[aberdeenwriter]

Sitting here eating ice cream and listening to Led Zeppelin (I'm not a big fan but they're alright) I was trying to get into a fuzzy mindset, just for recreation, when it hit me.

You guys have been taught from childhood that LOVE IS THE ANSWER. All you need is love. Love will conquer all. Peace maaan!

Face it, it's been beaten into your mushy brains so relentlessly you don't even question it. You just go on autopilot.

Peace - GOOD!!! War - BAD!!!

And as a palliative they passed it on to you! And where did THEY first hear it? From their hippie friends who'd heard it from a drug addled rock artist or an acid tripping professor.

But the remedy wasn't NECESSARILY to make YOU feel better or give you the final answers.
They passed it along to you, or figuratively beat it into you because they had little other 'wisdom' to give you. But they knew that peace was better than war.

And in that they were right.

The only problem with that is that THEY didn't tell you exactly how to switch from a war oriented society to a peace oriented society. That's because THEY hadn't a clue how to do it.

But they figured (and I'm giving them the benefit of a HUGE doubt here) that if you were left with NOTHING else from their upbringing you'd AT LEAST have the right instincts.

War - BAD!!! Peace - GOOD!!!

(Too bad they didn't know that their upbringing also made your brains mushy. But that's another story for another day.)

And so you all are now here running around in circles without a frickken clue. You can't pick a presidential candidate because there are only a few wackos who can twist themselves into a shape that FEELS right to ALL of you. Any real leaders have escaped to less maddening pursuits.

And Hillary has looked at all of you and figured it out but she's not gonna tell you in so many words, not until she HAS to. But look at her current stances on the war and the military.
She's starting to act like G.I. Jane now.

And you guys are still floundering around with the idea that PEACE is the answer. And if it's not peaceful then it's bad.

Well, Hillary may be many things but she ain't stupid. She has figured it out.

NO ONE has the formula for switching our society and the rest of the world from a war orientation to a peace orientation.

And the sooner you understand that the better off we'll ALL be.

Because once you understand that having a Democrat in the White House won't automatically solve the main problem, WAR, then that's when you'll maybe start exercising those mushy brains and make them lean and hard and sharp.

And when you do that maybe you'll figure out exactly how we MIGHT switch the whole world to peace.

And in the meantime, until one of you bright boyz or girlz comes up with the shizzle, maybe you'll get it though your heads that until there is a transition plan that will actually have a chance to really work, you can't count on your wishing and hoping and dreaming of peace and love to keep our little gingerbread house in one piece and all of us safe and sound.

So, until someone has the answer, the real answer of how to move America and the world to be at peace with each other, just open your eyes to the fact that all your best intentions haven't changed the people who want us dead or conquered.

We need your help. Stop dreaming for now and stop attacking the people who are holding things together the best they can despite your best efforts to tear them down.

And if you don't want to help US, I understand it takes a while to give up dearly held ideals and animosities, just do something to help yourselves.

The road to global peace goes through America but if America falls you can kiss any hope of global peace goodbye.

Make America strong. From a position of strength we can encourage and lobby and fight for peace. If America falls so does peace.

Give peace a chance. Support America.

[Rolling Bones]

Hell, that ended 30 years ago. It's now everyone for themselves and never bring a knife to a gunfight.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Hell, that ended 30 years ago. It's now everyone for themselves and never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Not everyone is at your point on the path. If we all realize we can't get there (Global Peace) DIRECTLY from here maybe there'd be less partisan politicking and in-fighting and bitterness.

[Railroader]

"Love" is the answer.

[glyph]

Peace - GOOD!!! War - BAD!!!

Yoko Ono loves you. You two need to get together for some creative dialog.

[Millennium]

Giving peace a chance is a Very Good Thing, and something which should always be done.

But there is nothing in this world that will work in all situations, not even peace. Sometimes, it will fail. What then?

[glyph]

But there is nothing in this world that will work in all situations, not even peace. Sometimes, it will fail. What then?

I'd watch the news.....maybe our leaders could come up with some sorta solution. I know the last thing our leaders want is to send our children into harms way. I'm sure they'd solve things with minimal loss of life. George Bush is a Christian you know.

