A world without war

[Sapius]

Dave H;

Is "ending war" the real issue?

No, it is the ultimate goal. There are hundreds of things that need sorting out before that actually happens, and all of it is necessarily connected; starting with education in many humanitarian related issues, including basic morals and ethics that affect us all as a whole.

During the 20th Century, somewhere around 42 million people were killed in wars. That's a lot of deaths.

And the aim is to try and make that zero by the 30th century.

But during the 20th Century, somewhere around 170 million people were killed by their own governments, outside of wars.

EXACTLY! So what is the solution to that then? When LOCAL governments have no jurisdictions over HUMATERIAN issues that are deemed unethical by the WC, of which that particular country is also a part of, then the LOCAL government cannot act unethically, otherwise the majority of the world will be against and fall upon them! And they can without any bloodshed, because the local government (country) has no MILITARY of its own. Only the WC as a whole can decide if a LOCAL government is acting against HUMATARIAN values, or for it, and ACT accordingly.

Local (country) government would act only as the arm of a greater ORGANIZATION rather than a “GOVERNMENT”, which takes care of local issues only. As soon as aomething becomes a humanitarian issue, the WC will step in and can help remove a corrupt local government before a point critical is reached.

Is war a problem that can be solved by throwing more government at it?

It is not throwing in more government, but actually removing the power that could result in 170 million deaths. Now how bad is trying to think in those terms?

I did not read the links you provide, (may be later I will), but I’m sure they would justify what you are saying.

Sear, I will get back to your post soon; in the mean while please reflect on the above. I’m not good at explaining things in details, so I hope you don't assume that I’m trying to ignore an issue by addressing it succinctly. English is not my first language although I mainly communicate through it internationally.

[DHodges]

EXACTLY! So what is the solution to that then? When LOCAL governments have no jurisdictions over HUMATERIAN issues that are deemed unethical by the WC, of which that particular country is also a part of, then the LOCAL government cannot act unethically, otherwise the majority of the world will be against and fall upon them! And they can without any bloodshed, because the local government (country) has no MILITARY of its own. Only the WC as a whole can decide if a LOCAL government is acting against HUMATARIAN values, or for it, and ACT accordingly.

Looking at how the UN works, it's clear that the USA gets away with doing things it explicitly condemns other countries for doing. It dominates the UN.

One solution might be to dissolve the US into its constituent states (so you would really be talking about "local" governments). The USA is not going to voluntarily dissolve, and it would take quite a bit of force to make it. I'm pretty sure it would use nuclear force to maintain its hegemony, which it has grown rather fond of.

But even if you could do that, then you might have a similar problem with China, or whoever happens to be the next-biggest boy on the block. And I'm sure there are plenty of other countries (e.g., Muslim countries) that prefer the way they do things, and would fight for them over "world peace."

In short, I don't think you can get there from here without causing a global-scale war. Perhaps the existence of small-scale wars is less bad.

You also seem convinced that some sort of "World Council" would necessarily be humane and moral. I remain unconvinced. I think it would - quickly or slowly, openly or covertly - turn into a tool of exploitation. It is a very large tool, a very tempting target, and there is no way to construct it without involving a large number of people who are currently in power and have all sorts of vested interests.

This proposal to end violence would turn out to be extremely violent indeed, if put into practice. I imagine something like China's "Cultural Revolution."

I did not read the links you provide, (may be later I will), but I’m sure they would justify what you are saying.

Well, they seem to, but I have not yet looked into the underlying sources.

[Sapius]

Sear;

Sap: They cannot; by the virtue of each commander still having close affiliation with his own WC representative, and that commander alone cannot do anything since the military system could be devised in such a manner that a single or a couple of commanders cannot have the full support of a military infrastructure to do anything substantial.

Sear: What happens when there's a conflict? A terrible tsunami that kills 200,000 on the shores of the Indian ocean. And a terrible hurricane that kills 900 on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico?

I’m a little confused here… what exactly has your response got to do with my quote?

What conflict? Between countries or local upraising?

Once the WC is established, conflicts between countries will be only that of the economical kind, which can be settled democratically only, since no country has any military that they command directly.

