Is world peace possible?

Originally posted by slur
...But consider this: When you believe that obtaining X will give you happiness then how do you feel when Y intervenes? That is the crux of hate! Y becomes the object of hatred, because it thwarts your desire for X.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting one of the troublesome scenerio's, when attaining X is detremental to Y. This isn't a simple matter of something directly intervening, it's when the desire of one comes at the detrement to the other. It's this drive for "happiness" that _causes_ the problems.


As problem-solvers people will think that eliminating Y will lead them to X - and the happiness they seek.
Click to expand...

Actually it is often X that becomes Y (different X's and Y's or else it becomes cyclical).

...
But damn there is so much ignorance. So many people scrambling to abdicate their personal responsibility. So many people scrambling to give up their power to warlords, despots, priests, politicians.

It is a pathetic reality that terrorists must exist as champions of the powerless.
Click to expand...

People don't abdicate their personal responsibility or power through ignorance, they do it out of human nature (of which ignorance is only a part). And what's up with this "terrorist as champions of the powerless" stuff? Osama bin Laden, the rich college grad, gives a crap about the "powerless"? Nope, he only cares about pushing his ideals. Very few terrorists do what they do to help the powerless, keep in mind that the victims of most of their actions _are_ the powerless. They are thugs with an agenda, nothing more, to romanticize them as anything else is just wrong.

...
The obstacles are great, but I believe world peace is possible.
Click to expand...

But from what I read, the gist of your statements are that world peace will be attainable when people stop acting like people. A nice thought, but not something you can really run with. You say to be satisfied with the here and now, and not to hope/try to achieve something higher? Don't try to come up with a reason for our existence (whether scientific or religious), just be happy you exist?

And lastly, and most importantly, aren't you falling victim to your own argument? Haven't you now foisted "world peace" as your X, and a major X at that. And you mentioned that having such a big X and a correspondingly big Y leads to armageddon. By your argument, we shouldn't strive for world peace, we should not want to attain it, for it is this desire to attain it that will cause us not to have it?
 
Let's for a moment assume that world peace is possible. Just assume. Let's further assume that it would take an incredible amount of time, energy and last but not least: Money. Let's assume that the UN (or another world-spawning organisation) manages to HAVE the time, energy and money to achieve world peace. Let's now assume that everything has been done. We now have world peace. It takes ONE country or power only to destroy world peace. One invasion only. One war only.

So, is it possible? Maybe. The question is rather: For how long and at what cost (time, energy, money).

The really, really, really sad truth is that the financial interest in peace is quite low quite often. America has used many a war to get rid of old weaponry.
 
... But war is costly, too. The argument is double-bladed, fryke, and noboddy knows on what side the blade is sharpest. War can cost a lot to some countries, a lot more than expected.

I was reading a manual of mathematical logics this morning when I realized the term 'peace' makes very little sense if it does not coexist next to its opposite, 'conflict'.

That's my 1.5¢ for today, I'll have to complete this a next time :rolleyes:
 
Hmm... So you mean, if we remove all conflicts, there would be peace - for a moment. Because the word wouldn't make sense any longer? ;)
 
I mean: on a totally theoretical basis, removing all conflicts would remove peace too :) This sounds completely absurd, simply because it's made of 100% theory.

On a more practical point, which is the only point I am interested in, I believe peace does not signify complete absence of conflict. I will defend this point by 1- stating peace is what results from war 2- stating peace is a ponctual phenomenon, idea est it has a beginning, and an end.

War and peace may be antagonists, they are irremediably linked. They go together. Such a statement obviously deserved a complete argumentation, just give me one or two days to finish some administrative stuff for my institute ;)
 
I can't wait two days right now. I'm putting the finishing touches on my new novel, which is about a bunch of people, God's daughter among them, and 'peace and conflict' might be a good subject for yet another chapter somewhere in the middle. (The book is basically going to be off-topic most of the time, part of the plot. One more excursion can't do any harm...) :)

So... If theoretically removing all conflicts would create peace, how should we start... We could remove the basis for the conflicts before they can escalate.

