How To Stop War


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!

can war be stoped?

  • no, why?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • yes, why?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

wittyfox

→√wittyfox=god Since god²=ME
Retired
we dont have alot of politcal threads here, only one i have seen, so here is what i want to know.....

I want you ideas, whether serious or not on how to stop war

pretty simple but it could lead to a serious discussion
 
If you ask me war cannot be stopped as long as to people disagree there is always the possibility of war and as long as we are still testing, voting and in other words have freedom of speech people will always disagree to the point of war. Also a few if not a lot of wars are to do with profit and as long as people are greedy there will be war for instance in farenheit 9/11 (sorry if i spelt it wrong) Iraq supposedly had nothing to do the twin towers 15 of the 19 suicides were saudi arabian but due to America wanting to invade and attack because Iraq is the 2nd largest oil country they now had reason to put blame on and attack which was something they had been planning to do for years but had no reason until then. That was if you ask me is to do with profit.

have to agree with you aswell about time someone made something about this i like reading peoples thoughts
 
if it can? yes, it would be possible.
if it will? nope.

it's part of the human nature to be partial, and it's part of too many people's nature to be greedy.. there will always be some sort of conflict, it's always a matter of time until some war breaks out somewhere. at least that's what i think..
 
No...why because of racial issues.
forgot to answer.....How to stop a war? Now thats very tricky to answer since even if there is a UN and they are trying to stop; the countries fighting; keep on fighting...i.e. beginning of the Iraq war UN urged america to stop but they never did even to this day! maybe the UN should have urged other countries such as the UK, germany and Canada to stop then the US might have stopped!

Although there is another method but should never be used ever agian!
the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki war days! but i wonder do you think is they didn't bomb them would japan still have anime...seems really hard to answer since it was during the early 1900's. and all of us people on this site weren't never born then! neither were our parents..maybe it should be asked to an actual japanese grandparent!
 
QUOTE (wittyfox @ Aug 19 2006, 04:22 PM)we dont have alot of politcal threads here, only one i have seen, so here is what i want to know.... Actually, there are a few. They are further down. It is simply I always waited that one thread was complete before opening another one. Its great to see I am not the only one starting these threads anymore
biggrin.gif


==

Now onto the subject. The short answer is no.

Because a war is far more than peolpe killing others. Of course, killing is also a part of what a war is. But a war is one of the various ways to exercise power. After all, there is no greater power than having the power to kill.

Wars are the results of people wanting more powers, wanting to keep their power or to prevent someone from getting more power. There is a simplistic way of thinking saying that if we get rid of those people and if we are all in harmony, wars will be over. The problem is that power is a natural thing if you want to maintain a state of rights and equality.

For instance, you need a police to stop robbers. But if the police are the only ones with guns, they definatly have a lot more powers than other people. Those policeman are humans, meaning they will be tempted to hold on to their power. Hence you need someone to watch those people. Because it only takes one that decides "I am in charge now" to have many people be attracted to that power and follow him. So there needs to be another forces. For example, there is also the military. Then we have two forces. But we can't have people shoot to resolve differences. That is why we also have goverments.

Power is a relative fre flowing thing. There are many "weapons" to exercise power. Some are military some are pollitical. But in the end, everyone needs power to protect himself and what he belives in. That is why people with similar opinions and living together grouped together in goverments. To have more ways to protect themselves.

Anyone who is not able to wield anough power to maintain itself, will eventually be swept away. Note that what I said does not mean you need to be sleeping with a gun and be ready to attack anyone disagreeing with you. But somewhere, there needs to be a way to react in case someone wants to challenge your power. This sometimes lead to wars and (in modern times) most of the times to diplomatic solutions. This is why the military are always under a civilian goverment in most systems. To reduce the chances of wars, while still keeping the option possible.

So in the end, wars should be avoided at all costs. But there is a need to have the possibility to react to one. This leads to the unfortunate logical conclusion that wars are possibles.
 
QUOTE No...why because of racial issues.
why? you think there is no way to live together cause of differnt peoples skin color?
i mean you have ethical, moral, and religion differences why just race?