[Pendergast]

There is no solution.

We're no different than lemmings, running to our doom.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Giving peace a chance is a Very Good Thing, and something which should always be done.

But there is nothing in this world that will work in all situations, not even peace. Sometimes, it will fail. What then?

What you refer to as peace "working" is actually just peace existing. Peace will work fine where it exists.

[dcmacdaddy]

<deliberate personal attack>

Dude, go back on the meds. You are making no sense with this post. None!

</deliberate personal attack>

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

<deliberate personal attack>

Dude, go back on the meds. You are making no sense with this post. None!

</deliberate personal attack>

Some posters can say that and because I know them to be fair and intelligent I take no offense, but others beware.

If the current administration suddenly became fuzzy and unilaterally disarmed and destroyed all our WMD capability and had our troops approach (let's say) the N. Korean troops across the DMZ and stick flowers down the barrels of their rifles and sing John Lennon songs and Kumbayaa that would spell the end of the USA.

So, how COULD peace spread all over the world?

What's your (realistic) plan?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What you refer to as peace "working" is actually just peace existing. Peace will work fine where it exists.

Think about all the things that would necessarily change for the USA and the world if we suddenly abandoned our war capability (if not an orientation).

[Spliffdaddy]

Peace will spread the same way it has always spread.

Through war.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

There is no solution.

We're no different than lemmings, running to our doom.

You may be right but I don't want to believe that.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Peace will spread the same way it has always spread.

Through war.

That's my belief. When we HAD the ability to exert total control over the world, after WWII, we instead encouraged other countries to do their own things (to one degree or another) and what has happened, lots of fighting.

Like you say, Spliffdaddy, we would eliminate the fighting through military force. Afterwards, we'd impose a forced peace globally.

Because I don't see anyone with a realistic peace transition to get us from where we are now to the place where peace reigns supreme all over the world.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by glyph

I'd watch the news.....maybe our leaders could come up with some sorta solution. I know the last thing our leaders want is to send our children into harms way. I'm sure they'd solve things with minimal loss of life. George Bush is a Christian you know.

George Bush's plan is the ONLY realistic plan in sight. What other plan might work better?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

That's my belief. When we HAD the ability to exert total control over the world, after WWII, we instead encouraged other countries to do their own things (to one degree or another) and what has happened, lots of fighting.

Like you say, Spliffdaddy, we would eliminate the fighting through military force. Afterwards, we'd impose a forced peace globally.

Because I don't see anyone with a realistic peace transition to get us from where we are now to the place where America reigns supreme all over the world.

What you meant...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Giving peace a chance is a Very Good Thing, and something which should always be done.

But there is nothing in this world that will work in all situations, not even peace. Sometimes, it will fail. What then?

Indeed!

What are the necessary ingredients to establishing peace in our warring world?

What changes would have to be made? Who would lose? Who would gain? What would it look like?

Who would enforce the peace and how would they do this?

The only plan I see is the president's.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

What you meant...

Just because a foreign country or countries are not trying to kill Americans or conquer America does not mean that America is reigning over that country.

You remind me of the people who say that any black man who gets a solid position in middle or upper management of a corporation or a white owned company is an Uncle Tom.

I'd like to believe we can have peace and tranquility and each nation can be free to exercise it's own sovereignty peacefully without the US necessarily being in charge of everything.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Railroader

"Love" is the answer.

From what we've seen it's easier said than done. Who's got a better plan than W?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What you refer to as peace "working" is actually just peace existing. Peace will work fine where it exists.

In other words, peace works because peace exists. Interesting logic, but it works only until you run up against a place where peace doesn't exist or a people that doesn't believe the same way you do about this. Then what do you do?

[Kevin]

Peace only exists when

1. Everyone agrees it exists and denies anything that goes against it
2. Someone or one group controls everyone in a mind controlled way.

Till then, there will always be dissenting opinions.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Peace only exists when

1. Everyone agrees it exists and denies anything that goes against it
2. Someone or one group controls everyone in a mind controlled way.