But it's a bit difficult to define the basis of some conflicts. For example, a basic problem for the 'USA vs. Middle East' conflict are religious differences. Now, I'm all for removing religion, but proving that God doesn't exist has proven to be a bit difficult. Douglas N. Adams has said that it's possible by actually PROVING his existence (The Babelfish is the proof of God's existence which, read it up in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, therefore proves God's inexistence...).

I guess this all means that

a) I'm tired
b) Douglas Adams died too early
c) I should go back to work on my book.
 
To avoid (a) getting worse, get to bed, lay down and think of (b), then get back to (c) as soon as tomorrow morning.

World peace: possible or not ? is a question with a specific context: the Earth and its organization.
Understanding how the world is organized will let me answer the question properly. The way the world is organized I will call the international order, which regulates the international system.

Raymond Aron provided three keys to the understanding of the international system: War, Nation-state, and Organisation. I'll analyze those three criterias (part 1), then examine their formation and functioning (part 2), and lastly I'll give some indications about how they dislocate (part 3).

My sources will be Raymond Aron, Philippe Moreau-Defarges, Dominique Schnapper, Henry Kissinger, maybe Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ernst Gellner too. All of them will be appropriately quoted and translated, I'll do my best.

I will, obviously, intensively use some knowledge gathered through the years of my studies. The whole text shoud be heavily illustrated with worldwide examples. The definitive result might be quite long. I also think that right criticism will imply the need for some revisions of the text, revisions that I will number.

See you soon :)
 
While the concepts of conflict and peace might be necessary to define one another, this does not imply that they are factually necessary to be able to exist at all ... moreover, world-peace does not imply the elimination of conflict in general, but of armed conflict.

A Greek poet (Hesiod, IIRC) defined two types of `envy': one that makes me hate he who has more than I have and one that makes me emulate to reach the same level. Obviously also in the case of conflict there are good and bad forms of conflict and all gradations inbetween. What the quest for world peace aims at is the elimination of (the causes for) armed conflict, not for the elimination of e.g. debate, protest, appeal, discussion, negotiation, argument etc.
 
That wouldn't work very well, Cat, 'cause once you eliminated a cause for one, there'd be a new one to take its place.
 
I dont think world peace is an option while people only think about themselfs. Too many people in the world are ready to stab someone in the back when they least expect it. At least thats my 2 cents.
 
Question: Is world peace possible ?
Answer [version 1 - 04/28/2003]

Pre-notes
#1- Check the previous post about my sources and way or reasoning. Remember this text gives only a few conceptions, examples and clues, and not an opinion.
#2- English is not my native language, please be indulgent. This text is abbreviated. Its structure is made openly apparent to simplify it all.
#3 - In brief, this text is food for thought. Reflexion should concentrate more on the original question than on the txt pertinence itself, IMHO.

Intro
The expression 'World peace' indirectly refers to the world's organization, performed through an international system of laws and legitimate structures (such as nation-states or supranational organizations).
Peace is part of this international system. Or rather: war is part of the international system, and peace, its logical antagonist, accompanies it.

Is the actual international system designed to preserve peace or to reach universal world peace ? Is world peace a conceivable concept ? The following text aims at detailing the world's post-WW2 international order, in such a way that the question: is world peace possible ? finds itself answered at some point.

International order: notions and problematic

Contents
1) General determining criterii of an international system
2) Formation and Operation of an international system
3) Dislocation and death of an international system

1) SYSTEM AND ORDER

Raymond Aron, "War and Peace between Nations"
"I call 'international system' a group of political units that shares regular relations and that is susceptible to find itself implicated in a general war."
Click to expand...

Aron gives three key notions to analyze contemporary international system: war, nation-state, organization.

### A. War ###

1. Classic vision of war

DEFINITION
War is a link between states.
War is the event states must participate to to be part of the global competition for power.
Generally wars do not annihilate states (exception: Poland, end XVIIIth cent.).