Local uprising if any, will be against the local government, since the WC is there to help people have a better government if they are not satisfied with its administration. Its the WC's job to ensure a stable local (country) government, and anyone on the planet can approach the WC through different means, and they will have much information any ways.

Now about natural disasters: WC can be well prepared in advance, (since their presence is already there and everywhere else too), to approach any disaster prone area with relative easy, (when I say WC, that does not only mean WC itself, but it could have many different kinds of sub-organizations that are directly connected to WC), mobilizing all the resources it can muster world wide.

About 15 years ago I wanted to start a charitable organization called ‘Little Help’, urging all Internet users (and companies of course) to donate at least one dollar per month, to help prepare for the exact scenario you mentioned, and a dollar per month is no big deal. But some decent gentlemen I met around the same time were thinking of reviving another charitable organization incorporating this idea into it. However, they did not do that but welcomed other ideas and did a far better job than I ever could on my own, so no complains.

One of the ideas was to create lightweight fiberglass rowboats and store them strategically along most of the disaster prone areas, including medical and food supplies, but not too close or very near earthquake prone areas; and may be standby helicopters if possible.

You see, once an organization KNOWS or anticipates how much money comes in regularly, they can plan and prepare accordingly. But generally we react too late, and as soon as the news hits the Tele, most of us then rush in to display our sympathy.

Another idea with Little Help would have been its open policy; that each donor would have received a share-certificate, hence as a shareholder would have the right to see all accounts, which would however by every financial yearend be placed on its site for all to see, already audited by some well known International Auditing Firm. The formation of a charitable organization is exactly like any other corporate company and is subject to all local laws with certain exclusions of course, and that its shares cannot be traded since obviously they don’t payout dividends, and who the hell would be interested in that? However, a share, other than giving a right to see the accounts, makes it a publicly owned company, which most of the charitable organizations are not. The share would have been more like a membership cert with the donor’s name on it, which can be displayed on an office wall or at home, and needs to be returned if the regular donation is discontinued.

It would have been the first “publicly owned” charitable organization; however, it’s not too late as yet, I may have another 20/30 years on hand. Sorry for going off track, but I found it related to what you asked.

Those getting less would have economic, and survival motive to get their own independent system, either in addition to, or instead of the unified one.
Then what? War?

Selfishness is the root of all wars, and we are trying to remove THAT, and you are asking what about selfishness? None will have any economical or survival problems if WE ALL are prepared to think more humanitarianly. May be the other states need back more than they give because they cannot give more to begin with, and those that have been blessed with more should be glad to help. "What about ME" should be less of a concern than "what about US", rationally speaking.

However, I believe it will be a REAL free-market rather than the hypocrisy of a system that prevails now, (we could always get help on economics from people like Sage, and on agriculture from Cory), because then it would really be an International concern with relatively standardized regulations across the board. Capitalism would still prevail, minus the political upheavals and instability that rocks the market too. All markets will support each other and the country fairly, but I cannot really spell out all the details here. It it simply too vast.

The U.S. system is controlled not by legislative command, but by executive command. And despite that, look how slow they were to respond to hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Do you really think a global army commanded by ~195 legislatures or legislators could respond as well as our inadequate executive commanded system responded?
Don't bet on it.
And as it was, it wasn't good enough.

I really cannot say much at this point since I’m unable to get across the big picture. It seems like a good time that Laird say a few words here and leave his personal experiment for some other time ;-p (I will be away for a few days beginning this Saturday)

Sap: I know, and that being one of the reasons you would be an appropriate candidate for the WC."

Sear: WC = water closet?

If you have such a low opinion of yourself, or think it was meant as an insult, then I take it back :)

Hitler killed millions. But he didn't kill as many as Stalin. And Stalin didn't kill as many as Chairman Mao.

There is absolutely no chance for such a person taking control since no ONE person will ever have the opportunity or potential to begin with.

It is necessary that we wipe the slate clean and not be influenced by prevailing systems and hierarchies to see this idea clearly, and come up with real radical changes for them all.

But local just works better for some things, including disaster response.

I know, and that has/will not been overlooked.

Honey bees have complicated societies, with social rank, diversification of labor, community housing, and communication through dance, etc.
Ants also have advanced cultures, with biochemical communication, & more.
Etc.

