Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: What kind of peace?

  1. #1 What kind of peace? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Everyone talks about world peace, but we all seem to disagree about what counts as peace. For a lot of Muslims, as long as the USA has a military base in Saudi Arabia that means they're at war, even if the soldiers in that base weren't actually attacking anybody. For the USA, terrorists attacks against us kind of mean we're at war.


    I'm sure there are people out there who think as long as they're making a low wage, or don't own a nice house, they're at war. North Korea always does something berzerk whenever their economy runs into a problem. I think as long as people dream of a better life, and are able to convince themselves that somebody else is at fault for their lack of it, they'll be willing to fight for that better life.

    So, when does peace happen? Is it when everybody is fair with everybody? What version of fair? Is it the version where the Isrealis finally take over all of Gaza and the West Bank, and the Palis just have to go out into the ocean and swim for the rest of their lives? (Or maybe the version where Syria suddenly decides it is so prosperous it can handle a few million pali refugees, just to take a load off of Israel's economy?) Is it when Taiwan realizes that it is not the true government of China, and unconditionally surrenders sovereignty to the PRC? Is it when the US leaves Iraq and it gets taken over by Islamic extremists, so they can have their theocracy (who cross their fingers and promise they won't help terrorists blow up Americans anymore)? Seems like no matter how things turn out, or who wins, somebody somewhere still feels like the war is still on.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Remember the speech by the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain ,where he used the phrase " Peace For Our Time " on his return from Nazi Germany on the 30th September 1938.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time

    It is now the 19th December 2010, and we still have no peace. At this moment in time there is a massive Islamic Fundamentalist threat to world peace, it is only a matter of time, before they get their hands on some real pieces of kit, that will do everlasting damage. We seem to live in uncertain times, but then we probably always have.


    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Peace is a relative term, depending on your point of view. In some parts of the world they might not even have a comparable word in their vocabulary as war and violence are never far away. The best we can hope for is that an ever increasing percentage of people know ever longer periods of peace and we can say we are making progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Before examining peace, you have to evalute a number of aspects about war that are not mentioned in the MSM, war is a racket as Smedley Butler puts it, and a racket implies that a large number of people have no clue what its about and believe the LIES that trigger their support for war/invasion/occupation/colonization, and this in turn requires complicity by government and media that spew lies propaganda and censorship to; 1- conceal the real reasons why war is being sold to the public(war profiteering, plundering or control of ressources or location, etc), 2- justify war by demonizing the victim that is to be targeted and by fearmongering, 3- Conceal and Spin the historical context and aspects that demonstrate the war propaganda and the war is arbitrary (the dog that didnt bark).

    As for peace, a quick rule of thumb is; no invasion, no occupation, no colonization.

    "For a lot of Muslims, as long as the USA has a military base in Saudi Arabia that means they're at war, even if the soldiers in that base weren't actually attacking anybody."
    So if China puts an unelected puppet dictator, chairman Foster, in charge of the US, and is stationing 1 million Chinese soldiers, then the american public has nothing to complain about as long as the Chinese occupation army is not shooting at them? Is that it? It sould not be hard to understand, Chinese soldiers should stay in China, American soldiers should stay in the US, that means out of Saudi Arabia, out of Japan, out Europe, out of Iraq, close down all the imperial military bases around the world and stay home.

    Smedley Butler had a tips that could serve as inspiration to give peace a chance, conscript all corporate profits for the war effort, zero profit in times of war AND have a madatory limit on wages for all people including corrupt politicians, CEOs, bankers, anyone and everyone should not get one penny more than combat soldiers asked to sacrifice their lives.

    " Is it the version where the Isrealis finally take over all of Gaza and the West Bank, and the Palis just have to go out into the ocean and swim for the rest of their lives? "
    Palestinans are the natives being invaded and Israeli are european-russian occupiers and colonizers. Justice requires that all palestinians from around the world be allowed to go back to the place where they lived or that their parents were born before israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization started and that they be threated as equals, and for colonization of the west bank to be rolled back completely.