CLAUSEWITZ
Clausewitz first and greatest thinker of war a s structurant principle for an internatl. system.
War is a political attempt (military is only a means, an instrument) to place a state as high as possible in the international hierarchy.
War designates a winner, and does not annihilate the defeated. Example: franco-prussian war, 1870-1871: Bismarck unifies Germany against France, clearly shows his victory to Europe, but does not eliminate France.
War is an army vs. army process, ie it occurs on battlegrounds, not on civilian ground.

2. War during the XXth century

WAR IS OUTLAWED
Until WW1, war is considered as inherent to societies. During WW1, the "big illusion" of a "final war" is born.
Concretization: pact of Society of Nations, June 28, 1919, introduces the idea of 'illicit wars'. Chart of UN, June 26, 1945, article 2 §4: use of force is prohibited between UN members.
Exceptions:
- Self-defense
- Security Council decisions
However:
- Self-defense is flawed. Example: Stalin intervenes against "human face of socialism" in Tchecoslovakia, 1968. Also: UN resolution 1368, after 9/11. Also: after WW2, all decolonization conflicts are said to be legitimate.
- Security Council decisions are influenced by local politics. Example: Iraq, 1990 (resolution 678).

THE NUCLEAR FACT
Humanity discovers it can annihilate itself. Equilibrium of terror: atom is ultimate aweapon of deterrence. The real strategic revolution is not Hiroshima/Nagasaki but H-Bomb (1951) and atomic ICBMs (1957).
Nuclear power moves conflicts from centre to peripherial areas, ie Third World.
Classic wars (no nucear power) continue: Iraq/Iran 1980-1988.
Nuclear power is considered illegal, then legal, then illegal again. Finally, Internatl. Court of Justice considers no solution is to be found (July 8, 1996).

EFFICIENCY/LEGITIMITY OF WAR
War is meant to have a clear winner and a clear defeated. Nevertheless:
1945: post-colonization conflicts aim at liberating a country.
1960: wars between Third World countries do not conclude to winner/loser situations (reasons: no warmongers after Mao Zedong and Giap, no legitimity if not independence war).
1990: Gulf war does not end up in total surrender of Iraq.

>> Summarized: War has always been part of the international order, even if its forms have changed.

### B. Nation-state ###

Considered as permanent entity. Product of history.
Ernst Gellner, "Nations and Nationalism"
"Nationalism is a form of political legitimity, corresponding to coincidence of ethnic and political boundaries. Conditions: 1- same culture to all national individuals, 2- individuals reckon they are part of a nation."
Click to expand...

1. State as sovereign totality

Nation-states created to agregate individuals when needed (Industrial Revolutions). At the time, state considers itself a a global overwhelming power with 2 functions (law and order, see below). Today, societies escape from state limits to reach international dimension.

LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
Social contract philosophers: state is the enityt which defines the Law over natural rights.
But:
- states create laws inspired from other states (example: priviledged area of evolution of nation-state is occidental space - Occ. Europe/US/Jap - in which all countries inspire themwelves from each other).
- national rights are imbricated into supranational rights (human rights).
Hence, liberal conception of the state includes an international dimension.

SOLIDARITY FUNCTION
A nation is a group of individuals linked by solidarity. Regionalism can fragment national solidarity.

2. States' changes

Dominique Schnapper, "Immigrants' Europe"
Conception of Nation (transcendance of particularism to create a group that coincides with a territory), built around the national link, is reformed.
Click to expand...

NATIONAL LINK
Nationality is provided by the state and by the state only.
Supreme form of nationalism is to die for your nation.
Areas where national link is problematic: Japan (Meiji era, 1868-1912), China (1842-1949), muslim world (conflict with umma (ummêt)).

MUTATION OF NATIONAL LINK
XIXth century; holistic nation-state.
Post-WW2: individuals sign temporary pacts with states. Examples: apatrids, tranfuges, fugitives.
Also: multinationalism (Europe).
Also: renewal of ethnic identities: Europe separated into catholic/orthodox/ottoman (Yugoslavia), China has North/South and center/periphery oppositions. Exception: Japan (reason: 1% immigration).

>> Summarized: nation-states integrate infranational and supranational dimensions. On a theoretical point of view, nation-state is challenged by its little (cities) and big (empires) brothers.

