Is world peace possible?

Think about basic human emotions then apply that to national issues. Humans will always be jealous, have envy, anger and host of other basic human emotions. It seems to be human nature.
 
Take survival instinct, take some limited resources, mix well and stir it up: voilá, war.

If civilization taught us anything, it is that through cooperation we can use the world's resources more efficiently, by redistribution, division of labour, etc.

When will nations see war is not the answer, but just a not-so-subtle form of resource-distruction? We don't even neede to go down the road of empathy, pity, friendship of people ... if anything, helping each other out has always proven profitable! There was plenty to construct in Iraq even before the IIGW. Why not exetend a helping hand instead of a fist? All the profit that is being made now could have been made before ...

In the face of a war, just like in the US, people rally behind their leaders, for security and protection. If you take away the menace, what do you think will happen? If america had said, come on, let's lift those sanctions and had spent the money it has poured into the war machine in social projects, food, medicine, etc. what do you think the Iraqi people would have said then? Now the US troops come as killers and destroyed the infrastructure and organization. They will ahve to build it up from the ashes. Why not try to reform the existing structures? If you had gone to Iraq with dollars instead of bombs and had demanded fair elections through a year long diplomatic effort, what do you think people would have chosen? Now the US came with threats of hell, not with promises of paradise, and now they want them out! Well, surprise surprise ...

World peace is possible once nations understand their own obsoleteness.
 
Is world peace possible?
Click to expand...

No. Unless of course you define peace as living in fear and under the oppression of another force.

The burden of freedom demands that the free have a responsibility to confront evil when necessary. There is evil in the world, no matter what the people who live in the world wrapped in grey believe.

fryke would have you believe that the world lives in fear of the USA and that we're the tyrants. I'd like to remind my swiss friend that a mostly free Europe exists today only because brave men from the US fought for freedom there during WWII, and protected it during the Cold War from the USSR.

Sure, a good bit of the world resents the US, but if 'zi Germans came rolling in to Switzerland, whos help do you think they would be begging for?

Not the UN, that's for sure...
 
You have to dig deeper, serpicolugnut. The nazi Germans were strong because of their strict fascist military organisation and brainwashing methods - much the same as you can find in the US army or any other aggresive power (N. Korea, Iraq prior to 91, the list goes on). These elements would have to be removed to ever reach world peace.
And you don't need to drag your American patriotism and feelings for the army in here - the only peace soliders have ever created is death.

Did you read toast's analysis? ;)
 
ksv: You might not want him to bring his American patriotism in here, but realistically speaking, I don't know of a better, more tolerant societal model in the world. Nothin's perfect, not even Communism or Socialism, but until we see a better model for success you can expect Amercan patriotism/Nationalism to be alive and well far into the future.
 
Originally posted by habilis
ksv: You might not want him to bring his American patriotism in here, but realistically speaking, I don't know of a better, more tolerant societal model in the world.
Click to expand...

I just didn't want this to become another mudslinging thread. No reason to try starting a debate with fryke here. It's like saying "world peace isn't possible because I am here".

Originally posted by habilis
Nothin's perfect, not even Communism or Socialism
Click to expand...

"Communism" as most people think they know it, has been proven to be completely unsuccessful. The "let's kill the rulers and insert 'freedom'"-principle has never seemed to work. The leaders tend to become a little bit dictatoric.
For socialism, however, it really depends on what "perfect" should mean, if it's a society completely without problems, or if it means "as few problems as possible". Then of course, in some people's minds, a perfect world isn't a world where all are equal, but rather where oneself has a higher posistion than others. It is my belief though, that those views are rather formed by the community one lives in, and not necessarily "human nature".
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
No.
Click to expand...

Serpicolugnut, apart from validating Godwin's law, I couldn't find much in your last post.

[Tolerance, Socialism, Communism]

Richer countries are inherently more tolerant than poorer countries. The way these countries got rich may not be that tolerant, though. :rolleyes:
 
I don't know of a better, more tolerant societal model in the world.
Click to expand...

In the US everyone is free, theoretically and on paper. In practice ther seems to be a lot of oppression going on and the practical freedom is sometimes nihil.

When presenting criticism on the decisions of the government one gets silenced or censured as being "anti-patriottic". While patriottism can be a nice extra, countries who demand their citizens to be patriottic are few and mostly dictatorial. Theoretical freedom is heavily dammed in by practical restrictions. According to the CIA world factbook about 13% of US citizens live below the poverty line. How free are they? Socialist systems try to treat everyone as equal, giving to everyone (man and woman, black and white, atheist and believer) the same chances. Therefore social security, welfare, grants etc. are used to help the weak, the poor etc. like lone mothers, students, the elderly, etc. Who exactly is free in the US? Are the poor free?
There also appear not to be any political pressure groups, which is strange. One of the most basic freedoms every democracy knows is the right to disagree and to make it known that you disagree. Not only politcal parties, but also pressure groups serve this purpose, defending e.g. the rights of workers in trade unions.

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,300. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, lay off surplus workers, and develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment, although their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 witnessed the end of the boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery is expected in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.5% or more. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top