Which one of them, or any other you can think of, has nuclear weapons of mass destruction? If you are not prepared to see the difference, I really cannot say much.

[sear]

Responding to:
"... 170 million people were killed by their own governments, outside of wars."

Sapius responded:

"EXACTLY! So what is the solution to that then?" Sapius

To what DH posted, I add:

"What conflict? Between countries or local upraising?" Sapius

No.
A conflict over which location, which disaster takes priority over the allocation of scarse emergency response resources.
The global army can't devote 100% of its resources to BOTH emergencies at once.
So choices will have to be made.
And who will make those choices? A vote of 195 legislatures?
How long will that take? How many more will have died while they're waiting?

"Selfishness is the root of all wars, and we are trying to remove THAT" Sapius

Selfishness is not only an intrinsic part of human nature, it's an important, and with luck indispensable part of it.
And in any case, a global army won't change that aspect of human nature. They are entirely independent phenomena.

[Shahrazad]

A conflict over which location, which disaster takes priority over the allocation of scarse emergency response resources.
The global army can't devote 100% of its resources to BOTH emergencies at once.

Respond to all of them at once. The army will be big enough that it won't be a problem at all.

[Sapius]

Dave,

You point out a very genuine concern but I have already mentioned that giving up the “power” would be quite difficult for present governments; one of the main reasons for that would be mistrust, at least the politicians will use it as an excuse to rally people against such an idea, evoking past experiences as in "HISTORY says so"! (WTF!); and of course, most of the politicians know that ‘peace’ means they are somewhat out of business, and they also love the taste of Power.

However, we are not talking about transforming the present generation of politicians, but planting the seed of this idea for future generations to realize and decide what could be best for them.

An infant today could be a politician tomorrow, but what kind of a politician will that infant be depends on the ideas it comes across. Not all humans or politicians are necessarily born unethical. We cannot magically change the fruit a tree bares, but we can (I don’t know what you call that), "tamper" with the seed so that it grows a different fruit.

In short, we have to actually help change our way of thinking for the future generations to help them think more rationally.

Looking at how the UN works, it's clear that the USA gets away with doing things it explicitly condemns other countries for doing. It dominates the UN.

Yes, and why is that? One; it is a huge economical power, and two, an unchallenged military power as it stands. Of course, such powers are not so easy to let go, but we are talking about the fifth generation from now, who would most probably by then be chocking on greenhouse effects so to speak. Which would also include open-minded people willing to do something about “situation earth” in all respects. There will be a time when we will say as a whole, “enough is enough”.

One solution might be to dissolve the US into its constituent states (so you would really be talking about "local" governments). The USA is not going to voluntarily dissolve, and it would take quite a bit of force to make it. I'm pretty sure it would use nuclear force to maintain its hegemony, which it has grown rather fond of.

It’s a good idea, but may not be necessary needed. Each country as it is could have its own internal system, keeping their political, economical, social, cultural systems as they are, or tinkle with it for betterment, keeping humanitarianism in mind; the only thing they have to give up is their individual military control, and place it under an internationally democratic control which each one is a part of.

But even if you could do that, then you might have a similar problem with China, or whoever happens to be the next-biggest boy on the block. And I'm sure there are plenty of other countries (e.g., Muslim countries) that prefer the way they do things, and would fight for them over "world peace."

As long as personal and property rights are upheld and respected, not many individuals would ask for more, the problem is the few “big boys” upstairs, and what we can do is change the mentality of our future “big boys”. It’s not going to happen even in say a hundred years, and all present “big boys” will be dead by then. So “we” are actually going to do nothing at all right now, but simply provide an option for the future to choose from.

In short, I don't think you can get there from here without causing a global-scale war. Perhaps the existence of small-scale wars is less bad.

Imagine that we are now in a modern dark age, (I have no doubt about that), but gradually people are becoming aware of economical and environmental problems; however slowly but taking a foothold - information flow is much faster and is reaching remote corners of the world than before; today there are more free-thinkers that certain societies with tolerance have helped open them up and express themselves. What if say in 100 years all countries decide to get rid of nuclear armaments? What if World issues start taking precedence over local or individual ones? How long do you think irrationality will work? (Please do not think as in “short-term”, but “cosmic” terms). At times I think about which all galaxies humanity will possibly spread to, and the unrecognizable physiology and psychology they will have compared to now, unless of course, an asteroid hits us first, which I’m quite sure we could handle actually. So, for that reason, at least some of the nuclear warheads need to be preserved under highly secure environment, only to be used when ALL the WC members give the green light. We will HAVE to take some calculate risks.