### C. Organization ###

XIXth century: national bureaucracy knows a start.
1919 (SoN) / 1945 (UN): international bureaucracy knows a start.

1. States are part of a whole

UN (states choose a camp: East/West, later non-aligned), Europe (states share some sovereignty with a new structure) equal multiplication of legitimity levels.

2.Those structures help non-national structures to grow strong

3. States use those structures but those latter are motivated by contradictory interests

Usage of UN by states vary through time. Some states manage to control or bypass it:
1945: UN is born, US are its mother.
1953: Third World rules (in terms of decisionary power) over the UN.
1990: Gulf War: the US initiate 100% of UN resolutions.
1999: Russia ignores the UN.
2001: Sept 12, 2001, resolution 1368 is forced by the US.

>> Summarized: component 2 (states) make component 1 (war) within component 3 (organization). Combined components 1-2-3 define an international order.
Transition: next part of text will show how this internatl. orders hatch and then live, before they die (part 3).

Part 1 provides element 1/3 to my answer to the 'Is world peace possible ?' question: The world is a regulated international system of interactions between states, and these interactions include war as the most prominent means to build a hierarchy between states in this ordred system.

Post-notes:
#1 - I may answer questions before publication of parts 2 and 3, but the text will be revised only as a whole, at the end (in a maximum of 48 hours).
#2 - Quotes were made without exact titles or translations.
#3 - Text structure taken from Philippe Moreau-Defarges (Paris Institute of Political Studioes teacher). He's not one of my teacher, btw :p
#4 - Discussion is open. Any addition to the text (esp. examples for sections B1, B2, C1) are welcome.
 
toast: Very nice. I enjoyed reading your analysis. Just a quick comment:

It seems that nationalism ends up being harmful to foreign countries.

I can't imagine a way to prevent people from getting proud of their country - nor would I want to.

More and more I'm thinking that as long as humans and human nature exists, world peace or even world order can't happen for any substantial length of time. Of particular concern is nuclear proliferation.
 
One of the problems deriving from chauvinism, is that immigrant are defined only on the base of them being immigrants: they are not Moroccans, Turks, Iraqi's, they are immigrants and seen as a kind of pariah's, even worse is the case of illegal immigrants. These foreigners are treated by public opinion and the authorities as a kind of parasites and they are massified, denying their individual culture. Their culture is not even seen as culture, but only as "different from our own one", as anti-culture and hence as dangerous. This, of course, triggers the response by the immigrants of forming close knit communities of their own, which again are percieved by the locals as dangerous breeding nests of fundamentalism and refusal to integrate with society.

In short, people are not prone to accept and respect the Other as an equal. They only percieve Others as equals when they are Identical to themselves. This has all to do with the strenght of one's own identity. When this is based largely or exclusively on being subject of a nation, every (percieved) threat to that nation counts as a personal attack and undermines confidence in oneself. The ensuing fear is projected on anything being different, critical, or opposed to ones nation, hence the proliferation of accusations of antipatriottism in America.

People lacking strong bases for their own opinions and personality, people which define their personality through appeal to the abstract values of their nation, cannot but see immigrants and foreigners as a threat. Moreover, in the case of the recent conflict between the US and Iraq we see two very strong cultures, based on the weakness of the individuals' personalities which see each other as a threat. Only when the chauvinism of "my culture/nation/religion is better than yours" stops, only when we stop thinking in terms of "them" and "us", a road to peace can be found.

There is nothing wrong with loving your country, but if this is the cause of hating another country, something is wrong. Moreover, chauvinism is a deeply irrational, fanatic fundamentalistic way of loving ones country ... and criticising a country or your own country isn't antipatriottic. Democracy consists in checks and balances, when the scales tip too much towards one end, the other end must correct the balance. That's why there is cuch a thing as a parliament, and not only just a government.
 
Originally posted by habilis
It seems that nationalism ends up being harmful to foreign countries.

I can't imagine a way to prevent people from getting proud of their country - nor would I want to.
Click to expand...

Formation of nation-states goes with formation of a national link, which does not replace familial, religious or local links, but subordinates them.

Attribution of nationality is an exclusive domain of the state. Nationality gives you an identity, and protection. Until post-WW2, individuals are protected by the state and by the state only (diplomatic protection mecanism).

Totalitarian states go further: the totalitarian individual is part of a State collectivity. At any moment, the non-conform individual can be chased or eliminated. Eg:
USSR - Koulaks
Nazi Germany - Jews

It is obvious you cannot stop this natural process of patriotism_you are talking about. The term 'nationalism' refers to more extreme ideologies and to concrete acts, more than string moral support to your country.

Nationalism you will find in national-socialist (Ugg: 'nazional-sozialistische' ?), or in National Front (French extreme-right party).
You will also find nationalism in the expression national-populist which can designate Jean-Marie Le Pen, Umberto Bossi, Silvio Berlusconi, Jorg Haider or Ros Perot (to French speakers: consult book by Yves Mény, Yves Surel, "Par le Peuple, Pour le Peuple").
Finally, you find 'nationalism' in the Algerian National Liberation Front, which also exists in many other Arabic countries.

To make it short, nationalism is a flawed form of patriotism, what Cat called chauvinism. Hence nationalism is shown under a negative angle in my text, while patriotism is not (for it is not evoked in the national link, I'll have to update that).
 
Question: Is world peace possible ?
Answer [version 1 - 05/04/2003]

Pre-notes
#1- Part 1 and a few posts before part 1 are to be read befoe this part.
#2 - Sorry, I'm late, but I have so many things to do this month, I couldn't go faster.
#3 - Bored with too long text ? Don't read section 3 of this text, it can be skipped ;)

Quick Intro
This is part 2, about formation and functioning of international orders (orders is plural, as explained before). It logically follows the definition of an international system and of an international consequent order, which were detailed in part 1.
In this second point of my anwser to the question Is world peace possible ?, I concentrate on showing that war is part of the normal operation of modern international systems.
A quick study would show this statement is also true with older systems (Antiquity, 18th century napoleonian wars, etc), but I will voluntarily ignore older systems to keep part 2 short and to link it to the specific actual context.

Contents
1) International values
2) Hierachies of power
3) Communication and trade


2) FORMATION AND FUNCTIONING OF INTERNATIONAL ORDERS

An international order is a product from History. Consequently:
- Every order is imperfect: it is heterogenous (eg: Europe: Iron Curtain), it is not simply bipolar or multipolar (eg: neutral states).
- Every order is precarious: an order is a temporary attempt to organize world relations between states. Time consolidates orders and make them grow old and obsolete at the same time (erosion of values).
- Every order has its counter-order. Some countries will never surrender to fixed rules (Russia, USSR, then Russia, are pretty perfect examples).
- Finally, an order can be ambiguous. In 1918, Germany has lost the war and is heavily weakened by the Treaty of Versailles; nevertheless, it stays economically more productive than France or GB (winners).

An international order builds on common referrals accepted as legitimate by its actors (1), on a hierarchy of its elements, that is states (2), and on the communication and trade betwwen its elements (3).

### A. International values ###

1. Values and customs

Europe between end of 30 Years war (1618-1648) and napoleonian wars (1792-1815) accepts to ignore major antagonism between catholicism and protestantism at the time. Monarchs submit to the cujus regio, ejus religio principle (every prince is Head of Church in his own country). First time a (forced) consensus is found in Europe to build an international order.

European order finds its counter-order at the time and until WW1 in Africa: while Europe is an ordered place, Africa is a free-for-all for colonisation).

2. Antagonisms in values

Community of values does not mean community of interests: marxism and liberalism are engaged into a planetary war, but create together an international, peaceful order (atomic order, or order by the atom for Samy Cohen and Pierre Moreau-Defarges). Washington and Moscow are fiends to each other, but are the foundation of a stable nuclear order (SALT-START treaties or rupture of nuclear cooperation between Moscow and Beijing in 1957 illustrate part of this order).

>>> Summarized: It appears through time that what builds an order is less common values than common fears.

