[rexgrant]

Hi all.
What should the United Nations on this planet do to preserve Peace and security for all living things on this Earth.
It as now come to this, they should unite and remove all the governments of the Countries that are causing all the trouble and are threatening the stability of this planet.It must be done regardless of how many people will be killed in the process,if it is not done then it will lead to tens of millions been killed and a planet not fit for the survivers to live on
Regards
Rex

[SlackAli]

I'll just make a quick cup of coffee and come back with the answer.

[rexgrant]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

I'll just make a quick cup of coffee and come back with the answer.

Hi Ali.
No suger for me.
Rex

[linskyjack]

I figure isolationism and energy independence is the only realistic way to deal with the primitives in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, southern Lebanon etc.

[NateRD23]

However, we tried isolationism and that didnt work. Energy Independence is the only way. Take the power away from the middle east and big oil and put the power back between our borders.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by rexgrant

Hi all.
What should the United Nations on this planet do to preserve Peace and security for all living things on this Earth.
It as now come to this, they should unite and remove all the governments of the Countries that are causing all the trouble and are threatening the stability of this planet.It must be done regardless of how many people will be killed in the process,if it is not done then it will lead to tens of millions been killed and a planet not fit for the survivers to live on
Regards
Rex

The problem is that you can't get the UN to agree on which countries are "causing" all the trouble. Many think it is the USA, due to mistakes made in the past. But, taken as a whole, the USA is a force for the good of the planet, IMHO. Many will disagree, but they may like the French and simply think that you can talk to and understand every faction on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth, unfortunately.

[WarC]

One of the interesting things about human history is that it is oftentimes possible to find the most "peaceful" times following on the heels of a brutal series of wars or upon the ascension of a super power whose military capacity is so great that it cannot be met in a conventional way by opposing powers.

The "Pax Romana" is a good example.

The only way to stop war is to make it completely unbearable or unrealistic to wage. Thats pretty impossible to do any way other than by force, or at least the threat of force, because humans always seem to have something which they are willing to stand up for!

If the UN somehow managed to abolish all world governments and crush all opposition (which would have to be done by force), people would eventually start grouping together in other ways and build followings. As those began to grow in power and influence, conflict becomes a threat once again. The UN would have to enforce global rule by, you guessed it, more force.

Basically, wars are a reflection of human interaction. That is why wars are inevitable. Wars play on very basic human instincts.

The next time you find yourself exchanging heated words with someone... The next time you make threatening gestures at someone in traffic, or someone gestures at you... Think about your position and replace the individuals involved with countries or groups of people. Thats a war! It's just that simple.

This is why I laugh at people who label others as "war supporters" or "pro war", as if they themselves are above conflict. If you have disagreed, then you've exhibited the same actions and tendencies that breed war. Even the most Liberal, by their beliefs (Such as Israel's existence) advocate war one way or another (For Example: For Israel not to be an issue it would have to cease to exist. For that to happen Israel would have to be defeated militarily. Therefore a Liberal who thinks Israel shouldn't exist is advocating war whether they are concious of it or not).

Am I right or am I right?

[rexgrant]

Originally Posted by WarC

One of the interesting things about human history is that it is oftentimes possible to find the most "peaceful" times following on the heels of a brutal series of wars or upon the ascension of a super power whose military capacity is so great that it cannot be met in a conventional way by opposing powers.

The "Pax Romana" is a good example.

The only way to stop war is to make it completely unbearable or unrealistic to wage. Thats pretty impossible to do any way other than by force, or at least the threat of force, because humans always seem to have something which they are willing to stand up for!

If the UN somehow managed to abolish all world governments and crush all opposition (which would have to be done by force), people would eventually start grouping together in other ways and build followings. As those began to grow in power and influence, conflict becomes a threat once again. The UN would have to enforce global rule by, you guessed it, more force.

Basically, wars are a reflection of human interaction. That is why wars are inevitable. Wars play on very basic human instincts.

The next time you find yourself exchanging heated words with someone... The next time you make threatening gestures at someone in traffic, or someone gestures at you... Think about your position and replace the individuals involved with countries or groups of people. Thats a war! It's just that simple.