You also seem convinced that some sort of "World Council" would necessarily be humane and moral. I remain unconvinced. I think it would - quickly or slowly, openly or covertly - turn into a tool of exploitation. It is a very large tool, a very tempting target, and there is no way to construct it without involving a large number of people who are currently in power and have all sorts of vested interests.

Yes, but the possibility is very low. Firstly, not one of those in power right now will be alive, and I’m quite optimistic about our far future. Our ethnic differences will make sure that no individual exploits the tool, because everyone would like to have the best out of it, and can only fight over it diplomatically, keeping strict self-interest vigilance over each other. Remember, individual cultures and way of life will still be there. May be there will be a certain amount of corruption, but I’m sure it will remain at minimal, and will not effect humanity as a whole. They can have their estates and fast cars, but at least certain pockets of the world won’t go hungry, and are treated fairly.

This proposal to end violence would turn out to be extremely violent indeed, if put into practice. I imagine something like China's "Cultural Revolution."

It would be more of a mentally transformational revolution given enough time, but as you say, it would spell disaster if actually touched NOW.

[Sapius]

Sear;

Selfishness is not only an intrinsic part of human nature, it's an important, and with luck indispensable part of it.
And in any case, a global army won't change that aspect of human nature. They are entirely independent phenomena.

I view 'selfishness' and 'self-centeredness' differently. Talk to me sometime about this aspect in the main GF forum, and I shall respond accordingly.

[Sapius]

A conflict over which location, which disaster takes priority over the allocation of scarse emergency response resources.
The global army can't devote 100% of its resources to BOTH emergencies at once.

Respond to all of them at once. The army will be big enough that it won't be a problem at all.

Exactly! Where there is a will there is bloody well a way.

What else can I say... :D

[Laird]

Sapius, I really appreciate your support on this. I've become a bit fatigued of late so it was nice to have someone take up the reins so to speak. I know that you understand what I'm proposing when I see you write stuff like this:

We could have a Chinese in command of the American based Air force (with mixed nationality pilots and planes), and an American in command of the Chinese based Army (again with many mixed nationalities). The English Army had different ethnic based battalions within the same armed forces, so why can’t we have the same thing in China, and in every other country?

My thoughts exactly.

The U.S. system is controlled not by legislative command, but by executive command. And despite that, look how slow they were to respond to hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Do you really think a global army commanded by ~195 legislatures or legislators could respond as well as our inadequate executive commanded system responded?
Don't bet on it.
And as it was, it wasn't good enough.

I really cannot say much at this point since I’m unable to get across the big picture. It seems like a good time that Laird say a few words here and leave his personal experiment for some other time ;-p (I will be away for a few days beginning this Saturday)

Personal experiment? I'm not sure what you're referring to here Sap (is "Sap" OK with you btw? I might start using that nickname if it is).

As for the few words, well I've already said them. Sear seems to want to believe that I'm proposing that every decision be made by vote of 195 representatives, whereas I've already explained to him that what I'm actually proposing is that there exist a rotating council comprised of, say, three representatives, which would make the immediate decisions, and which the full council could override later as necessary. Did you miss that post of mine sear?

I also want to clear up another misconception that seems to be preventing people from seeing merit in this idea. That misconception is that this army will be some sort of world superpower capable of taking over the planet. The way I actually see it working though is that in the initial stages, it would grow significantly because there would be multiple national armies that it would have to potentially defend its constituents against, but it would still be smaller than the rest of the world's combined armies. As more and more nations signed up though, it would reach a point where its size was equally balanced with that of the rest of the armies of the world. At that point it would not grow further, and would actually begin shrinking. The reason that it would shrink is that once the point of equilibrium is reached, then as more armies joined up, there would be be less armed forces to have to defend against. It might maintain itself as the slightly larger force, but it would by no means be an easy task for it to "take over the world" at any point. And as I've already described, as the point nears where all nations have signed up, it would begin to transform into a disaster-recovery force, rather than take on the (redundant) role of world police officer.