Till then, there will always be dissenting opinions.

Can we at least keep the socialists locked up until then?

Please?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In other words, peace works because peace exists. Interesting logic, but it works only until you run up against a place where peace doesn't exist or a people that doesn't believe the same way you do about this. Then what do you do?

And THAT is why conservatives (well, this one anyway) have such an issue with the Peace folk.

If they can show me how just being peaceful will make the violent guys lay down their arms, well, I'll sign up! But they can't because it won't work by itself. There MUST be some transition step and Bush is implementing such a step. But they (the Peace-niks) can't see it. And they get angry because the other side is being level headed enough to watch out for the violent guys instead of just pretending (or being deluded enough to believe) just by being loving and peaceful that's all it takes.

But, what we have here are the makings of a workable transition to peace if we can continue making progress in Iraq.

The Muslims who drug out the cartoons, after there had been virtually no reaction to them outside of Denmark where they were first published last September, did so because the Coalition IS starting to make progress and Syria and Iran (the likeliest suspects) wanted to throw obstacles in the way of that progress.

Get behind the President's policies. Give peace a chance.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Peace will spread the same way it has always spread.

Through war.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

That's my belief. When we HAD the ability to exert total control over the world, after WWII, we instead encouraged other countries to do their own things (to one degree or another) and what has happened, lots of fighting.

Like you say, Spliffdaddy, we would eliminate the fighting through military force. Afterwards, we'd impose a forced peace globally.

Because I don't see anyone with a realistic peace transition to get us from where we are now to the place where peace reigns supreme all over the world.

"War is Peace"

Huh, I didn't know people really thought this way. But I guess they do.
I had always assumed it was just rhetoric of hyperbole. Peace CANNOT be
imposed at the end of a barrel of a gun. At most you can impose a cessation
of hostilities. But if there is an underlying conflict among parties--be it social,
economic, religious, or otherwise--the potential for war within a country or
region will remain present.

Besides, why all this talk about world peace? The US has, and does, support
numerous dictators around the world when it works to our advantage. How
can political support for dictators--leaders who frequently make "war" on
their own citizens--be seen as even remotely approaching support for peace?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Huh, I didn't know people really thought this way. But I guess they do.
I had always assumed it was just rhetoric of hyperbole. Peace CANNOT be
imposed at the end of a barrel of a gun. At most you can impose a cessation
of hostilities. But if there is an underlying conflict among parties--be it social,
economic, religious, or otherwise--the potential for war within a country or
region will remain present.

Indeed. The Soviets tried that in the Balkans, and it worked for a time. But once the Soviet Union collapsed, it didn't even take five years for wars to start breaking out again.

Virtuous things have no meaning if they are forced. You might be able to force an appearance of virtue, but as soon as the force is taken away the appearance will vanish as well.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

"War is Peace"

Huh, I didn't know people really thought this way. But I guess they do.
I had always assumed it was just rhetoric of hyperbole. Peace CANNOT be
imposed at the end of a barrel of a gun. At most you can impose a cessation
of hostilities. But if there is an underlying conflict among parties--be it social,
economic, religious, or otherwise--the potential for war within a country or
region will remain present.

Besides, why all this talk about world peace? The US has, and does, support
numerous dictators around the world when it works to our advantage. How
can political support for dictators--leaders who frequently make "war" on
their own citizens--be seen as even remotely approaching support for peace?

Because (perhaps naively) I still hold out hopes for a peaceful world and I was hit by the idea that the liberals aren't really able to translate their emotional impetus into realistic effective action because they haven't a plan.

But, the President HAS a plan but the libs don't support it.

WHY NOT?

Because they mistakenly believe they can translate that impetus into the desired result.

And they can't.

I would like them to give their support to President Bush.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Indeed. The Soviets tried that in the Balkans, and it worked for a time. But once the Soviet Union collapsed, it didn't even take five years for wars to start breaking out again.

Virtuous things have no meaning if they are forced. You might be able to force an appearance of virtue, but as soon as the force is taken away the appearance will vanish as well.

What am I missing here?

