A world without war
Re: A world without war
The real visionary / idealist / war hero was called Simon Bolivar. Chavez is trying to be the reincarnation of Bolivar. Some people even say that he thinks he is Bolivar.
Re: A world without war
Not much point to concern yourself with the opinion of any that would do otherwise. Consider the source."I hope to be judged on the content of my posts, not on the state in which I'm in when I write them." Laird
"All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie"At the very least, as an honest man." Laird
Right. Thus, not identical, but similar."the troops wouldn't respond to the host nation, they would respond to the global command." Laird
It's a very tough sell Laird.
How are you going to convince nationalities that they'll be better off if control of their military complement is taken from them?
What you describe is quite akin to the nations of the Earth being militarily "occupied"; foreign troops present in their homeland. That's an extremely tough sell indeed.
The U.S. Founders put the command of the U.S. military under executive (Presidential), not legislative (congressional) control."It's not so dangerous when his authority is totally dependent upon the democratic say-so of all the nations on Earth (or those which have up to that point signed up). If he gets out of line then he's removed." Laird
Why?
Because legislatures can't respond fast enough to command a military.
When military decisions have to be made, they have to be made swiftly, sometimes in mere hours, rarely in minutes, and possibly, sometimes in seconds.
Even one nation's legislature can't.
But a global legislature; or caucus of legislatures?
FORGET IT! It wouldn't work. It's a "cure" which is far worse than the disease.
30 character limit on sigline?
Re: A world without war
I had to think hard about that epithet but I've come to the conclusion that it means "it's your choice whether you feel that another person has dishonoured you or not (or even whether you've committed a dishonourable act), and your honour remains intact if you always choose to feel that you have not been dishonoured/dishonourable". Is that what you understand by it? I'm not so sure that I actually agree with it though - I think that some things are simply dishonourable by definition. I might go around lying about my friends to the world and I might even be able to rationalise it in some way as not being a dishonourable act, but in the end it would remain a rationalisation and I'd be fooling myself if I thought that my honour remained intact.sear wrote: "All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie
Tell me about it.sear wrote:It's a very tough sell Laird.
Through two arguments. The first is that it's a necessary part of the process towards an eventual global peace, under which they will definitively be "better off". The second is that decisions as to the actions of an armed force made by (global) democratic consensus are less emotionally driven and less self-focussed, and have a far better chance of avoiding unnecessary violence, than those made by a more selfish entity such as a national government. I would further assure them that control of their military complement has not been taken from them, it's just been augmented with that of other nations, and I would further assure them that the primary objective of the global army would be the defence of its constituent nations, and that in that regard they would be actually gaining power in that they would have at their defensive disposal the forces of other cooperating nations.sear wrote:How are you going to convince nationalities that they'll be better off if control of their military complement is taken from them?
Oh, no, I really think that "occupied" is the wrong word. Occupation occurs against your volition: this is more cooperation than occupation.sear wrote:What you describe is quite akin to the nations of the Earth being militarily "occupied"; foreign troops present in their homeland. That's an extremely tough sell indeed.
I'm not trying to say though that the army would be under the immediate control of a legislature. There would have to be some sort of intermediate body similar to that of the UN Security Council that makes immediate decisions in conjunction with the military commander of the global army. Presumably this body would be made up of, say, three of the cooperating nations, and would rotate membership so that all nations have equal time at the helm of the ship so to speak. The decisions made by this body would be overrulable by the combined legislature.sear wrote:The U.S. Founders put the command of the U.S. military under executive (Presidential), not legislative (congressional) control."It's not so dangerous when his authority is totally dependent upon the democratic say-so of all the nations on Earth (or those which have up to that point signed up). If he gets out of line then he's removed." Laird
Why?
Because legislatures can't respond fast enough to command a military.
When military decisions have to be made, they have to be made swiftly, sometimes in mere hours, rarely in minutes, and possibly, sometimes in seconds.
Even one nation's legislature can't.
But a global legislature; or caucus of legislatures?
FORGET IT! It wouldn't work. It's a "cure" which is far worse than the disease.
Re: A world without war
Laird's "cure" is using more government - a layer of meta-government to govern the governments. But the disease is the nature of government itself.sear wrote:FORGET IT! It wouldn't work. It's a "cure" which is far worse than the disease.
Laird seems to think that a government can be benevolent. I think it is possible for a government to be benign - in the sense that a tumor can be benign, but needs to be constantly watched for signs of turning malignant.
Perhaps there is a difference in perspective because he's thinking of the Australian government, and I'm thinking more of the US government.
Re: A world without war for humans to read.
New comment:
To accept your interpretation is to subjugate the appraisal of the honor at issue, to the opinion of that one other person.
I believe Carnegie had a far more conventional definition of "honor" in mind.
In fact, I believe Carnegie had in mind the same thing Art Schopenhauer had in mind when he said:
And you'll find, it doesn't address a perspective from one persons appraisal of what is honorable or not, but instead addresses "reputation", & "Nobel laureate". These each are manifestations of broad opinion, and probably broad enlightened opinion.
To me it means:
A new born baby is honorable, because it did not dishonor itself, and may never.
In some cultures, if it is sexually raped, it may be dishonored. But in most formal Western cultures I'm aware of, dishonor accrues to willful conduct, not exploitation, or other factors beyond the control of the one whose honor is at issue.
Read it again Laird. I think you were way off track about it before.
I seriously doubt Carnegie meant that."I've come to the conclusion that it means "it's your choice whether you feel that another person has dishonoured you or not ..." Laird
To accept your interpretation is to subjugate the appraisal of the honor at issue, to the opinion of that one other person.