As for the links that DHodges contributed, I read through them and they were excellent, particularly the essay. I'm all for the spread of democracy as an antidote to war. If that works then my solution is redundant. Dunno how well it applies to the USA though - it seems to pick a lot of fights and it's the poster-child of democracy. Is it really true that the USA has never warred with a democratic nation? I seem to recall reading that if not outright warring with democratic countries, it has at least assassinated people and instigated coups and the like in them in order to topple governments unfavourable to its interests. Anyone got any facts to share?

As for corruption of the governing forces behind the world army: for a start, it's a hard ask. We're talking about many, many countries in the world having equal representation. You would have to corrupt the governments of the majority of those countries of the world in order to corrupt this organisation, and if the majority of those governments of the world are already corrupt then an out-of-control global army is the least of your worries. In any case, let's look at a worst-case scenario: the military commander of the force becomes corrupt and directs the army to attack a particular peaceful nation. Immediately the executive council publicly sacks him and puts him up on trial. Problem solved. To avoid even the attack happening it could be part of soldiers' basic training that they refuse orders to attack countries unprovoked, and to be on the watch for suspicious (corrupt) behaviour in their commanding officers.

[Sapius]

Laird;

Personal experiment? I'm not sure what you're referring to here Sap

Polyamory :-p

(is "Sap" OK with you btw? I might start using that nickname if it is).

What’s in a name, mate. As long as we know who or what we are referring to, it’s fine.

let's look at a worst-case scenario: the military commander of the force becomes corrupt and directs the army to attack a particular peaceful nation. Immediately the executive council publicly sacks him and puts him up on trial. Problem solved. To avoid even the attack happening it could be part of soldiers' basic training that they refuse orders to attack countries unprovoked, and to be on the watch for suspicious (corrupt) behaviour in their commanding officers.

Moral and ethical “training” is also part of the agenda to begin with, and on top of that, then, what would be the motive of a lone commander who in any case would have to muster in many subordinates of different nationalities to take over effectively? That would necessarily split the forces and should be the main concern for such a commander. What changes would he like to bring that he cannot do through the WC being a citizen of the world.

No; I see that as quite a remote possibility which can be however taken care of before it takes a foothold.

[DHodges]

As for the links that DHodges contributed, I read through them and they were excellent, particularly the essay. I'm all for the spread of democracy as an antidote to war. If that works then my solution is redundant. Dunno how well it applies to the USA though - it seems to pick a lot of fights and it's the poster-child of democracy. Is it really true that the USA has never warred with a democratic nation? I seem to recall reading that if not outright warring with democratic countries, it has at least assassinated people and instigated coups and the like in them in order to topple governments unfavourable to its interests. Anyone got any facts to share?

The USA has done all sorts of crap that it should not have, particularly meddling in the affairs of other countries. It has not always supported democracy - in some cases it has actually favored dictators that were perceived as supporting particular US interests.

A lot of this sort of thing is done through the CIA and other "black" organizations (e.g., the NSA) that really operate outside of the machinery of democracy.

The CIA has done things like MK-Ultra and allegedly has been heavily involved in drug trafficking (and possibly still is). The apparent assassination attempts on Fidel Castro were particularly ludicrous.

I think that a democracy can and should do better. In the last few decades, the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" have been used as excuses for all kinds of non-democratic shenanigans.

[hsandman]

Laird, I command you to annotate your posts that are contrary to your real feelings on subject, by inserting "/sarcasm" at the end of such sentences. Your intelligence mixed with total lack of perspective confuses me. I can't figure out anymore where sarcasm/humor ends and naivety begins in your posts. Thanks to Carl for pointing that out in another thread.
:-(

ps. Read and check the facts by cross-referencing info on the link below.

http://www.doublestandards.org/ciahits.html
or
Edit: Or watch a documentary on CIA if you have broadband.... 2hrs (Watching it myself now.. I have read the book before.. not sure on factuality of the video :-S )
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... 3313707032

Hope that helps. Spreading democracy... lol!