QUOTE Because a war is far more than peolpe killing others. Of course, killing is also a part of what a war is. But a war is one of the various ways to exercise power. After all, there is no greater power than having the power to kill.

what about the power to help someone?

i think alot of what u said is one of the reasons why most people are so hot tempered now, thinking i must kill another person if he threatens me in the least. also war isnt allways about power, it can be about hate, or religion or rights. sometimes it isnt the power they are after but just revenge. i think there are many reasons for war and power is only one of the most simple ones

QUOTE Anyone who is not able to wield anough power to maintain itself, will eventually be swept away
saying things like this leads to militarism or nationalism and others that will just lead to more problems. people should protect their selfs when the time is needed but if they think like what u said they will just get more weapons and more just not to seem too weak or even going after Possible threats which is just silly and bloody.

i think in this age war wont be avoidable since america is around. they ship weapons by the millions, they have heavy handed tactics, they have one of the biggest stocks of bombs/weapons, not to mention we as a nation are greedy and will help some "bad" nations while attack others just for the reason of oil. they are many other reasons but one of the most recent i hate is our useless leader. "war president"
rolleyes.gif
ha that guy couldnt even lead his own companies let alone awhole country

anyway i am alittle tired so i might not have made a good point or even made sense

edit
my way to stop or slow down war would be to take every weapon gun bomb whatever away from every one. even fist or rocks or WORDS what ever. lets see what u fight with then hahahah
 
QUOTE (wittyfox @ Aug 19 2006, 08:30 PM) also war isnt allways about power, it can be about hate, or religion or rights. sometimes it isnt the power they are after but just revenge. i think there are many reasons for war and power is only one of the most simple ones What is a war about religion if its not about power? It is about showing the other they are wrong and you are right. It is about deciding what others should belive in. Power is not to fire a gun or wield a weapon. Power is to have control.

All the reasons you named are true. But the underlying reason for those reasons to exists is someone wanting power.


QUOTE saying things like this leads to militarism or nationalism and others that will just lead to more problems. people should protect their selfs when the time is needed but if they think like what u said they will just get more weapons and more just not to seem too weak or even going after Possible threats which is just silly and bloody I agree with you about the militarist part, but I think you should re-check the meaning of nationalist (proud of your country). Because if I follow your post, I think you mean xenophobic (fear/hate of people from the "outside"), not nationalist. Furthermore, I think you did not read all the way througth my post. Please allow me to quote myself :
QUOTE (Bold @ Aug 19 2006, 06:37 PM)Note that what I said does not mean you need to be sleeping with a gun and be ready to attack anyone disagreeing with you. What I am saying is that it is really naive to think wars can be completely prevented from happening. Because the only way to do that would be, like you said in your last post, to take away ALL means of fighting. But that is impossible. As you stated yourself, everyone still has his fists. And it only takes a single high ambition dictator to come around, make himself a few weapons and no one can stop him.

It happend countless times before. The rusian tsars were overthrowned by the comunist revolution, Louis 16 whose head was vut off during the French revolution, Hitler's invation of Poland, Musolini coming to power, Taliban overthrowing the Afganistan goverment, etc, etc, etc.

All those events happend because someone decided to make things go his way, in other words, to exercise his power over others. Furthermore, there was no one else to counter those person's power. Louis 16 would not ahave fallen if he had had enough support in the population. In other words, he lacked the powers to protect himself and what he belived in (the french monarchy). Again note that I am not talking solely about military power.

Whether you realize it or not, all of our lives and ways of living are shaped by powerfull people. There is no other way. The real question is "are those people using their power in a way I like?". If not, then it is time for an election!
 
when i said nationalism i was thinking something like...
"Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict."

i have to agree that "all of our lives or ways of living are shaped by powerfull people"
but i just dont agree when u simply say every war or fight is over power. sure when u look at it most to every thing comes down to someone wanting power, but saying that doesnt help anything when solving problems. it is like saying every human war was started by humans, and there u have it HUMANS are the problem. what i was thinking about was "what kind of power" or "why do they want power" what is the problem that makes some one want more "power" then another. because no one cares if a person owns a a huge peice of land thats coverd in snow, untill they find out theres lots of oil to be had. then after the fighting is over you can say it was all over power, ie they wanted that land so they used their power to overtake them, but want is more important is why did it start? why did they want to exercise their power over others (the answer is because of oil). for example why did Louis 16 get his head cut off? well yes cause he didnt have enough power to stop it, but more clearly he lacked the know how to run a country, that boy mad horrible choices as a leader and ran his country in the ground, not to mention his wife was greedy ( on a side note........Let Them Eat Cake!! lol lol) so what is more understandable u saying he lacked the power to protect himself or me saying he lacked the know how to lead and did a very bad job which resulted in him being killed and the country being over turned to the people?
also when a person fights for equality are they really trying to exercise their power over the government or are they looking for the whole "whose got more power" trip to end making people and their self equal amoge every one?

also i read your whole post sorry it seemed like i didnt, but i do understand what ur saying about power
 
Wow, a lot of really intellegent posts. I've gained a lot of respect for you guys.