I believe Carnegie had a far more conventional definition of "honor" in mind.
In fact, I believe Carnegie had in mind the same thing Art Schopenhauer had in mind when he said:
I've included a dictionary entry for the word honor (see below)."Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
And you'll find, it doesn't address a perspective from one persons appraisal of what is honorable or not, but instead addresses "reputation", & "Nobel laureate". These each are manifestations of broad opinion, and probably broad enlightened opinion.
To me it means:
A new born baby is honorable, because it did not dishonor itself, and may never.
In some cultures, if it is sexually raped, it may be dishonored. But in most formal Western cultures I'm aware of, dishonor accrues to willful conduct, not exploitation, or other factors beyond the control of the one whose honor is at issue.
Read it again Laird. I think you were way off track about it before.
If you're still wobbly about it, consider yet another insightful perspective on honor."All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie
And now, the dictionary perspective."Honor means sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others.
Dishonor means sacrificing others for the benefit of yourself."
Lanny Davis, Special Counsel to President Clinton
That's what it says.honor (òn´er) noun
1.High respect, as that shown for special merit; esteem: the honor shown to a Nobel laureate.
2.a. Good name; reputation. b. A source or cause of credit: was an honor to the profession.
3.a. Glory or recognition; distinction. b. A mark, token, or gesture of respect or distinction: the place of honor at the table. c. A military decoration. d. A title conferred for achievement.
4.Nobility of mind; probity.
5.High rank.
6.The dignity accorded to position: awed by the honor of his office.
7.Great privilege: I have the honor to present the governor.
8. Honor. Used with His, Her, or Your as a title and form of address for certain officials, such as judges and mayors: Her Honor the Mayor.
9.a. A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms. b. Principled uprightness of character; personal integrity. c. A woman's chastity or reputation for chastity.
10. honors. Social courtesies offered to guests: did the honors at tea.
11. honors. a. Special recognition for unusual academic achievement: graduated with honors. b. A program of individual advanced study for exceptional students: planned to take honors in history.
12.Sports. The right of being first at the tee in golf.
13.Games. a. Any of the four or five highest cards, especially the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of the trump suit, in card games such as bridge or whist. b. The points allotted to these cards. Often used in the plural.
verb, transitive
honored, honoring, honors
1.a. To hold in respect; esteem. b. To show respect for. c. To bow to (another dancer) in square dancing: Honor your partner.
2.To confer distinction on: He has honored us with his presence.
3.To accept or pay as valid: honor a check; a store that honors all credit cards.
- idiom.
honor bound
Under an obligation enforced by the personal integrity of the one obliged: I was honor bound to admit that she had done the work.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin.]
- hon´orer noun
Synonyms: honor, homage, reverence, veneration, deference. These nouns denote admiration, respect, or esteem accorded to another as a right or as due. Honor, the most general term, is applicable both to the feeling and to the expression of such sentiments: He tried to be worthy of the honor in which he was held. Homage is an expression of high regard and respect, often in the form of a ceremonial tribute that conveys allegiance: "There is no country in which so absolute a homage is paid to wealth" (Ralph Waldo Emerson). Reverence is a feeling of deep respect and devotion: "Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man" (Ayn Rand). Veneration is both the feeling and the reverential expression of respect, love, and awe: Her veneration for traditional learning never wavered. Deference is courteous, respectful regard for another that often takes the form of yielding to his or her decisions or wishes: Have confidence in your own judgment; don't give undue deference to the opinions and feelings of others. See also synonyms at honesty.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
30 character limit on sigline?
Re: A world without war
Sear;
In the face of gradual global unification founded on the basses of ‘good/fair for all’, we already have the UN and WTO, so why can’t this be possible? Although some nations have stronger influence than others, but with what Laird is suggesting, those nations will loose such influencing power because no ONE will hold any military power, which for now is their backbone really.
The only problem is that most countries would not be willing to hand over their commanding “powerâ€, which currently should be the most difficult part to achieve. It takes a long time to build up trust, and minutes to loose it, and politicians thrive on using this tool to divide and rule the gullible, otherwise they couldn’t enjoy the power they so love to have. And POWER is a very difficult thing to give up. Unless the population is properly educated and well informed, they cannot place the right person up there who will lead them to true peace and prosperity.
It will of course take time, much time, but I’m quite sure that future generations will take such ideas seriously and work towards it. After all, it’s common sense really.
I believe the solution suggested is quite viable and possible, only that we are judging it through our past and current world situations hence don’t find it plausible or practical. But if the seed is sown today, may be it will sprout in say 500 years; generations then would most probably have a different mind set influenced by such ideas which would be already floating around.I agree w/ Laird on the problem
I disagree with him on the solution.
In the face of gradual global unification founded on the basses of ‘good/fair for all’, we already have the UN and WTO, so why can’t this be possible? Although some nations have stronger influence than others, but with what Laird is suggesting, those nations will loose such influencing power because no ONE will hold any military power, which for now is their backbone really.
The only problem is that most countries would not be willing to hand over their commanding “powerâ€, which currently should be the most difficult part to achieve. It takes a long time to build up trust, and minutes to loose it, and politicians thrive on using this tool to divide and rule the gullible, otherwise they couldn’t enjoy the power they so love to have. And POWER is a very difficult thing to give up. Unless the population is properly educated and well informed, they cannot place the right person up there who will lead them to true peace and prosperity.
It will of course take time, much time, but I’m quite sure that future generations will take such ideas seriously and work towards it. After all, it’s common sense really.
