Peace? (1 Viewer)

[Atlas]

Good day to all,
We live in a period where war seems to be the main focus and the main subject of conversation.
Thats why I have decided to go in a more positive and optimistic direction.
Lets discuss peace; the possibility of peace and the type of peace.

The general question goes as follow:
Do you believe Perpetual peace (positive peace) can exist or war always remains a possibility and that peace can only be temporary (negative peace)?

Plz do join the conversation and tell us all your personal belief!

Thx you for participating, have a nice discussion.

By: Atlas.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Can you guess which way I lean?

I believe that perpetual peace is entirely possible, but only if one wants it to be possible. Patience and determination WITHOUT inaction is the key for peace, and personally I don't think we are as far away from that as some might suggest.

I hate the notion of "war will always be."

"Might as well be anti-iceberg." Or other things that suggest that pacifism is idealist. I do not believe it is idealist to think that one day we will grow away from solving problems with our guns and start solving problems with each other.

I could rant, ohh I could rant...

 

[V.I. Lenin]

Is perpetual peace possible? Well of course. Probable? No. It takes universal patience and understanding for peace to become perpetual. Will this happen anytime soon? I'm not sure...but i do know that..."If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set there'd be peace~John Lennon"

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I think the biggest problem with peace is how fragile and difficult it is. To break peace you need but to pull a trigger, however, to create it takes more effort and determination and perseverance than any war ever fought.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I think that very few people would choose to engage in warfare when they think that they have a choice.
What would be a prerequisite for a positive peace would be an effective and equitable means of resolving serious conflicts.

 

[Laternater]

Peace? Interesting subject indeed. I do believe peace is achievable as long as animals (to include humans) no longer exist. This might seem a little negitive but rather it is reality at it's best. As long as we all have different ideas and live different lives our perceptions are often tanted. Of course we could place "rose colored glasses" onto our heads and pretend that all is well as we scorn over our latest delimma in life. My question, is democracy really the answer to peace?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I think that very few people would choose to engage in warfare when they think that they have a choice.

How much money do you think people building weapons for our government make when we go to war?

What would be a prerequisite for a positive peace would be an effective and equitable means of resolving serious conflicts.

Communication?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Peace? Interesting subject indeed. I do believe peace is achievable as long as animals (to include humans) no longer exist. This might seem a little negitive but rather it is reality at it's best. As long as we all have different ideas and live different lives our perceptions are often tanted.

We're not debating the possiblility of everyone being the same and having all one mind. I think we will all concede that that is far from possible. We're talking about getting through our different ideas and different lives and different perceptions through nonviolent means. I believe that to be entirely possible.

My question, is democracy really the answer to peace?

Yes, I think so. It's like here in America. If everyone has a voice, there isn't violence every time something doesn't go their way.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

How much money do you think people building weapons for our government make when we go to war?

What percentage of the population do you suppose they comprise? I don't know eactly, but I suppose that they fall into the category I described as "very few people."

Communication?

So far, for the past few millenia, communication, despite its obvious benefits and status as a prerequisite for resolving serious protracted conflicts, hasn't been that effective in and of itself. I suspect there needs to be something more.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

What percentage of the population do you suppose they comprise? I don't know eactly, but I suppose that they fall into the category I described as "very few people."

It is the governement that says when to go to war, not the majority of people.

So far, for the past few millenia, communication, despite its obvious benefits and status as a prerequisite for resolving serious protracted conflicts, hasn't been that effective in and of itself. I suspect there needs to be something more.

There are no quick solutions when it comes to peace. When there is a stalemate, people throw up there hands, call each other unreasonable, and get the military.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It is the governement that says when to go to war, not the majority of people.

And...?

There are no quick solutions when it comes to peace. When there is a stalemate, people throw up there hands, call each other unreasonable, and get the military.

Sure, this is mostly a given. What's needed is an effective and equitable alternative to military force for resolving serious and protracted conflicts. Without such an altenative people will feel that they're compelled to wage war.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I think a functioning UN, or something like it would be the best way to achieve peace.