[Sapius]

Hsandman;

Regarding you link;

A considerable proportion of the developed world's prosperity rests on paying the lowest possible prices for the poor countries' primary products and on exporting high-cost capital and finished goods to those countries. Continuation of this kind of prosperity requires continuation of the relative gap between developed and underdeveloped countries - it means keeping poor people poor.

The main issue one has to look into is the definition of “poor”, and “relative” gap. The gap will always remain, but what does “poor” really mean? Scraping for food in the garbage? Remaining helplessly unhygienic and thereby spread diseases which even a capitalist may NOT be immune to? Eventually their "poverty" affects us all, no matter how one sees it. Unless we don't help remove that, we are essentally chopping away at our own feet, actually.

Increasingly, the impoverished masses are understanding that the prosperity of the developed countries and of the privileged minorities in their own countries is founded on their poverty."

No, not the masses and especially the portion that I described above, but the already developed countries, and the privileged minorities in any third-world country who are more concerned with their own sense of personal security rather than ‘poverty’ of another.

So, the real issue is not about removing the “gap”, but defining “poverty” and see how selfishly low can a human get, or be blind to rationality!

Hope that helps. Spreading democracy... lol!

Yes, and a big LOL indeed, on us, and our sense of false justifications.

[Laird]

Laird, I command you to annotate your posts that are contrary to your real feelings on subject, by inserting "/sarcasm" at the end of such sentences.

Tell you what, you let me know your military rank and I'll decide whether I'm obliged to take commands from you. Ah, fuck it, who am I kidding? I don't subscribe to a military model. Your "commands" are completely lost on me. I might have been more receptive to a request, but in any case let me inform you that I would not have inserted a single /sarcasm anywhere, because I am 100% sincere in everything that I've written to this thread.

Your intelligence mixed with total lack of perspective confuses me. I can't figure out anymore where sarcasm/humor ends and naivety begins in your posts.

I prefer "idealism" to "naivety". Yes, there are some messed up trends in the world but things don't change without inspired people setting a strong example for others to follow. I'm just doing my best to inspire myself and others.

http://www.doublestandards.org/ciahits.html

I'm going to go out shortly and I don't have the time to read that mammoth page right now. I'll try to get through it in the coming days.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... 3313707032

I'll try to get around to this in the next few days too.

[hsandman]

Laird, I command you to annotate your posts that are contrary to your real feelings on subject, by inserting "/sarcasm" at the end of such sentences.

Tell you what, you let me know your military rank and I'll decide whether I'm obliged to take commands from you. Ah, fuck it, who am I kidding? I don't subscribe to a military model.

Damit! Had you there for a moment... Join the army..See the world and kill people in exotic new lands... c'mon Laird. I order you to do it!

Your "commands" are completely lost on me. I might have been more receptive to a request, but in any case let me inform you that I would not have inserted a single /sarcasm anywhere, because I am 100% sincere in everything that I've written to this thread.

Yea.. Still funny in a tragic kind of way. Like christian scientists..hehe :-}

I prefer "idealism" to "naivety".

They are not interchangable, but thanks for sharing. ;-D

Yes, there are some messed up trends in the world but things don't change without inspired people setting a strong example for others to follow. I'm just doing my best to inspire myself and others.

Admirable, but to use metaphor: You can't be a life saver if you don't know how to swim.

http://www.doublestandards.org/ciahits.html

I'm going to go out shortly and I don't have the time to read that mammoth page right now. I'll try to get through it in the coming days.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... 3313707032

I'll try to get around to this in the next few days too.

[/quote]

Take your time, the video is mainstreem production, so lots of reinforcment for minor entranched disinfo such as number of jews who died in holocaust etc, but should be interesting/educational never the less.

--------------
Elizabeth Holtzman (USA Congresswoman):

About 100ds of CIA nazis "...and turn around and protect the very people, who were responsible for deaths of 6 million jews..........(meme locked) and millions of non jews."
----------------------
Casulties during WWII
Soldiers:
Germany 8.1 mill
China 3.1 mill
USSR 27 mill

Civilian deaths:
Yougoslavia 1.3 mill
Germany 2mill
China 9mill
USSR 19 mill

Strange how people distinguish between "race" and social background.Some big number of Non jews... lol
------------
Edit: Sorry, the video is mainstream bs. Waste of time. Full of half truths and whitewash. JFK did not initiate the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco, he went along with CIA plan and refused to send reinforcements when the idiotic plan fell apart. He took the blame for it and other "set ups" that the CIA perpetrated at that time.