---------
Re: A world without war
"Those that do not study history are destined to repeat it.""I believe the solution suggested is quite viable and possible, only that we are judging it through our past and current world situations hence don’t find it plausible or practical." Sapius
"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I'm not asserting implementing Laird's -New World Order- approach isn't plausible or practical.
I'm predicting that it's monumentally dangerous; more dangerous than the current situation.
Before any new system is implemented, it's mode of potential failure should be fully analyzed.
Placing all the world's military power into one centralized command is a recipe for cataclysm.
They did it in Germany in the '30's & '40's, and lookit what happened to Germany.
Do you want something like that to happen to the whole world?
I realize; sometimes the People can rally, and just toss the bum out.
Rumania's Ceausescu comes to mind.
But I gather that's rather rare. They didn't throw out Kim Il Sung, or Kim Jong Il. And those guys are bad news.
The good news in North Korea is they're staying alive by eating grass and tree bark.
The bad news is, there isn't enough of it to go around.
"But if the seed is sown today, may be it will sprout in say 500 years ..." Sapius
OK
Plant the seed.
But then wash the soil off your hands and watch the movie Little Shop of Horrors.
"Forewarned is forearmed."
30 character limit on sigline?
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: A world without war
Gotta go with sear on this. In addition to the aphorisms he quotes, consider: what else do we have to go on besides what is happening and what has happened?sear wrote:"Those that do not study history are destined to repeat it."Sapius wrote:I believe the solution suggested is quite viable and possible, only that we are judging it through our past and current world situations hence don’t find it plausible or practical.
"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I'm not asserting implementing Laird's -New World Order- approach isn't plausible or practical.
I'm predicting that it's monumentally dangerous; more dangerous than the current situation.
And Sapius, you are quite right in saying if we give it 500 years, maybe... But in 500 years, anything could happen. It is our right and our responsibility to plan and act in the here and now to effect a world the best we can, to leave it better, if possible, for future generations, starting with our own children. What political system has ever had the foresight to plan 500 years into the future? Anything that we try now to implement what Laird is proposing is not just doomed to failure - that would be a best-case scenario, as I think sear is saying. More likely, it would be destabilizing. We still need Realpolitik, and that doesn't look like it will change any time on this side of the horizon. What is on the other side is still a mystery and requires piecemeal exploration.
It took us a long time to assemble the massive stone wall between ourselves and the type of society that Laird is calling for, and that we would all most likely enjoy living in. But if that wall is to come down, you cannot start with the stones closest to us, nearest to the ground, or else it will come down on us and bury us for certain.
Re: A world without war
broken,
Cool metaphor.It took us a long time to assemble the massive stone wall between ourselves and the type of society that Laird is calling for, and that we would all most likely enjoy living in. But if that wall is to come down, you cannot start with the stones closest to us, nearest to the ground, or else it will come down on us and bury us for certain.
Re: A world without war for humans to read.
Yes, I see that now. I was actually lying in bed thinking about it this morning and hoping that I'd get a chance to edit my message before you replied to it because my initial interpretation seemed a little far-fetched. I see now after what you wrote in your message that it's saying rather that dishonour is something that a person brings upon him/herself through his/her own actions, rather than being a result of anything that anyone else does to that person.sear wrote:I seriously doubt Carnegie meant that."I've come to the conclusion that it means "it's your choice whether you feel that another person has dishonoured you or not ..." Laird
[...]
Read it again Laird. I think you were way off track about it before.
Re: A world without war
.
Well said, Sear. If you notice, I have been playing a devil’s advocate before the last post of mine to try and flush out my negativities, but it seems you have the best argument. So I would like to play the other side of it and support Laird because it seems he’s quite alone and that I actually see his vision clearly and support it.
So please bare with me…
I don’t think most of us are seeing how Laird envisions it.
Today, UN represents 192 countries, which is not bad out of the 194, (I’m giving Taiwan a slack here), and everyone’s interests would be taken into consideration before a decision it taken, and most of the participants would be unbiased in most cases.
For example, Palestine couldn’t ask for an inch more than what would have been fixed, or the change of its local constitution unless it was passed by the world council. And if local insurgency erupts, we would have the Chinese part of the force take care of it.. and so on.
(Please don’t mistake my conclusions to be emotionally based, for I would care less even if I knew our galaxy was about to collapse, but that’s a different story.)
We need individuals to take that first positive step, and drop by drop the bucket will fill up.
Hey! I remember one quote! Rome was not built in a day.
In my opinion, you are a bit over cautious, Sear, which is a good thing at times, but some times taking a reasonably calculated risk is worth the while. However, from what I think I know of you, if you stand for the WC, my vote would be yours.
Well said, Sear. If you notice, I have been playing a devil’s advocate before the last post of mine to try and flush out my negativities, but it seems you have the best argument. So I would like to play the other side of it and support Laird because it seems he’s quite alone and that I actually see his vision clearly and support it.
So please bare with me…
Well, I think to a certain extent we have all thought over it to some extent, and do learn a lesson, but if one doesn’t try and find new solutions to counter previous mistakes then what use is such a study? Does it mean that since it was so, it shall always be so?"Those that do not study history are destined to repeat it."
In this argument there would be nothing other than the basket itself, so what would be outside of it? Hence no "basket" at all."Don't put all your eggs in one basket."
Yes it does, but that is part that this system tries to dissolve actually, because no ONE person or a “small†group has the power to Absolute Power then."Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I don’t think most of us are seeing how Laird envisions it.