### B. Powers' hierarchy ###

Different orders:
- Orders by empire (18th century)
- Orders by equlibrium (bipolar atomic order)
- Orders by unique forces (post-1991: USA)

1. Criterias of hierarchy

Ultimate test of hierarchy: war between state 1 and state 2, war which may take state 2 up into hierarchy over state 1. However, war itself has changed:
- 1945-1991: war is ideological and military (East/West atomic competition).
- 1991-*: Socialist order collapses. Competition axes itself towards technical and economical competition, which brings Asia in competition.
International order, even if military competition has moreorless disappeared, stays neverthless a violent game.

What can be said of the American hegemony ?
- USA are first in all domains of competition. As explained by Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard, Public Press 1997), USA are the first world hegemony (even Rome had not reached this state).
- However, as Romans said, the Tarpeian rock is not far from the Capitol. Which is a fine metaphor to say that all form of power appeals to excess and to its own collapsing.

2. Legitimity of hierarchy

Legitimity goes with the idea of nature: what is legitimate (human rights) must be natural, essential (by essence). Example: the "white's man burden" is experienced as a natural mission.

Hierarchies are vulnerable:

a) Hierarchy can collapse due to exterior factors.

19th century: Chinese Empire is destroyed by Europe.
20th century: European order is destroyed by the war and supplanted by East/West order, two non-European nations (US/USSR).

b) Hierarchy can mutate due to interior factors.

Assume state X is a powerful state, state x is a less powerful one.
- X gets bored with dominating x. Colonisation sometimes ends by X deciding that x is too costly in terms of men, bureaucracy, resources etc.
- x learns to use/blackmail X. Eastern Europe under soviet domination asks Moscow for huge compensations (goulash communism) to stay in Eastern orbit.
- x steals ideology of X. Colonisation has reversed the colons' ideas (freedom, religion...) against X states.

c) Hierarchy is not a fixed state.

- US / Israel: US support birth of Israel (1973-1979: Kissinger perpetuates effort). Israel then considers it can act without US permission (1982: Peace in Galilee operation), supported by American Jew lobby.
- US / Japan: relation started US > Japan while now both need each other the same way.

3. Ambiguity in hierarchy

Not only hierarchies revise themselves, they are not always obvious.

- Criterii to hierarchies are multidirectional: is there a choice to be made ? Which one ? Military ? Then #1 US #2 China. Economical ? Then #1 US #2 OPEP countries. Ideological ? Fallacious. On top of that, political/economical compromises between states make the establishment of a coherent hierarchy a difficult task.
- Democratisation of the internatl system (creation of UN: two decisionary instances: General Assembly and Sec. Council) kills the idea of a vertical hierarchy (ranking: #1#2#3#4 and so on) for a horizontal one: Sec. Council has 5 horizontal members, as shown by the Iraq crisis, one member is enough to paralyze action of the 4 others. Egalitarism may be more complex to master, it kills a violent form of hierachy in the internatl. order.

>> Summarized: The hierarchy that emerges is regulated by war, or rather by military activity in a first place, hence this hierarchy is destined to change. As the world democratizes itself, international order builds a democratic, horizontal (egalitarian) hierarchy which means less than the vertical one. World peace is hence closer to this conception of internatl. system than to the other one, which is not always obvious.

### C. Communication and trade ### (as said in pre-notes, this is not so important)

1. Multidimensional networks of communication

- Offical institutional channels: meetings, summits, involving Ministers and Heads of States.
- Interaction between governants and public opinion (see Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent). Some governments shape the people's opinion (totalitarism), although totalitarian leaders all wrote in their memories their people were less than they deserved.

2. Misunderstandings !

Notorious one: 1870, Ems dispatch (Bismarck tricks Napoleon IIIrd who declares war on Prussia).
1970: Jimmy Carter (counsellor: Brzezinski) declares "moral politics" behavior. USSR thinks of some conspiracy with Third World.
1975: US think SS20 soviet missiles are deliberate violation of treaties.

3. Two different logics

Military (competition) and political (compromise). Sometimes both meet, in democracies (Eisenhower), in dictatures (Central Asia: Turkmenistan). How can world peace be imagined with military leaders as heads of state ? Every internatl order is thus a precarious equilibrium, and the first factor of fragility resides in national choices.