 

[Blackflagx]

Well, I think peace is entirely possible. However, I do not believe it is possible as of now. The main reason for this is that class society exists. As long as classes exist, there will be violence. As of now you have the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is intent on keeping their privilaged position and keeping the proletariat in chains. It is this divison of interest, relation to the means of production, hence class, that will mean violence will exist. The only way to abolish war and violence is to abolish class society. Once classes are abolished and we have implemented a system of true communism (stateless), only then will war and violence dissapear. Before this however there will be a bitter class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. There shall be a day when humanity realizes peace, but unfortunately for us, we have a long way ahead of us.

And Ghandi>Bush, I find it a bit odd that you are a pacifist yet support the state, which is a monopoly on violence and a tool of class oppression. As long as the state and class society exists, so will war and violence.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Gandhi

I want everyone who reads this to note on the location of the H in Gandhi. It's very simple. I made the same mistake when first going to spell the Mahatma's name.

Mr. Blackflag. It would be hard for me to argue against your point without switching this thread to a debate about the advantages/disadvatages of Communism or Democracy. If you would like to do so, we should try to do it in another thread in order to keep this one on topic. Why? Because I love this topic.

However, I must say your words were spoken like a true Communist.

I will begin by saying simply that I don't believe that social classes are the reason violence and war occurs. I believe it is low education, poverty(which both are arguably closely related to the class system), Greed, Power-hungry...ness, and impatience.

In India, where the man I look up to came from, they had one of the strictest class systems ever, the Caste system, and they still over came the British without violence.

Peace takes patience, perseverance, and above all love. That may sound more hippy than I intended, but there is no other way to really say it.

 

[Blackflagx]

they still over came the British without violence.

You make it seem like there was no violence. Quite the contrary. Gandhi was a very strict pacifist and refused to fight back. This caused a lot of violence in reality. There was simply violence from one side: the British. A lot of Gandhi's followers were masacred because they refused to defend themselves. Allthough I dont desire it, I must say that sometimes violent revolution is necessary. When you refuse to defend yourself you are esentially killing yourself. I am all for peace, but self-defense is necessary for when peacefull revolutionaries (like Gandhi) are attacked. Perhaps if Gandhi would have defended himself and his people there actually might have been LESS violence than there was. Allthough I dont like it, violence sometimes can prevent more violence (ass odd as it sounds) and, therefore, is sometimes necessary IMO.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Well part of Gandhi's philosophy was to be above violence. To not be reduced to using violence back. And you are right there were a great many casualties during India's revolution, but think of how great the casualties would have been if the people of India had waged open war on the British... Considering the time period... WWI... This could have gotten very hairy, but Gandhi and his followers stayed above that. And there in lies the key. The relationship between Britian and India since it's independence is excellent. There is absolutely no hostility in between them. How do you think the British felt about the US 60 years after our independence?

 

[Joe ohhnoo]

This is my view of the future... Peace but... after some chaotic harsh ride for the men. But still we can choose. ....................... To grow or not to grow.... To love or not to love.... To kill or to forgive...
Our savage behavior is based on ignorance. I have had experienced ( encountered ) God He is love as Budda and and Jesus and Rumii point him out ( he was me!, you!). He was nothing like the personage Muhamad discloses of God ( God of Muhamad and Moses is Ego, what a forceful evil God). He does not threaten. kill or disturb you but you do it to yourself and he is waiting patiently until you give up your wrong way and join him with all your heart. Since he is love, he never threaten and he does not need to threaten and he does not aprove it because he is not pain and because all is him and nothing is out of him. You can not harm God but yourself because there is only one mind. Let every one be and grow at their own pace , just bless them no matter what they believe. All religions are based on fear ( evil, opposite of love) and therefore ego related for control of one man by other man. We need to grow and leave the religion behind and become like Budda and Jesus. I believe that day will come. Because, although I failed twice but... I have been there.