    "when the US leaves Iraq and it gets taken over by Islamic extremists"
    As pointed above, yes the first thing that is required is for the US to get out. And before complaining about Islamists you should take this in your pipe and smoke it; The US supported Islamic extremists like here is no tomorrow in the first place (to fight USSR) and it commited a crime by orchestrating a campaign of terrorism and political destabilization and a coup d'etat on the elected moderate government of Iran(Mossadeq) replacing him with a brutal dictator in Iran, its the US foreign policies fault if there is not the same democracy in Iran as there used to be, and it should stop its intervention, murders and warmongering policies. The government(and rogue agents) of the US are the biggest state terrorists in the world repsonsible for the deaths of millions around the world and responsible for false flag attacks, terrorism commited by the US and its minions but blamed on the Us/Israel's enemies and target of the day. 911 is an Inside Job (with zionists knee deep in its exceution[van with explosives], cover up and its use as a pretext for war against Iraq[fake meeting between Atta and an Iraq agent=100% bullshit provided by Israel]).



    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    @ icewendigo

    I think you are being a little simplistic and a bit emotional in what you said, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. The U.S. Is the toughest kid on the block for a reason and the rest of the world is much better off for that same reason.

    We have made our share of mistakes, but getting rid of the Hitler's and Saddam's of this world are not them, and many of those places we have bases appreciate the fact that they are there.

    Countries that harbor and finance terrorism should be the focus of our military attention. I personally think we are being to easy on them as is. I don't necessarily think all U.S. policy is that great, but not protecting our interest where ever it happens to be is just plain stupid.

    I really have to ask you if you really think that if we did all those things you said if we would really have more peace? I don't think so. I think it's quite likely we would have less peace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    As for peace, a quick rule of thumb is; no invasion, no occupation, no colonization.

    "For a lot of Muslims, as long as the USA has a military base in Saudi Arabia that means they're at war, even if the soldiers in that base weren't actually attacking anybody."
    So if China puts an unelected puppet dictator, chairman Foster, in charge of the US, and is stationing 1 million Chinese soldiers, then the american public has nothing to complain about as long as the Chinese occupation army is not shooting at them? Is that it? It sould not be hard to understand, Chinese soldiers should stay in China, American soldiers should stay in the US, that means out of Saudi Arabia, out of Japan, out Europe, out of Iraq, close down all the imperial military bases around the world and stay home.
    Japan and Germany don't seem to care that we have bases on their land (since it saves them having to fund their own military efforts). It doesn't appear to have any effect at all on their sovereignty, or their ability to rule themselves. I would hardly refer to their governments as "puppet dictatorships".

    The problem is that, whenever a country has a dictatorship (because democracy hasn't spread there), and then the USA has the audacity to establish friendly relations with that dictatorship (rather than outright declare our enmity toward it), the fact of that dictator being friendly toward us is declared to mean he/she is a puppet.

    So... as long as those 2 elements exist:

    1) - There is a dictator
    2) - He/She doesn't hate our guts

    We're bad.




    Smedley Butler had a tips that could serve as inspiration to give peace a chance, conscript all corporate profits for the war effort, zero profit in times of war AND have a madatory limit on wages for all people including corrupt politicians, CEOs, bankers, anyone and everyone should not get one penny more than combat soldiers asked to sacrifice their lives.
    It's impossible to wage a successful war that way, though. At the very least you need a differential among soldier wages between high officers and enlisted men. Attempts to wage war without differentiated profits have been tried, but they never work because all the participants just try to push the costs onto each other while doing the minimum themselves, instead of competing to be the most effective.

    I guess Stalin managed it, but I'm pretty sure he still paid his officers better than his enlistees.