Part 2 provides element 2/3 to my answer to the 'Is world peace possible ?' question: what creates an international system includes violence. War has been and still is, although technico-economical competition should replace it in an idealized vision of the world, the one criteria of states' hierarchy. Nation-states thus stand as the source of warlike relations between world entities. Unless the world expects a complete, Fukuyama-like transformation, war is a capital element of any international or national, any old or modern, system.

Post-notes:
#1 - Quotes were made without exact titles or translations.
#2 - Text structure taken from Philippe Moreau-Defarges (Paris Institute of Political Studies teacher). He's not one of my teacher, btw :p
#3 - Discussion is open. If you want a...
#4 - Hint: last part of my reasoning is maybe a little too kantian. I may explain the Immanuel Kant theory about world order and world peace a bit later.
 
Originally posted by wiz
eh actuall it is NOT possible.
why? ... relligion and war go hand-in-hand. ironic heh.
Click to expand...

Three critics to your statement, in crescendo:

1) Simplistic. One sentence, one thought, one second of reflexion, no more.
2) Obsolete. You were right ten centuries ago. Please press Refresh button.
3) Fashionable. Everybody incl. Dubya likes to say it's all about djihad.

That's harsh, but it's true. If you're interested, develop your point. Otherwise, click here (caution: it's rude and brutal).
 
War is all about desire, pure and simple. Perhaps it could be said that those who are starving and cut off have a right to the basic things they desire. Nevertheless, strong desire for things you do not possess will lead you to go after them. The objectives of war - from the point of the aggressor - are all about obtaining control and material.

Justifications for war never go very deep, and they tend to only fool those who prefer to be fooled. Once you have a potential target the rest is textbook stuff.

Historical claims have always been the preferred justification.

Imminent threats became fashionable in the twentieth century.

A Moral Objective is usually enough to appease the populus.

A fascinating thing about Bush is that he really seems to believe the USA can steamroller the world into a cooperative democracy founded on our principles. I believe he honestly sees no irony in the idea.

I realize that tactically, taking down terrorism means removing the incentives to terror. The US sees the phenomenon of terrorism as an endemic of right-wing totalitarian religious states. It believes that such states need to be reformed, and I believe it correctly assumes that they are most responsive to the rattling of sabers.

War and Diplomacy are intertwined -- each is a willing servant of the other.

World order is a much different matter than world peace. To eliminate all conflict is naturally impossible. People are imperfect and sensitive, and they get into conflict. World order is maintained by an explicit or implicit contract between the people in power and the masses. Too many of these contracts are one-sided, but order can be maintained in these cases through coercion.

Iraq is being "rebuilt" today. Once the interim leadership is in place to oversee elections, will the people feel things are being done fairly? When the elections have been held and the votes counted and the winners announced, will people readily accept the outcome, even if it is not in their favor? In other words, can the population be made to place their faith in a system that has potential benefit?

The order we enjoy here in the US is owed largely to the decency of the people here, who feel that they are empowered to affect public policy. As long as the checks and balances are in place people in the US generally feel good about the contract. Dissent against the US administration is borne out of a healthy - and not unwarranted - suspicion that the agents of government serve powerful interests for whom war is a boon.

The European Union is in the midst of coalescing its collective values, and these values are very much like our own. Europe has lost its taste for crusades, and this is what differentiates them from us. America is a young nation with a burgeoning sense of adolescent bravado. Our representatives now proudly and loudly exclaim that the US is the world's only Super Power.

In other words, if the world is to be tamed, only the US has the means to do it. And who can argue with our principles?

America is - it seems to me - only beginning to get its taste for crusades, and this movement will continue to proliferate. Remember, the official government line is that we are meant to feel good about liberating Iraq.

When an American likes a burger,
he orders another one.

America is on a Crusade, clearly so, but maybe there won't be another war in its name. Maybe diplomacy will work without war - but probably not without the threat of war. And therein lies the rub of escalation. The likelihood of spurious wars breaking out over blockades and no-fly zones is increased tenfold.

Devotees of peace, get down to the local Red Cross and volunteer now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top