I on the other hand believe that it is possible to stop a war/fight/whatever.
"There are two ways to stop a fight: have both parties talk out their differences before any fighting begins or make it so both sides can't fight."
Any good mediator knows that, but the expirenced ones know that it's impossible to stop every war/fight out there. It takes a special amount of pacents with your opposing side to listen to what you have to say while you do the same for him/her/them. Not every battle can be stopped with words or restraint but it's still worth the time to see if it can work.
Actually, strangly enough, I'm using a lot of what I just posted in my own Gundam series. It's just being writen for fun.
 
QUOTE (wittyfox @ Aug 19 2006, 11:23 PM)also i read your whole post sorry it seemed like i didnt, but i do understand what ur saying about power I did not want to imply you were not reading. I meant that you seemed to have missed a part of my post. It was quite late when I wrote my last reply, sorry if I was not clear and I hope I did not offend you.


QUOTE (wittyfox @ Aug 19 2006, 11:23 PM)for example why did Louis 16 get his head cut off? well yes cause he didnt have enough power to stop it, but more clearly he lacked the know how to run a country, [...] so what is more understandable u saying he lacked the power to protect himself or me saying he lacked the know how to lead and did a very bad job which resulted in him being killed and the country being over turned to the people? What is "turned to the people"? A collective of people cannot lead. A collective of people cannot have ideas. Ideas are borned in the mind of an individual. If that individial is skille4d enough, he can share his ideas and bring other people to think like him.

In the case of a revolution, "the people" are tired of a situation. Why? Because they think it could be better. How do they know? Because someone told them. That someon has even more credibility if he supports his claims with examples from other places. A revolution always has a leader (or leaders). In the case f the french revolution, Robespierre was a prominent leader, for the Russian revolution, Lenine was one, in the case of China, Mao, etc, etc.

That does not mean those leaders are all "gready and evil people that only want to control people". But the fact is that they have power. They were able to organise a collective of people and to drive them to a goal.



QUOTE (Byproduct @ Aug 20 2006, 09:00 AM)Any good mediator knows that, but the expirenced ones know that it's impossible to stop every war/fight out there. [...] Not every battle can be stopped with words or restraint but it's still worth the time to see if it can work. It definatly is worth the time!! After all wars should be avoided at all costs. Killing peolpe and destroying lives is not a fun thing to do!

Yet there is no good way to make sure such things can't happen. All that is possible is to try to understand one another and to keep talking to one another.

Most important of all, not be naive enough to think that complete harmony is possible. Conflicts will always exists. We can minimize them and their impact, but not illiminate them completely.


QUOTE (wittyfox @ Aug 19 2006, 11:23 PM) "Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict." Then I think the most appropriate word would be "nationalist supremacist". And I definatly agree that being any kind of supremacist is a bad thing. Whether it be national supremacist, racial supremacist or religious supremacist. It is after all a question of balance.

Basicly, you don't want to be so weak that when the first bully comes around, you get stuck down. On the other hand, you don't want to become a "musle man" simply in case a bully might eventually come.
 
QUOTE (wittyfox @ Aug 19 2006, 06:30 PM) "why? you think there is no way to live together cause of differnt peoples skin color?
i mean you have ethical, moral, and religion differences why just race?"

"also war isnt allways about power, it can be about hate, or religion or rights."
These two quotes contradict each other! in some form! I didn't want to get into details much cause i know there is a lot of people esp. the mods that are going to disagree and fight against what i said.so im just going to say the following:
I didn't mean race only..but also religion/hate...but religious issue mostly. Cause of that we can't really stop war. Nowadays: in our generation all the wars have been only relating to religous issue and nothing else...people with turbans considered as terrorist and people with long beards esp. in the UK airports needs special checks when travelling..i bet the security don't check the Jewish people that have long beards...cause they know they aren't "terrorists". Maybe is just all because of the Americans and British and some European countries that have been blinded from the fact: of the real meaning of the word "terrorists" and categorizing that a "terrorist" is only of a certain group or religion. They don't see that they can't categorize/generalize people for what they do from what religion or colour they are; or even to what they wear. This is whats been happening in Afghanistan and Canada/U.S. It seems that the Canadian troops have been attacking the Afghani military instead of the so-called "insurgents" (source: CBC: i think 2 or more soldiers convicted of killing innocent civilians and afghani military fighters) (source: CNN/other american news channels such as NBC: says that more tha 3 or more soldiers been convicted innocent civilians and military fighters that are Afghan). I have a friend that lives in Ireland (northern) and she says theres always fighting going on there cause of religious issue: Protestants vs. Catholics. She also says that since you can't generalize a certain group or certain coloured people "terrorists"; both sides on the fight in Ireland have been considered terrorists.

One thing i can't believe is that the powerful nations such as the UK has actually been brainwashed from the real meaing of "terrorist": check out this source: http://www.google.ca/search?q=define+terro...:en-US:eek:fficial
its so hard to believe that they actually wrote this is the meaning of the word: "One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals." the real definition doesn't even come close with a word like violence in it/

I am most ashamed they would do this considering i am British. I hope this comments will help for you to understand why i only said race/religion/hate.
 
QUOTE (alchemist11 @ Aug 20 2006, 12:59 PM) One thing i can't believe is that the powerful nations such as the UK has actually been brainwashed from the real meaing of "terrorist": check out this source: http://www.google.ca/search?q=define+terro...:en-US:eek:fficial
its so hard to believe that they actually wrote this is the meaning of the word: "One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals." the real definition doesn't even come close with a word like violence in it/
Just a question, did you follow that link? It leads to http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/index.html which is "The Website for Aviation Enthusiasts"! It is not an oficial website nor an official definition of what the British goverment consideres a terrorist.

That definition is closer to what the Bush administration called terrorist. A position that the US supreme court found inconstitutional. Here are more details
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm
 
QUOTE (alchemist11 @ Aug 20 2006, 01:59 PM)so what did the Bush administration justify the meaning as? that links just mostly about Guantanamo. What I meant is that "The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions," is exactly what the Bush administration used to justify holding the prisonner at Guantanamo without accusations.

The supreme court said that it is not because those prisoners were not wearing uniforms and that they are held on non-US soil that they don't have rights. Those prisoners are entitled to a trial and fair treatments.

My point was that the quote you used was not from an official source. And that it was presented as if it was an official position agreed upon in most countries that meant they did not have rights. But the fact is that if someone says those people are not soldiers, it means they are covered by the same laws that cover civilian criminals. If you say they are military, the geneva convention applies. Terrorirst are indeed covered by laws.


QUOTE (alchemist11)the real definition doesn't even come close with a word like violence in it/I am un-sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify?
 
QUOTE (Bold @ Aug 20 2006, 12:23 PM) QUOTE (alchemist11)the real definition doesn't even come close with a word like violence in it/I am un-sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify?
The real definiton from the English dictionary! I'll post it soon! (gotta find that) unfortunately they don't make dictionaries that old anymore cause the new dictionaries have been added with new long words..i.e with the longest words etc.
 
There's something about this string that makes me kinda uneasy. Has politics always been this hard-core. I thought this was about stopping a war, not getting into/about the present battles being fought around the world. Yeah, I don't like them, in fact, I hate the idea of people killing each other over religion*, land, and political views, but it's probably more unfomfortable to hear people talk about it and getting angry at their political leaders.
Woah, I sound like a hippy. That can't be good.
 
KILL EVERYONE

done
 
QUOTE (alchemist11 @ Aug 20 2006, 09:27 PM)
Well, me can't do anything much but blame the leaders cause they start it and have full power too.

Well, I'll give you that. The small ones are always stepped on by big politics.
 
People will ever fight, its on our nature (maybe even on the nature of all living things).

As long as mankind is expecting to evolve there will be fights (wars or civilian wars) as Marx said "bla bla bla.... therefore the force that moves history, even religion, philosofy, or any other theory is not the criticize, but revolution"

Saying that wars are for power its true, but it is just a simple way of understandingthe wars. Wars are the way to destroy the status quo on a society, leaders are just the avatars of the human concience that had have enough of a sistem, and then destroys it "destroy to construct" So if you try to define wars from a "man" perspective, they are the way to get more power, to make their ideals como true; now if you try to define wars from a "human" perspective wars are the way to evolve, to create new things.

I want to say a little more, but im out of time, see you later
tongue.gif
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top