good starting point. Given that, I'm sure true peace would grow with time"?

I ask because while I absolutely agree with your idealism, I think we are polar opposites when it comes to acceptable means. Can you give an example of how you would handle a current conflict as a third party?

As I said earlier, the big hole in the plan as it stands is the lack of a reliable check and balance system to prevent the to power points (the judiciary and the world police) from acting in concert against their remit. You need a third leg to the stool to keep them honest - this applies at whatever level you wish to consider.

Having said that, let's take the example of Darfur.

Givens -

National laws are policed by the country concerned - unless deemed inhumane by a consensus of world national opinion.

Any force attacking across a national boundary is automatically guilty.

National militias are outlawed and, as a consequence, trade in arms is also illegal - thus the only legal arms are held by the police. (so much for the NRA - I never did believe in the right to bear arms. This can work if you allow personal ownership of guns but national armed forces are a no-no).

Assumptions -

See above, a mechanism is required to keep the judiciary and the world police honest. At this point I'll assume that they are whilst I dream up a method of ensuring it.

Either the African tribesmen take their case before the International Court (I would see this as a nominated Attorney General / Law Lord from each recognised country rather than a self perpetuating body of legislators) or a concerned nation raises it on their behalf and the court rules that a violation has occurred - thus issuing a warning to desist and pay reparations. So far, this is little different to the raising of a UN resolution which has already happened in the case of Darfur.

If, however, the Janjaweed / Sudanese government ignore the ruling (as they have with the UN resolution) then the World Police are mobilised, not as a peacekeeping force but in punitive mode to take out any and every active combatant. Normal police operations would then assign guilt on an individual level.

The main difference to today is that the resolutions have bite and breaches will be punished. Appeals to the court can be made by nations against other nations or by groups within a nation against its national government although the International Court will only pass judgement on international law (including whether a national government is in breach of international law in its treatment of its own nationals).

Given rapid response and an automatic assumption that an aggressor nation is always in the wrong, national militias are not necessary - they are not needed for defence and are illegal for attack.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:34 pm

So you support nation-building a la the US in Afghanistan, so long as enough foreigners agree to it?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:23 pm

Accountable;752576 wrote: So you support nation-building a la the US in Afghanistan, so long as enough foreigners agree to it?

That is not building a nation - it's destroying one for no better pretext than the Russians had.

It did not have consensus support and therefore comes under the heading of invasion - the aggressor nation is guilty.

You do not fight terrorists with the grand army - a tank battalion is of no use against people who can fade into the general population at will - all your tanks will achieve is killing large numbers of civilians and totally alienating large sections of the World's population.

How far towards peace has America's foreign policy brought us in the last six years? How many nations has it built?