No, not monumentally dangerous, but a monumental task to achieve, but definitely a much better situation for all humanity.I'm not asserting implementing Laird's -New World Order- approach isn't plausible or practical.
I'm predicting that it's monumentally dangerous; more dangerous than the current situation.
Of course, and I reasonably did, and as I mentioned, the most difficult part to over come would be to convince individual countries to give away their power in favor of peace rather than have mistrust as far as inter-boundary warfare is concerned. What if International boundaries were fixed before the power was given away?Before any new system is implemented, it's mode of potential failure should be fully analyzed.
My friend, the “centralized command†would consist of at least 194 countries (as it stands today) including Taiwan which is not considered separate from China by many other countries, and does not have a seat in the UN, nor does the Vatican City have a seat, but I’m sure the Pope would love to have a say in the new order if it were in place, or in the making. So as it stands, excluding the 6 or 8 disputed territories, there would be 195 members on the council that would make up the “central commandâ€.Placing all the world's military power into one centralized command is a recipe for cataclysm.
They did it in Germany in the '30's & '40's, and look it what happened to Germany.
Today, UN represents 192 countries, which is not bad out of the 194, (I’m giving Taiwan a slack here), and everyone’s interests would be taken into consideration before a decision it taken, and most of the participants would be unbiased in most cases.
For example, Palestine couldn’t ask for an inch more than what would have been fixed, or the change of its local constitution unless it was passed by the world council. And if local insurgency erupts, we would have the Chinese part of the force take care of it.. and so on.
HELL NO! And hence we are looking into how inter-country warfare could be buried in the past in the most possible or consistent way, but of course, NOTHING is perfect; but that must not detract us from trying.Do you want something like that to happen to the whole world?
I don’t know much about Ceausescu, but it would be hard for say North Korea to not give in if 194 countries (including the Vatican city that is), stand smiling against it.I realize; sometimes the People can rally, and just toss the bum out.
Rumania's Ceausescu comes to mind.
But I gather that's rather rare. They didn't throw out Kim Il Sung, or Kim Jong Il. And those guys are bad news.
The good news in North Korea is they're staying alive by eating grass and tree bark.
The bad news is, there isn't enough of it to go around.
Well. I’m quite optimistic, and don’t really care what others think, and I have lived my life in that light. Haven’t been disappointed as yet, so let’s see... I do intend to do whatever I can, even if it means soiling my hands.OK
Plant the seed.
But then wash the soil off your hands and watch the movie Little Shop of Horrors.
(Please don’t mistake my conclusions to be emotionally based, for I would care less even if I knew our galaxy was about to collapse, but that’s a different story.)
Well said, however, risk taking is in our nature; otherwise the world would still be flat."Forewarned is forearmed."
We need individuals to take that first positive step, and drop by drop the bucket will fill up.
Hey! I remember one quote! Rome was not built in a day.
In my opinion, you are a bit over cautious, Sear, which is a good thing at times, but some times taking a reasonably calculated risk is worth the while. However, from what I think I know of you, if you stand for the WC, my vote would be yours.
Last edited by Sapius on Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
---------
Re: A world without war
Yes, but ironically it took a day to bring it down; look at Germany today.B_H: It took us a long time to assemble the massive stone wall between ourselves and the type of society that Laird is calling for, and that we would all most likely enjoy living in. But if that wall is to come down, you cannot start with the stones closest to us, nearest to the ground, or else it will come down on us and bury us for certain.
(I too mean it metaphorically of course)
If we are not prepared to part with any part of our individuality, and worry only about our self-centered-self, we will surely be doomed as a whole.
And what about; Charity begins at home? One should start with ones self, by being as self-less as possible.
Last edited by Sapius on Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---------
Re: A world without war
He gained some fame in the US by referring to George Bush as the devil (talking to the UN General Assembly, which was received by applause and laughter), and saying he could still smell the sulpher from when Bush had been there the day before.Laird wrote:I don't know much about the guy, but from what I gather he's a bit of a visionary/idealist.Shahrazad wrote: His name is Hugo Chavez.
Now Mr. Chavez is threatening to cut off oil to the US.
One thing is clear: the man has wicked sack.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: A world without war
We have already parted with a good deal of our individuality, or hadn't you noticed? It is one thing to part with it, it is quite another to have it taken away from us.Sapius wrote:Yes, but ironically it took a day to bring it down; look at Germany today.B_H: It took us a long time to assemble the massive stone wall between ourselves and the type of society that Laird is calling for, and that we would all most likely enjoy living in. But if that wall is to come down, you cannot start with the stones closest to us, nearest to the ground, or else it will come down on us and bury us for certain.
(I too mean it metaphorically of course)
If we are not prepared to part with any part of our individuality, and worry only about our self-centered-self, we will surely be doomed as a whole.
And what about; Charity begins at home? One should start with ones self, by being as self-less as possible.
I look at Germany today, I also look at it just 70 years ago. I too thought of the Berlin Wall when I made my last post; I also thought of the fence under consideration that would span unattended stretches of land between the US and Mexico.
Platitudes have their place, Sapius. But they do not eliminate nuclear warheads. They do not eradicate economic disparity. They do not make all peoples everywhere on a par developmentally. The US has just spent hundreds of billions of dollars to bring one Islamic nation into the modern age, and the new "democracy" may not even take. There is instability in the former Soviet bloc, there is unbridled expansion in China, there is tension between India and Pakistan, nuclear capability in North Korea and possibly Iran in the near future, constant warfare among African States, and little friendliness betwen the US and any other region of the world. This kind of climate may very well spawn dreams of a future without strife and warfare; but it is inarguably a dangerous present.
Practical minds will understand that the best we can truly hope for is a shift from one step up and two steps back to two up and one back.
Re: A world without war
Sapius, it seems I'm in a rut of hackneyed clichés. Here I go again."Does it mean that since it was so, it shall always be so?" Sapius
"Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it will go wrong."
An opportunity for something to happen isn't a guarantee that it will.
But considering the survival of humanity is at stake, why risk it?
I think there's been some drift in the proposal."In this argument there would be nothing other than the basket itself, so what would be outside of it? Hence no "basket" at all." Sapius
As I understood it, the idea was to have one global army under one central command.
Sapius then commented:
Two options:"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Yes it does, but that is part that this system tries to dissolve actually, because no ONE person or a “small†group has the power to Absolute Power then.
- centralized / unitary power
- decentralized power, distributed among the groups.
That applies no matter how big the army is.
It could have one million persons, under one command.
Or it could have 10,000 in each of 100 different nations / regions / groups, whatever.
It's the same number of troops. But different vulnerabilities.
Laird observes, with the decentralized model, one army may war with another. True.
That's what he's trying to avoid.
But with centralized command, how does he avoid having the one centralized command impose ruthless hegemony on the world?
I'm pretty sure you're right."I don’t think most of us are seeing how Laird envisions it." Sapius
I'm just concerned about the potential pit-falls. And I don't think I'm far off track about that.
BTW, Sapius, on the switching sides deal, I'm totally OK w/ that.
I'm not really opposed to Laird's initiative here. I'm not trying to knock it down, as much as I'm trying to refine it to viability.
I'm not looking for change, for the sake of change.
I'm looking for change, as the approach to vast improvement.
Laird wants to eliminate War.
SO DO I !!
But as bad as War is, there are some things that are worse.
And (one last cliché), we don't want to get out of the frying pan, only to end up in the fire.
[follow-up pending]
30 character limit on sigline?
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: A world without war
War is a just response to opression. The idea of a consolidated armed force that is global smacks of opression. This would be an example of something worse than war, only we will have ceded our ability to resist the oppression to the opressors. Global = no place to run, no place to build a life free of the oppression.sear wrote:I'm not looking for change, for the sake of change.
I'm looking for change, as the approach to vast improvement.
Laird wants to eliminate War.
SO DO I !!
But as bad as War is, there are some things that are worse.
A world without war? It has been said that the world has been without war, in recorded history, for less than two hundred days.
So do I want to eliminate war. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't.
Yet we just allowed an unelected "president" to commandeer America's finest into an undeclared, protracted assault against a sovereign state which did not attack or declare war on us, in order to pad his and his cronies' pockets. We have now been at war in Iraq longer than we were at war in WWII, and GWB has blithely stated that "withdrawal" from Iraq will be a future Administration's concern.
Does that sound like we are anywhere near to being able to realize Laird's proposals?
I suggest that as soon as thay are out of office, let's demonstrate our desire for peace by trying Bush and Cheyney as war criminals. Definite acts of peace must precede any kind of disarmament. If we cannot achieve this, how could we hope to achieve anything grander?
I am of the conviction that this world is headed for an age of Life and Light, with no standing armies of any kind. That is in the distant future. I won't live to see it. I am under no delusions that I will live to see Laird's vision be realized, either.
Last edited by brokenhead on Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: A world without war
- follow up -
It could lead to the unwilling extermination of humanity, the absolute and total removal of any living human from the cosmos.
I'll leave it to you to decide if that's monumental or not.
I conclude from this that one of us has probably been more precise, more thorough in their analysis than the other.
What is most difficult, and what is most dangerous are two different things.
But placing the whole of humanity itself in jeopardy in an experiment is so transcendently foolish, the world would never seriously consider it. Thank goodness.
Romania's General Secretary Nicolae Ceausescu, that bloody ruthless tyrant had been terrorizing his People for years.
But the People got an opportunity, bypassed Ceausescu's security contingent, and put him on trial for genocide.
He was convicted.
And they executed him Christmas day, 1989.
Merry Christmas!
They haven't.
Because you'll NEVER implement this on your own.
You'll need the support of roughly half the world's population; or at least, determined support from about 195 power brokers.
There is a heckler's veto here. Just one nation refuses to agree, and it sinks the deal.
It is not only that.
Many if not most wars are territorial disputes / or contests over resources.
You'll find that extends substantially beyond human cultures.
Red ants fight black ants.
Bucks joust for alpha dominance, & breeding rights w/ the hinds.
Birds, primates; it's pretty much the same story.
I won't quibble over the adverb."No, not monumentally dangerous ..." Sapius
It could lead to the unwilling extermination of humanity, the absolute and total removal of any living human from the cosmos.
I'll leave it to you to decide if that's monumental or not.
And yet, so have I; but you draw precisely the opposite preliminary conclusion that I do."Of course, and I reasonably did ..." Sapius
I conclude from this that one of us has probably been more precise, more thorough in their analysis than the other.
I've already made that point to Laird."the most difficult part to over come would be to convince individual countries to give away their power" Sapius
What is most difficult, and what is most dangerous are two different things.
I've already addressed the non-viability of legislative military command."there would be 195 members on the council that would make up the “central commandâ€." Sapius
We ought not be deterred from seeking improvement."NOTHING is perfect; but that must not detract us from trying." Sapius
But placing the whole of humanity itself in jeopardy in an experiment is so transcendently foolish, the world would never seriously consider it. Thank goodness.
It's a heartwarming story."I don’t know much about Ceausescu" Sapius
Romania's General Secretary Nicolae Ceausescu, that bloody ruthless tyrant had been terrorizing his People for years.
But the People got an opportunity, bypassed Ceausescu's security contingent, and put him on trial for genocide.
He was convicted.
And they executed him Christmas day, 1989.
Merry Christmas!
We do."... but it would be hard for say North Korea to not give in if 194 countries (including the Vatican city that is), stand smiling against it." Sapius
They haven't.
Too bad."Well. I’m quite optimistic, and don’t really care what others think ..." Sapius
Because you'll NEVER implement this on your own.
You'll need the support of roughly half the world's population; or at least, determined support from about 195 power brokers.
There is a heckler's veto here. Just one nation refuses to agree, and it sinks the deal.
It is that."War is a just response to opression." broke
It is not only that.
Many if not most wars are territorial disputes / or contests over resources.
You'll find that extends substantially beyond human cultures.
Red ants fight black ants.
Bucks joust for alpha dominance, & breeding rights w/ the hinds.
Birds, primates; it's pretty much the same story.
30 character limit on sigline?
Re: A world without war
broken,
-
You think Dubya wants to?So do I want to eliminate war. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't.
That would be very appropriate, but of course, it isn't happening. But just collectively expressing the desire for that to happen would make an important statement.I suggest that as soon as thay are out of office, let's demonstrate our desire for peace by trying Bush and Cheyney as war criminals. Definite acts of peace must precede any kind of disarmament. If we cannot achieve this, how could we hope to achieve anything grander?
-
Re: A world without war
Sear,
-
I could never forget that incident and date. Panama had just been invaded and bombed, and was still occupied. It was a time of many strong emotions for me, mostly anger. Not much is forgotten from moments like that.Romania's General Secretary Nicolae Ceausescu, that bloody ruthless tyrant had been terrorizing his People for years.
But the People got an opportunity, bypassed Ceausescu's security contingent, and put him on trial for genocide.
He was convicted.
And they executed him Christmas day, 1989.
-
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: A world without war
That would be GB senior. After years at the CIA playing footsie with Noriega, they had a falling out. Like son, like father. GB senior took 27,000 of America's best and bullied into a sovereign nation to determine its politics. Not to defend Noriega. And I never defended Saddam. It's a different Bush, but the same message. The message is: you may rule your country any way you wish as long as you do what we say when we say it or else. Once we've elected them, they appear to be no longer accountable to anyone for their actions.Shahrazad wrote:Sear,
I could never forget that incident and date. Panama had just been invaded and bombed, and was still occupied. It was a time of many strong emotions for me, mostly anger. Not much is forgotten from moments like that.Romania's General Secretary Nicolae Ceausescu, that bloody ruthless tyrant had been terrorizing his People for years.
But the People got an opportunity, bypassed Ceausescu's security contingent, and put him on trial for genocide.
He was convicted.
And they executed him Christmas day, 1989.
-
Re: A world without war
Sear;
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?
Imagine a NATO type force in every country, just that there is no local military at all. Borders too would be manned by the World Army, with none of the local country-men being a part of it. They can however form the local city-based Police force.
The point being that the infrastructure of the military could be devised in such a way that if not impossible, it should be extremely difficult for an individual or a group to takeover in any substantial manner, making sure that the potential of forming a group is barred as much as possible.
For example, if the UN had taken a timely decision without much dillydallying, Eight hundred thousand Rwandans (Tutsi) would still be alive. Decisions can be taken much faster with the WC because there would be no other political pressures like the UN had.
Not necessarily; "it MAY go wrong", would be more appropriate in my opinion. Lots of things can go wrong by sailing uncharted seas, but we did, and did not fall off the planets edge. I don't agree with Murphy. If that would have been the attitude of every explorer, we would still be in the stone age."Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it will go wrong."
Sure, but neither can one guarantee it will not.An opportunity for something to happen isn't a guarantee that it will.
This is exactly the reason I say that we are not visualizing it in the right context.But considering the survival of humanity is at stake, why risk it?
One central command involves the WC, and say all the generals of different countries who may also democratically elect a Commandeer-in-chief or other authoritative positions for a certain term. Is that not possible?As I understood it, the idea was to have one global army under one central command.
Centralized decision-making, yes, but can the POWER not be democratically distributed?Two options:
- centralized / unitary power
- decentralized power, distributed among the groups.
That applies no matter how big the army is.
Yes, I think that is the aim.Laird observes, with the decentralized model, one army may war with another. True.
That's what he's trying to avoid.
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.But with centralized command, how does he avoid having the one centralized command impose ruthless hegemony on the world?
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?
Imagine a NATO type force in every country, just that there is no local military at all. Borders too would be manned by the World Army, with none of the local country-men being a part of it. They can however form the local city-based Police force.
The point being that the infrastructure of the military could be devised in such a way that if not impossible, it should be extremely difficult for an individual or a group to takeover in any substantial manner, making sure that the potential of forming a group is barred as much as possible.
You are scrutinizing it quite well and are not really so off the track, and are helping me work harder for a solution. I’m generally a bit lazy otherwise.I'm just concerned about the potential pit-falls. And I don't think I'm far off track about that.
I know, and that being one of the reasons you would be an appropriate candidate for the WC.BTW, Sapius, on the switching sides deal, I'm totally OK w/ that.
I'm not really opposed to Laird's initiative here. I'm not trying to knock it down, as much as I'm trying to refine it to viability.
I'm not looking for change, for the sake of change.
I'm looking for change, as the approach to vast improvement.
I agree, but I believe we have enough intellect to at least carry a Paragliding backpack before entering the pan, and that is what we are trying to achieve here.Laird wants to eliminate War.
SO DO I !!
But as bad as War is, there are some things that are worse.
And (one last cliché), we don't want to get out of the frying pan, only to end up in the fire.
Yes, that would surely be a monumental disaster, but wouldn’t that actually go against the interests of the world and WC. We could always, before each country gives up its individual military control, dismantle ALL nuclear arms. We are already reducing them and I see that as a good indicator towards rationality. Yes, we still have to convince some, but given time all will realize that it spells disaster for their own economy.It could lead to the unwilling extermination of humanity, the absolute and total removal of any living human from the cosmos.
I'll leave it to you to decide if that's monumental or not.
I’m quite sure it’s you, but it’s not over yet… I can still see many possibilities of how one could go about achieving it.I conclude from this that one of us has probably been more precise, more thorough in their analysis than the other.
I think we could change the legislative structure to serve OUR needs, or is it forbidden?I've already addressed the non-viability of legislative military command.
We ARE in the state we are because we have been that selfishly foolish to begin with,,, Thank goodness we have the sense to form a UN, NATO, WTO, Unified currency, and so on… and I hope we move forward to a WC. What is needed is that the world takes WAR seriously and knows that that is the real enemy worth “fighting†against.We ought not be deterred from seeking improvement.
But placing the whole of humanity itself in jeopardy in an experiment is so transcendently foolish, the world would never seriously consider it. Thank goodness.
Sad, but may be we have not insisted strongly enough. By smiling at them I meant that they would then have no option but face removal of the present government by force if need be, say like Iraq. Some times, if words don’t work to sink in rationality, a good bloody kick can do the job. It also would mean world embargo upon them if they don’t join up and give up their military control. I don’t know… can’t anyone here think of how to achieve a checkmate without bloodshed? I’m sure we can if given enough thought.S: (North Korea)
We do.
They haven't.
That’s the first time I have used that expression, and I threw in another point that I don’t really support. That of WC having anything to do with Palestinian local legislation.Well. I’m quite optimistic, and don’t really care what others think ..." Sapius.
Too bad.
Because you'll NEVER implement this on your own.
You'll need the support of roughly half the world's population; or at least, determined support from about 195 power brokers.
How? Why? Once the major powers get together, including all their allies, how many will be left? They should then have no choice, strategically and economically, but to signup.There is a heckler's veto here. Just one nation refuses to agree, and it sinks the deal.
Of course, and what we are trying to achieve is to make territorial disputes and squabbling over resources a thing of the past, with cultural freedom within each country.Many if not most wars are territorial disputes / or contests over resources.
You'll find that extends substantially beyond human cultures.
For example, if the UN had taken a timely decision without much dillydallying, Eight hundred thousand Rwandans (Tutsi) would still be alive. Decisions can be taken much faster with the WC because there would be no other political pressures like the UN had.
And so should WE?Red ants fight black ants.
So should WE?Bucks joust for alpha dominance, & breeding rights w/ the hinds.
Sure it is; we are animals too, but we are SOCIAL animals, with an additional faculty called sentience. That tiny bit of difference, which helps us analyse and question; is it rational to look before we leap? Yes it is, but we have to decide what would be the most rational thing to do for the betterment of humanity, and how can we find a solution since we all know what the problem is, and we do agree on that. All that is left to do is find a reasonably favourable and safe solution.Birds, primates; it's pretty much the same story.
---------
A world without what?
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.
Is war a problem that can be solved by throwing more government at it?
Some Sources:
http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects ... erview.htm
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Democide
Some commentary on what to do about it:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ABA.SPEECH.HTM
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.
Is war a problem that can be solved by throwing more government at it?
Some Sources:
http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects ... erview.htm
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Democide
Some commentary on what to do about it:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ABA.SPEECH.HTM
Celebrating sear's post #100: A world without war
broke,
It's nutty. My disdain for U.S. imperialism may not reach quite the same fever pitch it does for Shahrazad, I still hate it.
b) Wasn't the first U.S. President Bush head of the CIA when Noriega was a U.S. "intelligence asset"?
Sapius:
Washington DC collects federal taxes from the States.
The feds shuffle it up, and pay some of it back to the States.
Some of the States actually get more back from Washington DC than they send to Washington DC (usually "red" States).
Some of the other States actually get less back from Washington DC than they send to Washington DC (usually "blue" States). [The "winners & losers" argument.]
Peoples of all 195 nations are going to want their money's worth.
Yet it would be a virtual impossibility to insure that each of the 195 nations would each get back from the centralized system the exact amount they contribute to it.
And since that's true, there would be losers (getting less than they gave), and perhaps winners, (getting more than they gave).
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?
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.
But the fact is, it's subjective to the one/s in command.
Lookit:
Some persons commit suicide. They consider their options, and they decide being dead is better than being alive; and it's done.
Others think they should take some others with them. Colin Ferguson tried to take out most of a commuter train full, and he lived to go on trial for it.
Tim McVeigh thought those in the Murrah federal building should go, and they did.
Some are suicide cults. About a dozen years ago a comet flew near Earth, and a bunch of religious loonies decided it was god coming to take them to paradise.
So they dressed up in their adventure outfits, lay down on nicely made bunk-beds, and committed group suicide.
The James Jones cult was about 200 or more dead (I forget the number, but talked with one of the men that sorted out the corpses).
Hitler killed millions. But he didn't kill as many as Stalin. And Stalin didn't kill as many as Chairman Mao.
It doesn't happen often.
But there are nuts out there.
And some of them think we'd all be better off in "paradise". They might even think they're doing us a favor.
Clearly the Islamist homicide bombers seem to think so; 70 virgins and a mule, or whatever their fantasy is.
Morons!
With all the world's military power concentrated into a single command; the danger is that the command become unstable.
But it's quite easy to imagine such a command, under the control of a mad genius, could literally end humanity.
Why risk it?
I've long known, and long lived by the philosophy that we should never risk more than we can afford to lose.
Regarding heckler's veto:
A few may not bother.
But for a change this huge, many if not most nations would probably "do the numbers", calculate the economic impact of such a change, before they subscribe, endorse, and commit to it.
And such analysis will reveal the "winners and losers" point I made earlier in this post.
We are motivated to act in our own enlightened self-interest.
I know the allure of no War is great.
The question is, will they be willing to pay this price?
I doubt it.
In fact, I suspect increased, not decreased autonomy is the trend.
I know globalization seems to be making the world smaller.
But local just works better for some things, including disaster response.
It's what happens.
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.
The point is, the assertion that most wars are to deflect oppression does not accurately reflect my understanding of history, either of human cultures, or of any of the others we know of.
It's nutty. My disdain for U.S. imperialism may not reach quite the same fever pitch it does for Shahrazad, I still hate it.
a) and Saddam"CIA playing footsie with Noriega" broke
b) Wasn't the first U.S. President Bush head of the CIA when Noriega was a U.S. "intelligence asset"?
I've already explained this in this thread. You can character string search for "founder" "congress" "executive" and you should find it, perhaps on page 2 or 3."One central command involves the WC, and say all the generals of different countries who may also democratically elect a Commandeer-in-chief or other authoritative positions for a certain term. Is that not possible?" Sapius
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?"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." Sapius
Sapius:
Washington DC collects federal taxes from the States.
The feds shuffle it up, and pay some of it back to the States.
Some of the States actually get more back from Washington DC than they send to Washington DC (usually "red" States).
Some of the other States actually get less back from Washington DC than they send to Washington DC (usually "blue" States). [The "winners & losers" argument.]
Peoples of all 195 nations are going to want their money's worth.
Yet it would be a virtual impossibility to insure that each of the 195 nations would each get back from the centralized system the exact amount they contribute to it.
And since that's true, there would be losers (getting less than they gave), and perhaps winners, (getting more than they gave).
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?
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.
WC = water closet?"I know, and that being one of the reasons you would be an appropriate candidate for the WC." Sapius
The answer to that may seem objective to us."Yes, that would surely be a monumental disaster, but wouldn't that actually go against the interests of the world and WC." Sapius
But the fact is, it's subjective to the one/s in command.
Lookit:
Some persons commit suicide. They consider their options, and they decide being dead is better than being alive; and it's done.
Others think they should take some others with them. Colin Ferguson tried to take out most of a commuter train full, and he lived to go on trial for it.
Tim McVeigh thought those in the Murrah federal building should go, and they did.
Some are suicide cults. About a dozen years ago a comet flew near Earth, and a bunch of religious loonies decided it was god coming to take them to paradise.
So they dressed up in their adventure outfits, lay down on nicely made bunk-beds, and committed group suicide.
The James Jones cult was about 200 or more dead (I forget the number, but talked with one of the men that sorted out the corpses).
Hitler killed millions. But he didn't kill as many as Stalin. And Stalin didn't kill as many as Chairman Mao.
It doesn't happen often.
But there are nuts out there.
And some of them think we'd all be better off in "paradise". They might even think they're doing us a favor.
Clearly the Islamist homicide bombers seem to think so; 70 virgins and a mule, or whatever their fantasy is.
Morons!
With all the world's military power concentrated into a single command; the danger is that the command become unstable.
But it's quite easy to imagine such a command, under the control of a mad genius, could literally end humanity.
Why risk it?
I've long known, and long lived by the philosophy that we should never risk more than we can afford to lose.
Regarding heckler's veto:
Because ultimately economics is the study of human behavior."How? Why?" Sapius
A few may not bother.
But for a change this huge, many if not most nations would probably "do the numbers", calculate the economic impact of such a change, before they subscribe, endorse, and commit to it.
And such analysis will reveal the "winners and losers" point I made earlier in this post.
We are motivated to act in our own enlightened self-interest.
I know the allure of no War is great.
The question is, will they be willing to pay this price?
I doubt it.
In fact, I suspect increased, not decreased autonomy is the trend.
I know globalization seems to be making the world smaller.
But local just works better for some things, including disaster response.
I'm not sure what "should" has to do with it."And so should WE?" Sapius
"So should WE?" Sapius
It's what happens.
So are they!"Sure it is; we are animals too, but we are SOCIAL animals" Sapius
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.
The point is, the assertion that most wars are to deflect oppression does not accurately reflect my understanding of history, either of human cultures, or of any of the others we know of.
30 character limit on sigline?
Re: A world without war
PS
All the others end in death.
DH,
You're right, we're still not very good at killing one another.
But we're getting better at it all the time.
And if I may switch to a somewhat more sober tone for a moment:
I'm inclined to agree. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
About half of all marriages end in divorce."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." DH
All the others end in death.
DH,
You're right, we're still not very good at killing one another.
But we're getting better at it all the time.
And if I may switch to a somewhat more sober tone for a moment:
I'm inclined to agree. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
30 character limit on sigline?