What about WWII?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

"War is Peace"

Huh, I didn't know people really thought this way. But I guess they do.
I had always assumed it was just rhetoric of hyperbole. Peace CANNOT be
imposed at the end of a barrel of a gun.

Peace can only be enforced through use of force.

Let's take it down to local level. When you go to the bar at night, the only thing stopping the whole place descending into a a Mad-Max like hellhole is the threat of force or punishment. The only thing keeping the a-holes from just walking up and taking your drink out of your hand is the threat that you might be able to beat the poop out of them.

Welcome to society.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Peace can only be enforced through use of force.

Let's take it down to local level. When you go to the bar at night, the only thing stopping the whole place descending into a a Mad-Max like hellhole is the threat of force or punishment. The only thing keeping the a-holes from just walking up and taking your drink out of your hand is the threat that you might be able to beat the poop out of them.

Welcome to society.

That's a very Hobbesian take on human existence.

Granted, all humans have the capacity, and the capability, for violence. But you seem to be assuming that people only act responsibly out of fear of punishment/retribution/violence. Do you really believe that's the driving motivation for most human behavior? Do you really think that the people in your hypothetical pub, sitting there minding their own business, are doing so because they are afraid of retribution if they act on their innate desire for violence?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

That's a very Hobbesian take on human existence.

Granted, all humans have the capacity, and the capability, for violence. But you seem to be assuming that people only act responsibly out of fear of punishment/retribution/violence. Do you really believe that's the driving motivation for most human behavior? Do you really think that the people in your hypothetical pub, sitting there minding their own business, are doing so because they are afraid of retribution if they act on their innate desire for violence?

Yep. For the most part it's not even a conscious thing - it's completely subconscious, drilled into us from an early age. Without such action/consequence conditioning we'd all be sociopaths.

Let's face it - when the average guy sees that really hot chick working behind the bar, the only thing stopping him from reaching out and having a quick squeeze is the fear of getting his arm broken, the fear of spending a night with Bubba or the fear of becoming a social outcast. Sure, there's also probably a fear that the barmaid in question won't like him for doing it, but this is also a "fear" consequence - a societal conditioning thing.

Most of the time it's so subtle that we don't even know it's there. But it is.

[Wiskedjak]

Only 22 years off the mark. Not bad considering the prediction was made 58 years ago.

[PacHead]

Peace will come after the enemy's dead.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

That's a very Hobbesian take on human existence.

Granted, all humans have the capacity, and the capability, for violence. But you seem to be assuming that people only act responsibly out of fear of punishment/retribution/violence. Do you really believe that's the driving motivation for most human behavior? Do you really think that the people in your hypothetical pub, sitting there minding their own business, are doing so because they are afraid of retribution if they act on their innate desire for violence?

Absolutely.

Look what happens when the element of punishment is removed.

New Orleans after the flood. Two months of French riots.

Look what it took to stop the lawlessness.

National Guard troops & riot police (see also; the threat of violence/punishment).

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Just because a foreign country or countries are not trying to kill Americans or conquer America does not mean that America is reigning over that country.

You remind me of the people who say that any black man who gets a solid position in middle or upper management of a corporation or a white owned company is an Uncle Tom.

I'd like to believe we can have peace and tranquility and each nation can be free to exercise it's own sovereignty peacefully without the US necessarily being in charge of everything.

You'd like to believe?

The fact is that more U.S. military bases are being opened in the world at the moment we are typing in this thread!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Absolutely.

Look what happens when the element of punishment is removed.

New Orleans after the flood. Two months of French riots.

You think the riots occurred because there were no police in France?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

That's a very Hobbesian take on human existence.

Granted, all humans have the capacity, and the capability, for violence. But you seem to be assuming that people only act responsibly out of fear of punishment/retribution/violence. Do you really believe that's the driving motivation for most human behavior? Do you really think that the people in your hypothetical pub, sitting there minding their own business, are doing so because they are afraid of retribution if they act on their innate desire for violence?

It's either reward or punishment. Carrot or stick. Honey or vinegar.

You have to recognize both as comprising the complete list of motivators here. You argue one. Doofy argues the other. You are both right. There have to be both in any serious discussion and in that discussion there are no other options.

People do or don't do things because they get a positive reward or they do or don't do a thing out of fear of the negative consequences of that act.

End of story.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

You'd like to believe?

The fact is that more U.S. military bases are being opened in the world at the moment we are typing in this thread!

Because the US wants to reign over the world?

OR

Because the US wants to be able to prevent possible warfare as quickly as possible?

Are you familiar with the saying, "a stitch in time saves nine?"

Referring to a hole in your sock, let's say. If you mend it right away the hole won't get larger and require your having to use many more stitches to mend.

Figuratively it means if you take remedial action quickly enough it will save you from having to expend a much greater amount of action, time, resources and in this case, lives, later.

The U.S. IS the leader of the free world. We HAVE declared war on radical Muslim terrorists (who first declared war on us). When terrorist activity has a chance to establish a foothold the effort to eradicate the terrorism is much greater.

In Iraq, many of the anti-US posters pointed out the failure of the US forces to quickly clamp down on Iraqi lawlessness as a factor contributing to the dogged insurgency that has followed.

The US is learning lessons along the way.

Establishing many military bases around the world (and closing many of the bases here and in Germany because they aren't as much needed in those locations) is the smart thing to do.

If we would wind up having to go to those hot spots ANYWAY should a problem break out, it makes sense to just place a base in that region and prevent things from getting out of hand.

Also, the nations that want their own freedom and are worried about anti-freedom forces derailing the process will be encouraged to go democratic by seeing our commitment right there, up close and personal.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Because the US wants to reign over the world?

OR

Because the US wants to be able to prevent possible warfare as quickly as possible?

Are you familiar with the saying, "a stitch in time saves nine?"

Referring to a hole in your sock, let's say. If you mend it right away the hole won't get larger and require your having to use many more stitches to mend.

Figuratively it means if you take remedial action quickly enough it will save you from having to expend a much greater amount of action, time, resources and in this case, lives, later.

The U.S. IS the leader of the free world. We HAVE declared war on radical Muslim terrorists (who first declared war on us). When terrorist activity has a chance to establish a foothold the effort to eradicate the terrorism is much greater.

In Iraq, many of the anti-US posters pointed out the failure of the US forces to quickly clamp down on Iraqi lawlessness as a factor contributing to the dogged insurgency that has followed.

The US is learning lessons along the way.

Establishing many military bases around the world (and closing many of the bases here and in Germany because they aren't as much needed in those locations) is the smart thing to do.

If we would wind up having to go to those hot spots ANYWAY should a problem break out, it makes sense to just place a base in that region and prevent things from getting out of hand.

CRAP!

It is all about U.S. interests everywhere.

It is very clear that most of the cards of the economical game are in the hands of the U.S. (and other industrialized countries). The War on Terror turns out to be a great opportunity of expansion. Peace is good, war is better; you sell more stuff, "re"-build more stuff and once you are there, hey, you save transportation "costs"

There are far more smaller bases built around than there are bigger ones dismantled, and all in areas of new "economic partnership".

So that Peace you talk about, is a noce cover for greater "cash-ins".

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

CRAP!

It is all about U.S. interests everywhere.

It is very clear that most of the cards of the economical game are in the hands of the U.S. (and other industrialized countries). The War on Terror turns out to be a great opportunity of expansion. Peace is good, war is better; you sell more stuff, "re"-build more stuff and once you are there, hey, you save transportation "costs"

There are far more smaller bases built around than there are bigger ones dismantled, and all in areas of new "economic partnership".

So that Peace you talk about, is a noce cover for greater "cash-ins".

And what evil mechanism brings you the free broadcast television and radio you so enjoy and dare I say, take for granted?

Commerce.

If commerce can bring peace are you so disdainful of capitalism that you would oppose it bringing peace?

Here's how Lennon & McCartney put it in their song, Revolution:

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan

What is your PLAN for peace?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You think the riots occurred because there were no police in France?

Because there were not enough police.

The chances of being caught were so slim that people didn't feel the deterrent effect.