This is why I laugh at people who label others as "war supporters" or "pro war", as if they themselves are above conflict. If you have disagreed, then you've exhibited the same actions and tendencies that breed war. Even the most Liberal, by their beliefs (Such as Israel's existence) advocate war one way or another (For Example: For Israel not to be an issue it would have to cease to exist. For that to happen Israel would have to be defeated militarily. Therefore a Liberal who thinks Israel shouldn't exist is advocating war whether they are concious of it or not).

Am I right or am I right?

Hi
100% right
Rex

[RSM123]

The UN is, always has been, and always will be ineffective ... every bit as much as the League of Nations.

China and Russia both sit on the Security Council, yet Russia was able to flatten Grozny with impunity, since the UN allowed them to get away with terming it an 'internal police matter.'

Hmmm .... 200,000 + dead, carpet bombing, deliberate targeting of the civ population, torture, rape used as a weapon of terror = A police action.

Likewise China has killed tens of thousands in Tibet, to say nothing of the measures it has used against its own people to crush any form of democratic movement.

- That should be enough to disqualify either from any form of role in international diplomacy.

Though of course everything will carry on in the same old way of tacit approval, tit for tat sanctions, and behind the scenes horse trading.

[Chicon]

Peace lovers !

[rexgrant]

[quote=BanditFlyer]Very interesting analysis, War. Also interesting to note that the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council are the 5 nations responsible for the vast majority of the arms trade
Seems like those who cry loudest for peace are those who make the most profit off of war.
I'm thinking it wouldn't happen. It just doesn't make sense to have a "war to end all wars".
Interesting discussion.[/QUOTE

Hi BanditFlyer.
I beleve they said the first world war,was going to be the war that ends all wars,After about three generations nations forget what total war is all about.
No what I would like to see take place is a world policing type of operation. were if a state or country stepped out of line it would be corrected by what ever means were necessary but I will keep on dreaming.
Regards
Rex

[BanditFlyer]

I think it was Washington who wanted to not have a "standing army" in the United States. Of course, that would present it's own problems. Then we really would be like Rome, what with private citizens owning nuclear submarines and all ...

[NateRD23]

Peace is an impossible task. I dont think there could ever be such a thing as world peace. The problem is exactly what has been stated above, people. People themselves crave money, power, and a sense of freedom. If people did not like their particular government and were able they moved to a new land to start anew.

We will always have people that disagree with something. It all depends how great their influence goes. Like in Ancient Roman times, Rome's influence was far greater than the other influences for 100s of years until the balance shifted.

I guess if we want peace, American Peace, we would have to be strong enough to stop any other influences from happening. You would basically suppress what America really stands for. That whole notion of freedom.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by NateRD23

Peace is an impossible task. I dont think there could ever be such a thing as world peace. The problem is exactly what has been stated above, people. People themselves crave money, power, and a sense of freedom. If people did not like their particular government and were able they moved to a new land to start anew.

We will always have people that disagree with something. It all depends how great their influence goes. Like in Ancient Roman times, Rome's influence was far greater than the other influences for 100s of years until the balance shifted.

I guess if we want peace, American Peace, we would have to be strong enough to stop any other influences from happening. You would basically suppress what America really stands for. That whole notion of freedom.

The world will only unite when the aliens attack! Unfortunately for the peace movement, people only join together to fight off a bigger enemy. When that enemy is gone, petty squabbles break out into fights which break out into wars.

[DiSaidSo]

Originally Posted by rexgrant

Hi BanditFlyer.
I beleve they said the first world war,was going to be the war that ends all wars,After about three generations nations forget what total war is all about.
No what I would like to see take place is a world policing type of operation. were if a state or country stepped out of line it would be corrected by what ever means were necessary but I will keep on dreaming.
Regards
Rex

And what lines would those be? Who sets those lines? Who acts as the world's police? Who decides exactly what is right and what is wrong? What kind of correction would take place?

World Peace is an idealistic pipe dream with no realistic inroads whatsoever.

I do, however, agree that becoming self-sufficient where energy is concerned is a great way to take a lot of global power away from the Middle East.