MK-Ultra was much more sinister than it is depicted in that video. Video omits all the stuff they were doing in Vietnam with the POW's which did not draw a line at using drugs, but went as far as surgery and extermination of the Vietcong - guinea pigs at the end of the war.

The UFO "phenomenon" was to hide/cover the Nazi flying disc technology that was left in hands of Germans who escaped to Neu Shwabenland (Nueva Suabia or New Berlin - base in Antarctica) after the official end of ww2 in 1945. and experimental craft that the USA military was trying to recreate from plans taken from Germany. Spy planes were not that prolific and they did not fly over peoples houses at low altitudes to be a serious reason for the massive disinformation campaign mounted by the CIA.

[hsandman]

Take your time and read, if you are interested in begining of this story, look up Michal Tsarion (Irish historian and acultist)for his work on human civilisation pre-history. :-D

Disarming the world... lol


Quoted from here.
"This May Be The Most Important Document
You Ever Read In Your Life!"

[hsandman]

Since I am elucidating some of the realities in your world, I might as well post a link to a short video that shows a income distribution "curve"graphically in American society today, so you can accurately define "poor" and "rich" (something sapius commented about)

Notice how gradual the l-"curve" in the animated graph is. :-)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5147&hl=en

[In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of $35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades.]


Think you are getting a raw deal? Try this for fun:

1) Turn over your keyboard and check which country it is made in.

2) Find out average weekly wage in that country.

3) Take your weekly wage and divide it by that average.

4) Take that sum and multiply it by the cost of the keyboard.

5) Do that for all the things you own that are made in that country.

6) Pretend that your wages stay the same and prices rise to these new markups.

If the in-equality gap between you and average person in China, India, Taiwan etc. vanishes, this is what things comparative to your earnings are going to cost you.

You can afford to keep your life style only because of poverty in these countries.

This also the reason (among others) elites want you to be also "poorer" by removing economic barriers that protect you from this global "economic leveling out" aka “globalization” or “free world market.”

Which is a prelude to new world order. ie: one global government, where the power of military might will be focused inwards,(homegrown terrorism etc.) when outside "threats" are no longer available.

Just like others have pointed out in this thread (nice to see :-)) you first have to fix your own perspective, before mounting a "save the world" campaign without a clue of the real reasons behind war, poverty, inequality, sadism, racism, crime etc.

Don't take that as disparagement Laird, I do admire your motives and energy you spend in writing and thinking of solutions etc. Keep it up. :-D

I just think you are misguided/misinformed.

[hsandman]

"-Singe-" Tomas

What's "-Singe-"?

http://www.answers.com/topic/sear

[hsandman]

Is "ending war" the real issue?

During the 20th Century, somewhere around 42 million people were killed in wars. That's a lot of deaths.

But during the 20th Century, somewhere around 170 million people were killed by their own governments, outside of wars.

Can it be rephrased for clarity purposes as :

During the 20th Century, somewhere around 42 million people were killed by foreign governments, while somewhere around 170 million people were killed by their own governments.

Makes a great quote/soundbite ;-)

[Dan Rowden]

sandman,

Please do not post reams of material from others' essays. Just link to them. That's the whole idea of providing links.

[Unidian]

"War is father of all and king of all." -Heraclitus

He's painfully blunt, but he's right. As long as there is life, there will be conflict. Certainly we can try to make conflict more and more humane, and we may someday do away with large-scale physical violence. But we will not do away with "war" in the sense of "one thing being opposed to another." To accomplish that, we would have to do away with existence.

But naturally, it would not do to take a one-sided view in a dialectical context. War and conflict are only one side of the coin. The other side is progress and development. Through conflict, growth is achieved. Existence is an ongoing process of synthesis, in which progress and conflict co-exist and inform each other. In my view, there is no use in imagining a world without either side of the equation. One might as well try to imagine square circles.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

I find it vaguely remarkable that mankind has mastered and manipulated nearly every species on the planet, and is even the ruler of ( known ) outer space, and yet it has to resort to murdering and bullying its own kind. It's vaguely ungrateful, vaguely pathetic, vaguely unenlightened. Unidian of course has a ( or thee ) point of the situation, but mankind is a freak of nature, smarter, more capable than the animals, and must rather focus on that, for its own advantage. What matters is not that we are incapable of altering nature and its "synthetic" ways totally, what matters is that we, as conscious beings, must try to distance ourselves from that way of being/thinking. This will deliver us to being truly human. Civilness is what makes us human, not the fact that we talk, or work or whatever. These factors have arisen from the fact that we were becoming civil, for whatever reasons of preservation we needed it for. Materialism is a disease, it is not entirely a natural thing we gravitate towards. People must be taught to enjoy nature, culture and their position at the top of the hierarchy, because that position is not a final one either. What place has been rated the happiest on earth recently? Vanuatu. Why? These island people enjoy their natural surroundings, simple ways, family life and are reasonably unaffected by materialism and capitalism. Capitalism is great, but it must be balanced with cheaper and therapeutic access to nature, etc. The problem with war is also that it causes an endless spiral of jealousy and revenge, meaning that the winner's children and their children etc. will probably be overthrown right about when they have reached nirvana or perfection or total status. War is basically thus useless. There must be more focus on supporting and exchanging with the enemy. And, Unidian, these days it is not too hard for me to imagine square circles : ) Paradox is a reality we cannot hide from or understand, because we are human and the universe isn't : ) We run from the illogic of paradoxes but to me they represent merely another border that has been crossed.

[Sapius]

Hsandman;

Disarming the world... lol

:)

Quoted from here.
"This May Be The Most Important Document
You Ever Read In Your Life!"

What makes you think this is the NEWS of the day my friend?

At least I'm well aware of it and much more, and to some extent on a firsthand basis, but I do not pessimistically conclude, "it's a ride", or that one should simply give up and enjoy the ride as long as it does not seemingly affect me directly.

For all I know, you could be one of those ‘conspirators’, hsandman, or a hired pawn that points a dirty finger at them and then say ‘relax’, nothing can be done, it’s just a ride so flow with it. I’m quite optimistic that they can be beaten at their own game and that too using their own rules, but changes have to happen from downwards up, and that involves multiple issues, not just what this topic is about.

I can further elaborate on the topic if you wish, but I rather DO something about it rather than simply try to convince this generation or your good self; and I still do support it irrelevant of what you think is an impossible obstacle that can be overcome, and rationally believe that it is not an impossible task given enough time.

[Sapius]

"War is father of all and king of all." -Heraclitus

He's painfully blunt, but he's right. As long as there is life, there will be conflict. Certainly we can try to make conflict more and more humane, and we may someday do away with large-scale physical violence. But we will not do away with "war" in the sense of "one thing being opposed to another." To accomplish that, we would have to do away with existence.

But naturally, it would not do to take a one-sided view in a dialectical context. War and conflict are only one side of the coin. The other side is progress and development. Through conflict, growth is achieved. Existence is an ongoing process of synthesis, in which progress and conflict co-exist and inform each other. In my view, there is no use in imagining a world without either side of the equation. One might as well try to imagine square circles.

Well said, but dialectically speaking, this IS the "worldly" corner, Nat ;) and I wish such profound insights could grow wheat for the hungry.

Do you agree that armed conflict is not the only kind of war there is? Without which there will be eternal “peace” so to speak; rest assured, there will be other kind of ‘wars’ that will keep the strife of existence quite alive irrelevant of our personal mental attitudes or actions, or inactions towards the better, but I think we can well do without armed conflicts.

I too am simply chopping wood and carrying water… are you, really?

[Unidian]

I'd like to offer Laird my moral support in this thread. Realistic or otherwise, his fantasy is better than most people's reality. I also know him on a personal level and I know (at least to some extent) what kind of a "spiritual" place this is coming from, for lack of a better term. It's a better place than most here have any experience of, myself included. That makes a big difference, because anyone can preach an idealistic vision for any number of purposes, sincere or otherwise.