    " Is it the version where the Isrealis finally take over all of Gaza and the West Bank, and the Palis just have to go out into the ocean and swim for the rest of their lives? "
    Palestinans are the natives being invaded and Israeli are european-russian occupiers and colonizers. Justice requires that all palestinians from around the world be allowed to go back to the place where they lived or that their parents were born before israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization started and that they be threated as equals, and for colonization of the west bank to be rolled back completely.
    Empowering the Palis that much would motivate them to take revenge. Justified though that revenge might be, the resulting conflict would never end. The Israelis would then retaliate, motivating more revenge, and .... etc. You just can't correct a wrong after it's gone that far. Nobody can give the dead back their lives.

    In a case like this, you should never do so much that it has the pretense of trying to be a genuine restitution. (Anything like that would be a mockery of the full weight of the suffering that was caused. ) But, it is important to do something that acknowledges the pain and the grief of the victims, rather than try to brush it all under a rug. I think it's this emotional stuff that motivates the hatred more than the economics. Open recognition of past wrong doing removes some of the fear or repetition. Failure to do that makes their cause a legitimate act of self defense against future wrongs.

    Israel should be required to collect all the names of the victims and build some kind of memorial museum to commemorate the atrocities. (Not unlike the various holocaust memorials.) Maybe they should even pay some kind of token sum to the descendants of the victims, perhaps in the form of a college fund to pay for them to be educated so they'll have a way to make a living now that they've lost so much land. In short, Israel should show that they are bigger men/women than those who have a oppressed them over the years.



    "when the US leaves Iraq and it gets taken over by Islamic extremists"
    As pointed above, yes the first thing that is required is for the US to get out. And before complaining about Islamists you should take this in your pipe and smoke it; The US supported Islamic extremists like here is no tomorrow in the first place (to fight USSR) and it commited a crime by orchestrating a campaign of terrorism and political destabilization and a coup d'etat on the elected moderate government of Iran(Mossadeq) replacing him with a brutal dictator in Iran,
    Do you think that effort would have been successful if the people of Iran had really not wanted it? We're talking a few CIA guys paying gangs and advertisers to popularize a guy who already had a small amount of popularity.

    It's kind of like in the 1960's when teenage girls would get pregnant with some no account guy who decides not to stick around and their mothers would tell them to say they were raped in order to save their reputation. (And clearly the unfortunate thing is that some were raped, and the false claims made it more difficult for them to get justice...but that's not my point..) Similarly, Iranians made a choice by not making a choice, because they honestly thought the Shaw might be a good thing for them. Now hindsight shows they were wrong to trust him, and they want to cry "rape".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    icewendigo said " 911 is an Inside Job (with zionists knee deep in its exceution[van with explosives], cover up and its use as a pretext for war against Iraq[fake meeting between Atta and an Iraq agent=100% bullshit provided by Israel]). "

    What evidence do you have of this bold statement ?
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I don't want this to become a 911 thread, but it is interesting to notice that in the modern world diplomacy, the claim that anyone has committed any military action against you at all is a blank check to retaliate as much as you want. 3,000 of ours die, so its ok to fully occupy them and kill hundreds of thousands of their people.

    Right now, the ideal strategy for anyone who wants to invade someone else is to either trick their opponent into making a token gesture of war (so you can say "He started it!!!!"), or as icewendengo pointed out: fabricate a convincing fake gesture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    icewendigo said " 911 is an Inside Job (with zionists knee deep in its exceution[van with explosives], cover up and its use as a pretext for war against Iraq[fake meeting between Atta and an Iraq agent=100% bullshit provided by Israel]). "

    What evidence do you have of this bold statement ?
    I don't know what makes it so "bold"? Israel stood the most to gain of anyone. Larry Silverstein owned and/or leased the buildings that fell (for all of about 3 weeks in the case of the WTC 1&2 towers). A building changes hands for the first time in its entire history, 18 days before it falls, and it doesn't even make you slightly suspicious? (The deal was finalized on July 24, 2001)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_S...d_Trade_Center
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •